Climate Politics

Trying to restructure the House Agriculture Committee might not be worth it

Michael Pollan suggested at a recent Grist potluck -- note to editors: for future reference, I make a mean lemon-cilantro chicken -- that we could improve "the situation for food policy" in Congress if we could:

Make the House agriculture committee exclusive. The most important committees in the House -- Energy, Finance, etc. -- are "exclusive," which means their membership has to be drawn from diverse geographical and ideological sources. Ag isn't exclusive, which means it can be (and is) packed with representatives of Big Ag. It's where decent ag legislation goes to die.

Pollan has been advocating this kind of committee reform for a while. In fact, he mentioned the idea in a Q&A follow up to his "Farmer in Chief" manifesto in the New York Times. But I think it's worth pointing out what it does and does not mean to make a House committee exclusive, and why it might not accomplish much. Warning: This post gets fairly deep into the weeds on House committee structure.

Exclusivity does not, according to the Congressional Research Service, require geographical or ideological diversity. What exclusivity does is distribute plum assignments and ensure that individual members don't serve on too many powerful committees -- a member who sits on an exclusive committee can sit on no other committee. Only a few committees are considered powerful enough to warrant such limits (keeping in mind that each party can declare its own set of exclusive committees).

Out of 18 committees, five are exclusive for Democrats: Rules, Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services. The last two have only recently been promoted, and thus only members who joined since the committees were made exclusive are limited to a single assignment. To put that in context, nonexclusive committees include the still very powerful Armed Services, Budget, International Relations, and Judiciary Committees. And no one is arguing those are packed by region or controlled by a particular interest group.

Waxman calls for climate bill by May, despite grumbling from Energy Committee members

In his first hearing as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Thursday pledged to act "quickly and decisively" on climate change, and said he wants a bill ready to go by Memorial Day recess in May.

"Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence," Waxman said. "U.S. industries want to invest in a clean energy future, but uncertainties about whether, when, and how greenhouse-gas emissions will be reduced is deterring these vital investments."

But not everyone is on board. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said there are "many different views on this committee" as to whether climate change is caused by humans.

The committee heard from representatives of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership about its new blueprint for a cap-and-trade climate bill. President-elect Barack Obama and Waxman have both called for cap-and-trade programs, though considerably stronger ones than USCAP proposed.

But some committee member suggested that cap-and-trade is not the way to go. Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he prefers a carbon tax, though it may not be as politically palatable. "It's probably the cleanest and most transparent thing Congress can do is to put a tax on something we shouldn't be putting in our atmosphere," said Green. His fellow Texan, Republican ranking member Joe Barton, also indicated that a carbon tax might be preferable to cap-and-trade.

Today's hearing illustrated that despite the leadership change in the committee -- climate advocate Waxman replacing automaker-friendly John Dingell -- it's going to be a tussle to move climate legislation this year. "Be prepared for a battle," warned Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).

New CEQ head Nancy Sutley on transit and green jobs

I am loving the level of transparency and interactivity from the Obamites so far, but I must say, this is directionally heartening but somewhat short on specifics. Sutley likes transit, green jobs, and efficiency. But what's the administration going to do about them?

A knuckle-dragging senator teaches Vilsack that size matters

In yesterday's post about the Vilsack hearing, I missed one small but remarkable bit of drama (notable at an event marked by lack thereof).

Turns out that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) delivered a sarcastic and, well, imbecilic little monologue comparing "small" organic farmers to the real men who run 10,000-acre wheat plantations in the plains of his state. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) had dared suggest that the USDA should think about supporting the work of family-scale organic farmers. That led Roberts to offer up a definition of "small farmer" for Vilsack's edification:

That small family farmer is about 5'2", and I'm looking to see if Mr. Leahy is sitting here, from Vermont, and he's a retired airline pilot and sits on his porch on a glider reading Gentleman's Quarterly -- he used to read the Wall Street Journal but that got pretty drab -- and his wife works as a stock broker downtown. And he has 40 acres, and he has a pond and he has an orchard and he grows organic apples. Sometimes there is a little more protein in those apples than people bargain for, and he's very happy to have that.

Even renewable energy should be used and produced efficiently

There's an old saying in biology that poison is dose-dependent, recognizing that everything is poisonous at the right dosage. Drinking a glass of crude oil will make you sick ... but so will drinking 50 gallons of water. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 600 ppm would radically change life as we know it on the earth ... but so would atmospheric oxygen concentrations of 500,000 ppm O2.

This isn't meant to suggest that all poisons are equal, but simply to recognize that there is nothing so good that it won't kill you at a high enough concentration. And what is true for chemicals we may ingest is no less true for public policies we may embrace. From police budgets to formal education, what's good in moderation is problematic in abundance.

And yet when it comes to energy and environmental policy, we continue to presume that our generation is smart enough to know the silver bullets, even while we lambaste our predecessors for failing to comprehend the full scope of the silver bullets of their day.

