Uncategorized

If Michael Pollan ruled the world …

"If it had been President Pollan, I probably wouldn't be here right now."

-- USDA chief Tom Vilsack

Media Matters commenter provides one of the greatest snarks at the denier wingnut mentality

Craig C. Clarke made one of the all-time great comments about delayers and deniers over at Media Matters:

Nature: Antarctica has warmed significantly over past 50 years

The rest of the media is finally catching up to my post from last month.

That's because Nature published the peer-reviewed paper that was first reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting and Nature's own blog (!), "Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year" ($ub. req'd, abstract below).

Scientists know the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass "100 years ahead of schedule."

It is really only the warming of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that you should worry about (at least for this century) because it's going to disintegrate long before the East Antarctic Ice Sheet does -- since WAIS appears to be melting from underneath (i.e. the water is warming, too), and since, as I wrote in the "high water" part of my book, the WAIS is inherently less stable:

USDA deputy secretary pick a key barometer of Obama's policy direction

Whither Obama on ag policy? 

In one sense, the answer seems simple. Just go to whitehouse.gov and check out the rural agenda page. It's no revolutionary document, but there's some good stuff  there. It calls for more stringent limits on subsidies, stricter regulation on concentrated animal feedlot operations (CAFOs), and tighter enforcement of anti-trust and pro-competition rules for the highly consolidated meat industry.

All would be good first steps toward saner food and ag policy -- and the latter two would enrage one of our nation's most politically powerful and environmentally ruinous industries.

Intriguing policy document aside, Obama confused things last month by nominating former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as USDA chief. (Vilsack has since been confirmed by the Senate.) Some critics (including me) fretted about Vilsack's strong support for ag-biotech and ethanol industries, and were less than impressed by his attempts to stand up to Big Meat as Iowa governor. But Vilsack also had supporters in the sustainable-food world -- both well-regarded Iowa activists like Denise O'Brien and Big Organic types like Whole Foods exec Walter Robb.

They argued that Vilsack would listen to the concerns of the sustainable-food world -- and, if not challenge the interests of agribusiness, at least acknowledge that other ways of food production exist and deserve support.

So the Vilsack pick doesn't really clarify where the new president intends to go on food policy. Now we've reached another crossroads: the choice of deputy secretary of USDA. According to report in Congress Daily, three names are being floated: Chuck Hassebrook of the Center for Rural Affairs in Nebraska; Karen Ross of California Winegrape Growers Association and executive director of the Winegrape Growers of America; and Jim Miller, chief of staff and chief economist at the National Farmers Union.

All three represent a step up from the outgoing deputy secretary, Chuck Conner, who I once deemed Archer Daniels Midland's Man at USDA. Two of the deputy candidates -- Hassebrook and Ross -- made the "sustainable dozen" list of desired USDA picks being circulated by Food Democracy Now.

From talking to sustainable-ag polic hands, by far the most inspring of the three is Hassebrook -- who has a 30-year history of sticking up for small- and mid-sized farmers in the midwest, and doesn't equate "rural development" with CAFOs and corn-processing plants.

Oregon enviro group calls not for shutdown of coal plant, but for infusion of millions of dollars

I've been trying to explain why I'm ready to quit calling myself an "environmentalist," and this latest missive from the Friends of the Columbia Gorge, calling not for the shutdown of the coal-fired power plant that is ruining this national treasure, but for hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent on it, has just about put me over the edge.

So I wrote my own version of the Friends' canned letter to reflect what should really change.

Picking the battles will be key to reforming food policy

Ah, the House Agriculture Committee. Never will you find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Well, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement, but not by too much, I don't think. As Michael Pollan put it, "It's where decent ag legislation goes to die."

Does sustainable agriculture have any hope of support there? Well, we can be somewhat cheered by the fact that, with the Republican caucus as small as it has been in decades, the House Ag Committee has a mere 17 Republicans in contrast to its 29 Democrats. And the House being the House, you can be sure that those 17 Republicans will have plenty of time to work on their canasta skills (or whatever it is minority members do with all their spare time) because they certainly won't be writing legislation.

