<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for <em>WaPo</em>‘s misguided call to scale back the Conservation Reserve Program]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by JMG http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:08:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/1 You owe me for cleanup

I had trail mix sprayed all over my screen when I stumbled on "a progressive source" and "Washington Post" in the same sentence.

The 5% Project

]]> You owe me for cleanup

I had trail mix sprayed all over my screen when I stumbled on "a progressive source" and "Washington Post" in the same sentence.

The 5% Project

]]> Comment #2 by OhioPaul http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:10:49 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/2 Coupla things

I know you guys like to say things "among friends," but why do you insist on calling synthetic fertilizer "chemical" other than to raise the hackles of the enviro clan? What's applied is N-P-K, and just cause it wasn't pooped out of some animal doesn't make it more or less a chemical than poop.

Food prices are going up because it's the energy, stupid. Come on. Get on biofuels for legit reasons I can respect.

]]> Coupla things

I know you guys like to say things "among friends," but why do you insist on calling synthetic fertilizer "chemical" other than to raise the hackles of the enviro clan? What's applied is N-P-K, and just cause it wasn't pooped out of some animal doesn't make it more or less a chemical than poop.

Food prices are going up because it's the energy, stupid. Come on. Get on biofuels for legit reasons I can respect.

]]> Comment #3 by Wolverine http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:18:06 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/3 What JMG Said

There is no such thing as a progressive corporate newspaper or anything else.  The Washington Times might be liberal, at best.  If you expect progressive stances from the corporate press, you might as well go buy some anti-depressant medication now, 'cause you're going to need it.

]]> What JMG Said

There is no such thing as a progressive corporate newspaper or anything else.  The Washington Times might be liberal, at best.  If you expect progressive stances from the corporate press, you might as well go buy some anti-depressant medication now, 'cause you're going to need it.

]]> Comment #4 by Russ http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:36:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/4 disaster capitalism

Far from a "natural" disaster, devastation from the floods stemmed from egregious land-use decisions, Achenbach found. The main culprit: The very kind of relentless monocrop farming that the Post editorialists would like to see expanded into some CRP land.

By now there really are no "natural" disasters anymore. All are at least exacerbated, and most, like this one, directly caused by man's destruction of the land.

What's worst, however, is this sort of
disaster capitalism, where the exploiters first create the antedisaster circumstance, wait for the disaster to occur, and then seize that opportunity to push their agenda radically further.

We saw this most starkly with Katrina, where the inevitable result of oil addiction and out-of-control carbon emissions was used as the pretext to further gut America's already tenuous environmental regulations.

Now we see the same thing with drilling and the CRP. Oil addiction and greed has brought America to the Peak Oil precipice, prices skyrocket and anxiety spreads, but is the result any kind of policy sanity? No - the Hitlers-in-the-bunker (my term for fossil fuel dead-enders) instead seize the pretext to advocate ripping apart what's left of the land to squeeze out a few measly drops of oil which won't do anything for supply or price, but which will of course be grotesquely profitable to them and their Big Oil clients. It's using fear and gathering crisis to generate a profitable climate. It's war profiteering plain and simple, where the war was started by them with precisely that intent.
Same with the CRP. As Tom says, destroying this land will do little or nothing for food prices. I don't know how directly profitable it'll be for agribusiness, but at any rate it provides misdirection. It's a bogus "solution" which distracts from the real ravages of biofuel mandates and the systemic depravity of monoculture, both of which are monstrously profitable.
(Also, I imagine for the right wing the CRP is ideologically objectionable, so they're happy to seize any crisis opportunity to try to get rid of it.)    



]]> disaster capitalism

Far from a "natural" disaster, devastation from the floods stemmed from egregious land-use decisions, Achenbach found. The main culprit: The very kind of relentless monocrop farming that the Post editorialists would like to see expanded into some CRP land.

By now there really are no "natural" disasters anymore. All are at least exacerbated, and most, like this one, directly caused by man's destruction of the land.

What's worst, however, is this sort of
disaster capitalism, where the exploiters first create the antedisaster circumstance, wait for the disaster to occur, and then seize that opportunity to push their agenda radically further.

We saw this most starkly with Katrina, where the inevitable result of oil addiction and out-of-control carbon emissions was used as the pretext to further gut America's already tenuous environmental regulations.

Now we see the same thing with drilling and the CRP. Oil addiction and greed has brought America to the Peak Oil precipice, prices skyrocket and anxiety spreads, but is the result any kind of policy sanity? No - the Hitlers-in-the-bunker (my term for fossil fuel dead-enders) instead seize the pretext to advocate ripping apart what's left of the land to squeeze out a few measly drops of oil which won't do anything for supply or price, but which will of course be grotesquely profitable to them and their Big Oil clients. It's using fear and gathering crisis to generate a profitable climate. It's war profiteering plain and simple, where the war was started by them with precisely that intent.
Same with the CRP. As Tom says, destroying this land will do little or nothing for food prices. I don't know how directly profitable it'll be for agribusiness, but at any rate it provides misdirection. It's a bogus "solution" which distracts from the real ravages of biofuel mandates and the systemic depravity of monoculture, both of which are monstrously profitable.
(Also, I imagine for the right wing the CRP is ideologically objectionable, so they're happy to seize any crisis opportunity to try to get rid of it.)    



