Climate Politics

Why gutting commodity subsidies should be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts

Thomas Dobbs is Professor Emeritus of Economics at South Dakota State University, and a W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow.

-----

Tom Philpott wrote an article in which he challenged some of the key assumptions underlying Farm Bill reform efforts of the past year ("It's the Agronomy, Stupid"). He contended that gutting commodity subsidies would not solve the U.S.'s long-standing oversupply problems, and that we need the money currently in the "commodity" title to remain available for eventual support of conservation and other measures reformers hold dear.

The following day, a guest post by Britt Lundgren appeared in Gristmill, contending that Philpott missed the real point of the Farm Bill debate. The real point, said Lundgren, is "whether or not the current suite of farm subsidies are actually an effective and productive way to support agriculture in the U.S."

I find myself largely in agreement with the contents of Lundgren's post, but I want to address more directly Philpott's contention that "it's the agronomy" that matters. I disagree. "It's the economics" that matters in assessing the consequences of the U.S. farm program's heavy emphasis on commodity subsidies.

Moving toward responsible agriculture

North Dakota senator Kent Conrad calls the farm bill a "legislative battleship that you cannot turn around quickly." As of mid-November 2007, this year's $286 billion farm bill appears to be having engine trouble. It is stalled in the Senate, and there is talk of a presidential veto.

Should farmers be able to receive more than $250,000 in subsidy payments? What should the funding be for biofuels, for school lunches? Most of these arguments are about the speed of the battleship, or which flags it should fly, not the direction.

For generations, that direction has been the maintenance and continued acceptability of high-input, industrialized agriculture -- "production agriculture" to its defenders. The farm bill is the legislative and financial instrument by which we attempt to turn an agriculture that is economically, socially, and ecologically unsound into something that is politically acceptable. This is getting harder and harder to do.

Wherein I joke about John Edwards’ hair

CNN did a short segment on our presidential climate forum and the difficulty of raising the issue’s political profile. It’s actually a fairly astute piece. I appear toward the end.

Coverage of Grist’s presidential climate forum

Here’s a quick roundup of coverage of Grist’s presidential climate forum. If you see other stories, leave them in comments. From MSM: CNN: “Climate Change Politics“ AP: "Edwards, Clinton aim at climate change" The New York Times: “Democrats Outline Plans to Improve Environment“ L.A. Times: “Democratic candidates buff green credentials“ ABC News: "Candidates Talk Climate […]

Japanese whaling fleet to hunt up to 1,035 whales, including 50 humpbacks

Japan’s oft-criticized “scientific” whaling fleet will be extra busy this season as it aims to land up to 1,035 whales in what could be the country’s largest whale hunt in modern times. Included in the toll: up to 50 humpback whales, the first time they’ve been targeted in some 40 years. Humpback whales numbered only […]

Reflections on Grist’s presidential forum on climate change

On Saturday, presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton gathered in L.A. to discuss climate and energy at a forum co-sponsored by Grist and PRI’s Living on Earth. The forum was moderated by Steve Curwood of LoE, with Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board and me providing questions. Despite a delay […]

Success

The Grist presidential forum on climate and energy went off without a hitch and was a huge success. I’ll have much more to say about it tomorrow, but for now I just want to thank, again, all the groups that worked to bring it together, the wonder-working production crew at the venue, and the candidates […]

Anticipation

I’m sitting here at the venue for tomorrow afternoon’s event: the Wadsworth Theater. It is … large. I think around 1500 people are going to be sitting in here tomorrow, judging me for the poor quality of my shoes and my neglected fitness regime. I hear from the organizers that press attention has gotten nuts. […]

Republican war on science, edition MMCCCVIII

Surprised?

Some government scientists have complained that officials at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History took steps to downplay global warming in a 2006 exhibit on the Arctic to avoid a political backlash, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The museum's director, Cristian Samper, ordered last-minute changes to the exhibit's script to add "scientific uncertainty" about climate change, according to internal documents and correspondence.

Scientists at other agencies collaborating on the project expressed in e-mails their belief that Smithsonian officials acted to avoid criticism from congressional appropriators and global-warming skeptics in the Bush administration. But Samper said in an interview last week that "there was no political pressure -- not from me, not from anyone."

Samper put the project on hold for six months in the fall of 2005 and ordered that the exhibition undergo further review by higher-level officials in other government agencies. Samper also asked for changes in the script and the sequence of the exhibit's panels to move the discussion of recent climate change further back in the presentation, records also show. The exhibit opened in April 2006 and closed in November of that year.

The Post obtained a hand-scrawled note by a curator on the project indicating there was "concern that scientific uncertainty hasn't come out enough." Edits to a "final script" show notations about where to add "the idea of scientific uncertainty about climate research."

Right. I guess we're supposed to believe that this had nothing to do with Dick Cheney's service, as part of his vice presidential duties, on the Smithsonian's board of regents. And nothing to do with the fact that six other regents are appointed by the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate -- at the time Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) -- and the Speaker of the House -- at the time Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).

Nothing unusual here! At any rate, D.C. residents have other, better options if they want to learn about global warming from a museum exhibit.

British government publishes climate change bill

The British government has published its climate change bill, which would set a target of reducing carbon emissions 60 percent by 2050. The bill will now go through a parliamentary process; if made law, Britain would be the first country to adopt a legally binding commitment to carbon reductions.