Gristmill

A former USDA worker claims that small farm numbers may be overstated

Are there more small farms or not? Everyone from Reuters to the NYT has documented what appears to be an increase in the number of small farms in the U.S. But blogging ag economist and former USDA Economic Research Service researcher, Michael Roberts disagrees. According to him (h/t Ezra Klein), the supposed increase in small farms represents the USDA potentially fudging the numbers:

USDA has also been working harder and harder to find and count hiding $1000 potential farms. Most of these guys don't know they're farms and so they can be hard to find and difficult to entice to return their census forms. So non-response rates are growing, mostly for tiny farms that probably don't realize they're farms in the first place.

Non-response? No problem. USDA just uses weights to account for the non-response which boosts the officially reported number of farms.

The important revelation here is that the USDA uses statistical weighting to arrive at the numbers for these micro-farms since many of these people don't even self-identify as farmers -- and so their precision is entirely a question of their methodology, i.e. how they decide to model the presence/frequency of these small operations. Census weighting is, of course, both controversial and necessary. Counting everything by hand can have a larger margin for error than rigorous statistical modeling. Indeed, this "controversy" is right now at the heart of a monumental battle between Democrats and Republicans over the U.S. Census (just ask Sen. Judd Gregg).

That said, there is nothing inherently wrong with the practice. However, even if your overall approach is solid, if you then change your weighting techniques from year to year, comparing annual changes is all but impossible. And that appears to be exactly what the USDA is doing.

Blue dogs, old tricks

Let me highly recommend Chris Hayes' piece on Blue Dog Democrats. This is the coalition of House Democrats who have decided that "fiscal responsibility" is the highest virtue, where fiscal responsibility means preventing the government from spending more on anything but the military. (Military spending is fine -- there was zero Blue Dog opposition to the war or to the perpetually increasing military budget.) In particular, it's worth highlighting this key sentence:

"Where Blue Dogs have perhaps been most effective is in helping Republicans pass legislation and blocking or diluting progressive legislation."

Yes. You will hear lots more from and about the Blue Dogs when energy and climate legislation are debated later this year. The Blue Dogs will push to weaken the legislation and reduce the amount of investment in the green economy, not for any particularly coherent philosophical or substantive reason, but just because it gets them lots of corporate donations and media attention. As Ezra says:

The Blue Dogs smartly hew to a form of elite centrism that assures them almost uniquely glowing press coverage. ...

Put another way: It doesn't matter if you're a centrist or a liberal. It only matters whether you're perceived as a centrist or a liberal. And Blue Dogs have chosen to be ostentatiously and inconsistently heterodox on the issue that's most visible to the perception-makers.

Preserving the status quo by preventing investment in alternatives is "centrist," even when the status quo is leading the country to ruin. It's all atmospherics, but the consequences for the atmosphere will be very real.

Memo to tax sirens: Both a carbon cap and a tax can be implemented well

This is a guest post from David Hawkins, director of the climate program at NRDC.

-----

In the Odyssey, Odysseus had to be tied to the mast to resist the call of the Sirens, who tried to lure his ship onto the rocks.  These days the siren song of a carbon tax fills the ear of many commentators who urge us to recognize its beauty and steer our ship in its direction.  A Washington Post editorial is a recent example.

The premise of the Post editorial is that cap-and-trade regimes are complex and vulnerable to special pleading, and they do not guarantee success in reducing emissions, while a tax is simple and sure in its effects. But this is grass-is-greener thinking. The Post compares a flawed version of one approach (cap-and-trade) to an idealized version of the other (tax) and not surprisingly, the idealized approach wins.

The fallacy in this argument is that the same political body (our Congress) that, we are assured, will insist on putting special interest features into a cap-and-trade bill, but when presented with a tax approach, will vote only for the purest proposal, firmly rejecting all lobbyists' pleas. Those who argue that a tax approach is less likely to be designed for special interests than a cap approach simply are ignoring the tax code. We have decades of empirical evidence in the U.S. that when Congress designs tax policies it rarely resists the entreaties of special interests.

It is worth reading the history of recent (Nixon onward) energy tax proposals done by the group Tax Analysts. It is hard to see anything in that history that suggests a carbon tax would be successful (or if something called a carbon tax were enacted that it would actually accomplish anything).

The fate of the 1993 BTU tax proposal by Bill Clinton is instructive.

NYT breaks story on CO2 regulations … after two years of Grist coverage

Back in mid-January, Kate covered Lisa Jackson's confirmation hearing, in which Jackson promised to move ahead on the CO2 endangerment finding:

On climate change, Jackson said she would have the EPA declare whether greenhouse gases pose a danger to humankind and need to be regulated -- an action mandated by the Supreme Court, but put off by the Bush administration. "When that finding happens, when EPA makes a decision on endangerment, let me put it that way, it will indeed trigger the beginnings of regulation of CO2 for this country," she said.

Then, this past Tuesday, Kate covered the fact that Jackson announced the beginning of the endangerment finding process.

Back in December, I posted some thoughts on regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

At the beginning of February, the folks from the Constitutional Accountability Center wrote two excellent posts (here and here) on the politics and mechanics of regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

Our own Sean Casten has published at least two interesting posts (here and here) on the technical and legal challenges of regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

And on Tuesday, I posted an extensive analysis of the politics and mechanics of regulating CO2 under the Clean Air Act.