]]> Comment #5 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:14:14 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/5 Response to OhioPaul

Food prices are going up because it's the energy, stupid. Come on. Get on biofuels for legit reasons I can respect.

I depends on at what point in the supply chain you measure the price of "food". When the USDA speaks of food, it is referring to the consumer price index for food, which is based on movements in estimated total expenditure on food and non-alcoholic beverages -- some $1.14 trillion (with a "t" a year). Forty-five percent of the weighting in that index is expenditure on meals eaten outside the home. And, as we all know, the cost of the grain and other foodstuffs in the price of a meal is a tiny fraction. When one looks at expenditure on food at that level, the contribution of rising grain and oilseed prices is bound to be moderate, while the contribution of the cost of energy (used not only for farming, but also for processing, transporting and refrigerating the final products) will be significant.

When one looks at the international prices for food commodities (corn, wheat, barley, soybeans, etc.), supply and demand factors dominate, not production costs. According to the USDA's latest "Cost of production forecasts", the costs of fuel, lubricants and electricity for corn growers is expected to be around $47 per acre this year. At a projected average yield of 134 bushels per acre, that comes to $0.35 per bushel -- a rise of $0.20 per bushel compared with 2002. The cost of fertilizer (which is strongly linked to the price of energy) is expected to be around $167 per acre, or $1.25 per bushel -- up $0.95 per bushel since 2002. Altogether that represents a rise in energy-related costs of $1.15 per bushel since 2002 (when corn was selling for closer to $2 per bushel at the farm gate). Seed costs have doubled, but a large part of that rise is due to the overall increase in the price of corn. Other costs have increased by about 10%.

In short, only about one-quarter of the increase in the price of corn can be attributed to rising energy and fertilizer costs. Most of the rest is due to supply and demand factors. And by far the largest component of the increase in demand for corn is corn used for ethanol.

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Response to OhioPaul

Food prices are going up because it's the energy, stupid. Come on. Get on biofuels for legit reasons I can respect.

I depends on at what point in the supply chain you measure the price of "food". When the USDA speaks of food, it is referring to the consumer price index for food, which is based on movements in estimated total expenditure on food and non-alcoholic beverages -- some $1.14 trillion (with a "t" a year). Forty-five percent of the weighting in that index is expenditure on meals eaten outside the home. And, as we all know, the cost of the grain and other foodstuffs in the price of a meal is a tiny fraction. When one looks at expenditure on food at that level, the contribution of rising grain and oilseed prices is bound to be moderate, while the contribution of the cost of energy (used not only for farming, but also for processing, transporting and refrigerating the final products) will be significant.

When one looks at the international prices for food commodities (corn, wheat, barley, soybeans, etc.), supply and demand factors dominate, not production costs. According to the USDA's latest "Cost of production forecasts", the costs of fuel, lubricants and electricity for corn growers is expected to be around $47 per acre this year. At a projected average yield of 134 bushels per acre, that comes to $0.35 per bushel -- a rise of $0.20 per bushel compared with 2002. The cost of fertilizer (which is strongly linked to the price of energy) is expected to be around $167 per acre, or $1.25 per bushel -- up $0.95 per bushel since 2002. Altogether that represents a rise in energy-related costs of $1.15 per bushel since 2002 (when corn was selling for closer to $2 per bushel at the farm gate). Seed costs have doubled, but a large part of that rise is due to the overall increase in the price of corn. Other costs have increased by about 10%.

In short, only about one-quarter of the increase in the price of corn can be attributed to rising energy and fertilizer costs. Most of the rest is due to supply and demand factors. And by far the largest component of the increase in demand for corn is corn used for ethanol.

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Comment #6 by justlou http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:35:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/6 Some Ironies

Crop farmers are mixed about having more acres put into production.  If more acres mean lower crop prices and lower margins then that could hurt all producers.  With rapidly rising costs of production, why would anyone want more competition which could raise the price of production inputs and lower their commodity prices?  

We taxpayers have made a contract with those farmers who enrolled in CRP.  They made an agreement with us that they would take land out of production for 10 to 15 years in exchange for an annual rent payment from us.  We also paid a big chunk of their costs for land preparation, seed and planting of these CRP acres.  In the case of native grass plantings, it takes a few years for these plantings to become established. Early outs from contracts would happen on many of these lands before the full benefits of the plantings are achieved.  We have an investment in these lands and we should not allow any landowner to shirk his contract obligations to us by not paying the penalty of doing so. We should demand repayment of all rental payments and cost share payments if landowners choose to opt out. They have a choice.  

Ironically farming is one of the least regulated industries in the US.  They want about every freaking subsidy that we are willing to give them and then gripe like hell when they don't get their way or when we try to impose some sensible regulations on their industries.  And they have been largely successful in doing so.  I expect our weenie farm state legislators to bend over the barrel on this one too.  Weeeeeee!  