Coming together to work toward a sustainable food and farm future

On Wednesday, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack began his confirmation hearing to become the 30th U.S. secretary of agriculture with the promise to be a forward-looking leader who would make the USDA a 21st century agency. While his nomination has been unpopular among some members of the sustainable-agriculture community, there is hope that under his guidance the USDA can grow into a very different agency than it has been during the past four decades, when it's been run by secretaries such as Earl Butz.

As the next head of the USDA, Vilsack will be charged with revamping a sprawling agency that has an annual budget of $89 billion and more than 92,000 employees, a task that he is uniquely qualified to do.

In Iowa, which my family has called home for six generations, Vilsack is known to be a smart, capable administrator who has been willing to listen to the concerns of family farmers and rural advocates. While attending a Practical Farmers of Iowa conference this past weekend, where many of the state's most progressive and sustainable farmers gathered, there was almost universal agreement that Vilsack is capable of much more at the national level than he was as the governor of a former red state, where almost any progressive policy he would have put forward would have been blocked by a Republican-controlled Iowa House and Senate.

CAFOs and GMOs

That said, many are still upset over Vilsack's 1995 vote as a state senator to repeal local control (H.F. 519), which stripped local elected officials from having a say in where confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are located. His promotion of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has concerned members of the sustainable-ag community even more. They fear that his closeness with agribusiness companies will only prolong U.S. farm policies benefiting corporate agribusiness at the expense of family farmers.

Here in Iowa, while we have been disappointed with many of our political leaders, we are pragmatic and understand when it is important to work with them and when it's time to hold them accountable.

Sutley promises to be 'voice for the environment' in Obama White House

Nancy Sutley, President-elect Obama's pick to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, faced tough questions from several senators about whether she will play second fiddle to Carol Browner, the Clinton-era EPA chief who has been tapped by Obama to serve as climate and energy czar.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sutley insisted that CEQ "would retain all its statutory responsibilities and its role as an adviser to the president on environmental issues." She said her office "will play an important role in coordinating the efforts of the federal government to build a cleaner environment and a sustainable economy and future for our nation," and said that CEQ will be "the voice for the environment" in the White House.

Some of her comments were prompted by questions from James Inhofe (Okla.), the committee's ranking GOP member and resident climate-change skeptic. "I am quite concerned that the chair's role has been diluted by the addition of former EPA administrator Carol Browner as White House climate and energy czar," Inhofe said. "The law states that the CEQ chair is to report directly to the president on environmental policy. I sincerely hope that Ms. Browner's new position will not undermine the statute's intentions nor overshadow the chair's autonomy and judgment."

Sutley sought to allay those concerns, asserting that the council would oversee critical environmental issues like the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. But she also argued that there will be plenty of climate and energy work to go around.

Obama's EPA nominee promises to embrace science and act on climate issues

Lisa Jackson, Barack Obama's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, got a warm reception from both sides of the aisle at her Wednesday hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, facing little of the tough questioning her critics had hoped for.

In her testimony, Jackson promised that "scientific integrity and the rule of law" would be her guiding principles at the agency. "I understand that the laws leave room for policymakers to make policy judgments," said Jackson. "But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes."

She was given an especially warm welcome from Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who called the hearing "a turning point for the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality." Boxer has faced off regularly with current EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who has in the past refused to testify before her committee. "I'm reminded of Sleeping Beauty ... who needs to be awakened from a deep and nightmarish sleep," said Boxer. "I am confident we can wake up the EPA and the CEQ to their critical mission of protecting health and the environment."

The Republicans on the committee, including climate-change skeptic James Inhofe (Okla.), were also largely complimentary. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) called Jackson "imminently qualified."

A New Climate

Jackson said her early priorities would include reevaluating California's request for a waiver to set tougher tailpipe CO2 emission standards and following the Supreme Court's directives from the Massachusetts v. EPA climate-change decision.

Transportation nominee's confirmation hearing indefinitely postponed

There was plenty of confirmation hearing action on Capitol Hill today, but apparently Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), President-elect Obama's pick to head the Department of Transportation, was not a part of it. He was slated to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee this morning, but a notice posted on the hearing room door announced that the hearing has been postponed to an indefinite later date.

The New York Times quotes an anonymous Senate aide as saying LaHood's paperwork had not yet been sent over by the president-elect's transition staff.

The enviro angle on LaHood, of course, is that he'll have a role in spending a portion of Obama's big stimulus bill. Among other things, greens will be pushing for more mass transit funding, not more roads.

Vilsack glides through Senate Ag Committee confirmation hearing

Tom Vilsack, Obama's pick for USDA chief, made pleasant conversation Wednesday with his new (and old) best friends on the Senate Agriculture, Forestry, and Nutrition Committee. As a confirmation hearing, the event had about as much drama as a John Deere combine gliding through a vast field, harvesting corn. The process was smooth and efficient, and no one seemed to break a sweat.

I watched much of the hearing live via a stream on the committee website. About the closest thing to genuine tension I saw came from Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who seemed worried that Vilsack might support limits on subsidies to his beloved cotton farmers. (Chambliss worships free markets -- unless and until they interfere with the flow of government cash to his cotton cronies.)

Vilsack did say some encouraging stuff, including (from Congressional Quarterly):