Meanwhile, today, The New York Times finally got around to covering the story.

And lo! The blogs are suddenly abuzz with the news! Friends are emailing me the article! "Did you know about this?!" Our own commenters are saying "This will be the top story here on Grist tomorrow."

Yeeeeaaaaaaaargh!

What does the stimulus fight portend for the climate/energy fight?

The battle over the stimulus bill was the first big challenge of the Obama presidency, and the way it played out is instructive. What will it mean for the coming climate/energy fights?

First, let's get clear on the basic shape of what happened. Obama went into this thinking that an enormous financial crisis and a wide consensus among economists that large federal stimulus is required would be an opportunity to establish an early spirit of pragmatic "post-partisanship." If not in the face of a huge crisis, if not around an indisputably necessary bill, then when?

This is what Obama campaigned on and what he led with in office. He had dinner with conservative pundits. He had extended policy discussions with Congressional Republicans at the White House. He included a far greater percentage of tax cuts in his initial proposal than anyone expected (or most economists recommended). He worked with Congressional Dems to remove some of the small programs Republicans complained about (like re-sodding the National Mall). He did more reaching out, listening, and conceding to the opposing party than Republicans have, cumulatively, in the last 15 years, despite entering office fresh off of huge victories and sky-high public approval.

What did it get him? In terms of Republican support: zilch. Nothing. In the end he got zero votes in the House and all of three in the Senate, after several hundred thousands jobs had been stripped from the package. Republicans carpeted the media demagoguing individual spending programs from the bill and claiming Obama's bipartisanship had "failed" because, well, because they refused to participate. Karl Rove has announced, basically, that Republicans triumphed by giving Obama nothing and that they would not offer him a shred of credit no matter what happens to the economy. The GOP House minority whip says explicitly that he's modeling his leadership on Newt Gingrich. Seriously.

Oscar-related news and musings

The Oscars are this weekend! With the usual amount of Hollywood splashiness -- though p'raps less than in years past -- there are green efforts going on, from Global Green's star-studded pre-party on Thursday to the first-ever use of dry-cleaning bags to hold swag (!) at an after-party. Eco-leaning films have garnered nominations, including Werner Herzog's Encounters at the End of the World and the I-was-there Katrina film Trouble the Water. Ultimate eco-lesson-with-a-heart Wall-E even got a few nods, though it was -- as one Grist staffer put it -- "screwed over for best picture."

On top of that, yummy host Hugh Jackman has racked up some eco-cred of his own over the years.

Alas, none of the five films nominated for best picture are particularly greenish. But just for fun, I've reimagined them as such below the fold, with a little help from Oscar's own synopses.

MoveOn preps for gigantic green economy campaign

This hit my inbox yesterday:

When FDR became president, a group of progressive activists asked him to push for some really big changes. His response? "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it."

President Obama gets that we need to transform our economy. He's passionate about creating millions of green jobs and investing billions in renewable energy. And he's appointed great leaders like Energy Secretary Chu to help him.

But unless we create a massive green-economy movement across America, Obama won't have the mandate he needs to overcome the oil companies and make fundamental change. As president, Obama's extraordinary power comes from the people outside Washington. And that's us.

So we've worked up a big plan to build a green-economy groundswell. It'll mean tripling our field organizing team, mobilizing hundreds of thousands of MoveOn members to take local action, and running ads targeting powerful interests that stand in the way. It'll be MoveOn's biggest long-term campaign ever.

If President Obama is going to transform our economy, he needs all of us standing behind him giving him strength. Are you in?

I'm in!

(But, just to be picky, it's overcoming coal companies that will be the biggest challenge ...)

What is the 'best available control technology' for CO2 from coal plants?

My monster post on EPA regulation of CO2 yesterday seems to have scared everyone away. So let me ask a simpler question.

As things stand, regulating CO2 at power plants under the Clean Air Act would require that such plants install "best available control technology" (BACT) for reducing or eliminating CO2 emissions.

Here's my question: for a coal-fired power plant, what is the best available technology for limiting CO2 emissions?

Carbon sequestration might be "best," but it's not "available," despite all the hype. It hasn't been tested; there are no clear regulations governing it; it's horribly expensive; etc.

Far as I know, though, that's basically the only way to reduce CO2 emissions at a coal plant.

So if that's not available, and nothing else is available, what can a coal plant do but ... stop burning coal?

Does that mean a BACT requirement under the Clean Air Act would effectively shut down every coal plant in the country in one fell swoop, thereby eliminating 50 percent of the country's electricity generation? Will it force all coal plants to switch to natural gas, causing natural gas prices to skyrocket? If not, what does it mean? Anyone? Bueller?

Sales tax shortfall could affect Seattle's public transit

This whole "economic downturn" thing is tricky business. As I've mentioned, it may be helping boost transit ridership numbers as cash-strapped folks abandon their cars.

But those same cash-strapped folks are also buying less stuff (even if they are buying locally). Buying less stuff means less sales tax generated in Washington state. And because Seattle's Metro bus service gets more than half of its revenue from a dedicated sales tax, this is not good news for Seattle's primary mode of public transit.

To give it to you in (rather depressing) numerical form, King County administrators have said that Metro's sales tax revenue losses over the two-year 2008-2009 period could total $100 million -- that's 800,000 to 1 million hours of bus service. (And that doesn't count the time you'll spend standing around at bus stops waiting for a ride.)