Comments tlaskawy has made

  • Don't Blame the Middlemen

    Oh, well, okay.  Blame the middlemen.  But the key here is Matz and McGovern's emphasis on massive supplies of cheap food.  We don't need it to feed ourselves - we know that, on a caloric basis, the world produces enough to feed itself.  But when so many of those calories are vacuumed up by the Nestles and McDonalds of the world while the Wal-Marts make unreasonable demands for yield and price, it becomes hard to even conceive of a sustainable food system.

    I rant about it here, but it's also true that for all the attention paid to Monsanto, ADM and ConAgra, they're just responding to unreasonable demands from their real customers - the food conglomerates (processing, retail and fast food).  Americans are addicted to cheap, convenient food.  Until that changes, the food industry will do everything in its power to keep on supplying that habit.

    Beyond Green http://weaversway.coop/blog/

    On Obama's campaign ag adviser mounts a weak defense of industrial food posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

  • The Obama Has Spoken

    And if you believe the NYT, Laffer and Inglis will have to wait along with the rest of us. According to a report over the weekend, Obama is going with cap-and-trade rather than a carbon tax.  I go into the sordid details (including how Larry Summers can put the kaibosh on the whole thing) here.  But regardless, Dave has certainly convinced me on the need to look to infrastructure spending and real regulation in order to get to a low-carbon economy.

    The recent drop in oil prices should be an object lesson in why regulation may be more important than taxes.  Prices are low now because of a recession-induced drop in demand but we all expect they will shoot right back up again soon.  Now imagine that we have had moderate success in weaning ourselves off oil in the near future. Oil prices will respond to such a structural drop in demand by, at a minimum, plateauing if not actually dropping.  If the consumer is simply expected to respond to price signals then he/she will go right back to the cheapest source, which could be oil or coal (even with a tax of some sort). Unless, of course, the government had in the meantime outlawed gas-powered engines.  Or provided subsidies to power companies to decommission coal-fired power plants.  To get caught up in an argument about carbon taxes is to miss the big picture.  I never thought I'd say that, but there you go.

    Beyond Green http://weaversway.coop/blog/

    On Conservative icons take to The NYT to tout the magic of a revenue-neutral carbon tax posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 13 Responses

  • Obama has hinted there will be strings

    I have the full quote here, but when Obama appeared on Meet the Press a few weeks ago he talked specifically about not giving states a blank check from the stimulus pot for infrastructure.  Just because a state makes a wishlist, it doesn't mean it will get funding for every item.

    I would also point out that Obama is on the record in support of a National Infrastructure Bank that would take the project-related decisions out of politicians hands (though this is more of a long-term solution).  I believe Chris Dodd just introduced a new version of an NIB bill that could be tied into the stimulus.

    Beyond Green http://weaversway.coop/blog/

    On Stimulus spending going to roads? posted 11 months ago 19 Responses

  • You're right, but...

    One thing I haven't read is an explanation of how a true reformer, one to whom the farm lobby is actively hostile, could get anything done at the USDA.  Many bloggers, including myself, have written on the institutional difficulties, specifically in the Senate, inherent in agricultural reform.  Even Pollan recognizes this.  I'm not a fan of Vilsack's positions, but I'm unclear on how anyone more progressive than he could accomplish the change we want at the USDA - he/she would be blocked at every turn.  The politics are prohibitive.  I also think Steph Larsen is right that we need to look at the second and third tier jobs at Ag - the operational folks who can make change on a daily basis.

    We'll know soon enough, but I think that Vilsack does have the potential (working with Sen. Tom Harkin) to start to turn this battleship.  But this is a longterm project.  I think the history of health reform in this country provides a good guide.  The institutional barriers are just as high and we're 15 years on from the first attempt to reform it.  Only now are we facing the possibility of success - it took that long to move the institutions in the right direction.

    As for the food system, you can argue we may not have that long.  In my opinion, if indeed climate science takes the lead in the Obama administration, the potential for change is there.  I think the debate on ethanol has just begun - the problem is that unlike most other "movements," the food movement doesn't have an institutional presence in Congress.  Labor, environment, reproductive rights, health reform - they all have organized groups within congress (not to mention lobbies) pushing the debate.  The food movement is in its infancy there - and it shows.

    Now, excuse me, but I think I'm going to turn this into a blog post.

    Tom Laskawy
    Beyond Green

    Beyond Green http://weaversway.coop/blog/

    On The incoming energy secretary sees corn as a 'transitional' fuel crop posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • Agrichar's Time is Now

    The only shred of hope I have is that it turns out that Ken Salazar is a big supporter of agrichar - to the point of sponsoring a standalone piece of legislation on the subject. Plus the USDA is already funding a fair amount of agrichar research (including test farms).  It represents a real opportunity to push the biofuel debate in the right direction and away from ethanol of all kinds.  Corn stover, after all, is prime agrichar fuel.

    More analysis here

    Beyond Green http://weaversway.coop/blog/

    On Michael Pollan, Nicholas Kristoff, and others weigh in on USDA pick posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • We don't know what we don't know

    I'm not clear that Vilsack is quite the disaster he is being made out to be in some quarters. I posted on this yesterday as well.  There are some indications, especially in the interview here that Vilsack isn't an enemy of reform.

    I also point out in my post that Vilsack is the product of a pretty treacherous political process.  I offer a possible explanation of his earlier denial that he was under consideration this way: "I would merely speculate that he may have been truthful. There's the distinct possibility that Obama went back to Vilsack more recently based on dissatisfaction over his other choices and/or an inability to get the farm lobby to swallow more reformist picks. Given Obama's amazing needle-threading instincts with his Veterans Affairs pick Shinseki, along with Chu at DOE and Duncan for Education, it's hard to believe he would have abandoned them for Ag. I'm not suggesting that Vilsack is necessarily a closet reformer. I'm just saying the politics of the situation might have led Obama to him in a way that doesn't necessary indicate what Obama's policy priorities really are. I'm hoping we find out more at the press conference today."

    Beyond Green http://weaversway.coop/blog/

    On Brushing aside pressure, Obama taps a big-ag man as USDA chief posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 16 Responses