Unfortunately for us, the Democratic membership is mostly comprised of Blue Dogs (i.e. conservative Democrats) from farm states who have no real interest in or incentive for reform. And one thing is certain: Committee Chair and Blue Dog extraordinaire Rep. Collin Peterson (Minn.) is no Henry Waxman, the hero of reform and oversight now leading the way on climate change and health-care reform.

In some ways, it's good news that the Farm Bill won't come up for re-authorization for several years. First, it means President Barack Obama doesn't have to dive right into this political-capital destroying mess of subsidy reform -- he has, after all, promised to eliminate subsidies for farmers who make more than $250,000 in farm income, two-thirds less than the current limit (and he put it in writing, no less). But more importantly, it gives us time to plot.

What should a foodie do between now and then? Now that we've got our shiny new President, it'd be nice to take him out for a spin, food policy-wise, even if we can't immediately head for the rocky terrain of the Farm Bill. Dave Murphy has written about what we might expect from the USDA, the good as well as the bad and the ugly. But what about some of the other areas that impact food and agriculture policy beyond the USDA and beyond what's contained in the Farm Bill? I thought I might do a series of posts on some of these areas since they'll deeply affect the development of sustainable agriculture. Let's start small. How's international trade policy grab you?

FOX News continues quest to endumben viewers

If crime rates are rising, how come I didn't get mugged today?

P.S. from Grist's Russ Walker: Given the example above, it's not hard to see why so many Americans don't believe human activities are causing global warming. Some grim polling data here from Rasmussen (though the survey questions aren't exactly written in such a way to reflect the true complexity of the issue...)

will.i.am debuts climate change song

Apparently while I was chasing famous people at Monday's green ball, will.i.am debuted a new song about climate change called "Take Our Planet Back." Here's the video:

There is no negative feedback in the climate system

The small number of credible skeptics out there (e.g., Spencer, Lindzen) have spent much of the last decade searching for a negative feedback in our climate system. If a sufficiently big one is found, then it would suggest that warming over the next century may well be small.

Most climate scientists, however, are reasonably certain that a negative feedback big enough to overwhelm the well-known positive feedbacks in the climate system, such as the water vapor feedback [PDF], does not exist. Why?

Negative feedbacks tend to dampen out climate change. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or the sun brightens, then the hypothetical negative feedback will counteract the warming, leaving the climate nearly unchanged. While it may be comforting to believe that a negative feedback exists, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the existence of a big negative feedback with our past observations of climate variability.

For example, the ice ages rely on a carbon dioxide feedback to provide their large amplitude. If there were a big negative feedback in the system, then how do you explain the large swings in to and out of ice ages? No way that I know of.

Similarly, the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum is also thought to be the result of a huge release of greenhouse gases. With a large negative feedback in the system, how do you explain the rapid temperature rise during that event?

Texas journalist paddles Gulf Coast to show shifty ecosystem and toxic threats

I've canoed beneath freeway overpasses in Seattle's Union Bay, but I somehow never undertook anything like this: San Antonio Express-News reporter Colin McDonald is kayaking the length of the Texas Gulf Coast, some 370 miles of alternating natural shoreline and industrialized landscape. He's blogging about the journey at Uncharted Coast, so named because the constantly shifting line between land and water has frustrated map-makers for centuries.

Having so far avoided the barges and tanker ships that ply the coastal shipping lanes, McDonald documents the unholy mix of wildlife diversity and intensive industrial use. He encounters a lot of remaining damage from Hurricane Ike and chats up locals who regale him with tales of pirates (of the insurance company variety, but still).

It's a nice bit of explanatory journalism that shows just how little separates resort-lined beaches from toxic sites like the McGinnes storage pits. McDonald also wrote an overview of the trip for the Express-News.