 

]]> Some Ironies

Crop farmers are mixed about having more acres put into production.  If more acres mean lower crop prices and lower margins then that could hurt all producers.  With rapidly rising costs of production, why would anyone want more competition which could raise the price of production inputs and lower their commodity prices?  

We taxpayers have made a contract with those farmers who enrolled in CRP.  They made an agreement with us that they would take land out of production for 10 to 15 years in exchange for an annual rent payment from us.  We also paid a big chunk of their costs for land preparation, seed and planting of these CRP acres.  In the case of native grass plantings, it takes a few years for these plantings to become established. Early outs from contracts would happen on many of these lands before the full benefits of the plantings are achieved.  We have an investment in these lands and we should not allow any landowner to shirk his contract obligations to us by not paying the penalty of doing so. We should demand repayment of all rental payments and cost share payments if landowners choose to opt out. They have a choice.  

Ironically farming is one of the least regulated industries in the US.  They want about every freaking subsidy that we are willing to give them and then gripe like hell when they don't get their way or when we try to impose some sensible regulations on their industries.  And they have been largely successful in doing so.  I expect our weenie farm state legislators to bend over the barrel on this one too.  Weeeeeee!  

 

]]> Comment #7 by MAD MAC http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Tue, 22 Jul 2008 03:32:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/7 Man, am I glad I moved to Thailand

I have a nice, secure food supply at reasonable prices. My energy is hydro and solar and even with the AC my wife keeps turning on it's cheap enough in surge months (i.e. when hot as hell). My cost of living remains very low.......... Life must suck where you guys live because you complain about it all the time.

Victory in Pattani

]]> Man, am I glad I moved to Thailand

I have a nice, secure food supply at reasonable prices. My energy is hydro and solar and even with the AC my wife keeps turning on it's cheap enough in surge months (i.e. when hot as hell). My cost of living remains very low.......... Life must suck where you guys live because you complain about it all the time.

Victory in Pattani

]]> Comment #8 by MattKirby http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Tue, 22 Jul 2008 04:26:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/8 great article

Thanks for laying out the complexities of this issue.  The Washington Post editorial board holds a significant amount of clout and they presented a somewhat persuasive argument.  I appreciate you pointing them toward other sources that will help inform their decision.  The CRP is one of the most wide-reaching and important conservation measures in the country.  Unfortunately, by its very nature it's a temporary program and always in danger.  We need to be consistently reminded that it's one of the few beneficial farm subsidies out there and the way to reduce food prices is to do away with ridiculous food-to-fuel mandate.

   http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/2008/07/conserv ...

]]> great article

Thanks for laying out the complexities of this issue.  The Washington Post editorial board holds a significant amount of clout and they presented a somewhat persuasive argument.  I appreciate you pointing them toward other sources that will help inform their decision.  The CRP is one of the most wide-reaching and important conservation measures in the country.  Unfortunately, by its very nature it's a temporary program and always in danger.  We need to be consistently reminded that it's one of the few beneficial farm subsidies out there and the way to reduce food prices is to do away with ridiculous food-to-fuel mandate.

   http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/2008/07/conserv ...

]]> Comment #9 by Ron Steenblik http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:06:02 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/9 Matt

Could comment, and good blog. I don't know if you can, but if you could somehow explain the Sierra Club's position on agro-fuels, and the "food to fuel mandate", that would be much appreciated. Given the diverse views I've seen expressed by different people in the Sierra Club on this topic, it is hard to see where the organization as a whole stands on the issue (besides in a circular firing squad).

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Matt

Could comment, and good blog. I don't know if you can, but if you could somehow explain the Sierra Club's position on agro-fuels, and the "food to fuel mandate", that would be much appreciated. Given the diverse views I've seen expressed by different people in the Sierra Club on this topic, it is hard to see where the organization as a whole stands on the issue (besides in a circular firing squad).

These are only my personal opinions.

]]> Comment #10 by sderoote123 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/ Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:02:22 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/anwr-of-the-heartland-revisited/10 Definitions: farmer, agriculture, sustainable

Tom,

I appreciate your comments and your insight; I always look forward to your pieces in Grist.  Would it be possible or useful to define some of the terms that all of us toss around as though we actually have a consensus opinion on them?

For instance; I don't really believe that a large-scale (several hundred or even thousand acres) mono-culture crop production can truly be defined as true agriculture, nor can its keepers or tenders truly be defined as farmers. Maybe there could be some lines of distinction drawn here. How about some of the terms that have fallen into disuse, like husbandman?

I would welcome your thoughts.

sderoote123

]]> Definitions: farmer, agriculture, sustainable

Tom,

I appreciate your comments and your insight; I always look forward to your pieces in Grist.  Would it be possible or useful to define some of the terms that all of us toss around as though we actually have a consensus opinion on them?

For instance; I don't really believe that a large-scale (several hundred or even thousand acres) mono-culture crop production can truly be defined as true agriculture, nor can its keepers or tenders truly be defined as farmers. Maybe there could be some lines of distinction drawn here. How about some of the terms that have fallen into disuse, like husbandman?

I would welcome your thoughts.

sderoote123

]]>