Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THE OTHER TOM
by Tom Laskawy
Of course, I'm referring to Tom Vilsack, newly minted head of the USDA. There's been quite a bit of attention paid to Mr. Vilsack round these parts, so I thought I might check in and see how his first week went. The answer: not bad.
Via La Vida Locavore we learn that he stopped a couple Bush administration midnight regulations, extended a comment period on a crucial new rule that will restrict high-income farmers from receiving subsidies, canceled a proposed $3 million cut to a block grant program that supports research into so-called "specialty crops" (that's USDA-speak for fruits, vegetables, nuts and flowers) and is hard at work on drafting new "Country of Origin Labeling" regulations. What a busy little bee.
But what really has sustainable agriculture advocates in a tizzy are the rumors that Vilsack might pick Chuck Hassebrook, currently the director of the Center for Rural Affairs, as the number two guy at the USDA. Aside from the fact that he would be the highest ranking progressive food figure in government since, well, ever, the significance lies in the importance of the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture (his potential new gig). Deputy Secretaries are the operational folks - the people who actually run the departments (a COO to the Secretary's CEO). So Hassebrook, if appointed, would represent far more than a bone tossed to the sustainable ag community. He'd be more like the camel's nose. Their excitement is therefore understandable.
Vilsack has already whet the appetite of food reformers in the choice for his own chief of staff. Via Obamafoodorama, we learn that Vilsack's pick, John Norris, is a former farm activist (and former chair of Iowa's Utilities Board) and beloved by the Iowa sustainable ag community. And, get this, Norris' wife is chief of staff to the First Lady. Pillow talk, indeed. Feel free, by the way, to raise eyebrows at the growing influence of Iowa in our national affairs. But, then, that caucus happened which did kinda sorta help Obama win the nomination. So I guess we'll just have to live with it.
As for Vilsack's priorities, they mostly reflect Obama's Rural Agenda (which is a good thing). But buried in the USDA press release lauding his early efforts was this nugget:
Vilsack said it's important that farmers and ranchers play a role with USDA in efforts to promote incentives for management practices that provide clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat, and help farmers participate in markets that reward them for sequestering carbon and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.Ladies and gentlemen, we are talking once again about
COMMENTS (13)
La Vida Locavore is a nice blog -- they really have their ears to the ground about ag stuff.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | January 27, 2009 3:18 PM
That does sound like a good week of bad work.
Posted by: Doug | January 27, 2009 3:47 PM
Nice article in current Scientific American showing carbon cost of various foods -- including farts and all, 1/2 lb. of beef consumed produces the CO2 effect of driving almost 10 miles (at 27 mpg). Pork, 2.7 miles; chicken much less, veggies .7 miles.
Carbon tax would work wonders here, but the ranchers will have a fit.
Posted by: David in NY | January 27, 2009 4:17 PM
Oops, that's Pork, 2.5 miles, Chicken, .7 miles, and veggies .17-.27 miles. Note, do not trust memory.
Posted by: David in NY | January 27, 2009 4:20 PM
"Tizzy" means a state of confusion or distraction brought on by a high degree of excitement. "Excited" would have been a better choice than "in a tizzy."
Posted by: gordonminor | January 27, 2009 4:21 PM
Oh, they're in a tizzy all right. And if he gets the nod, they'll start turning cartwheels.
Posted by: Tom Laskawy | January 27, 2009 4:34 PM
The ground work for his talk about cow farts "management practices that provide clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat" was actually laid by former Secretary Schafer and the outgoing folks. But it will be exciting to see how he goes about implementing it all.
Posted by: dma | January 27, 2009 5:03 PM
What he's really talking about is the carbon that is sequestered by the plants farmers grow. A lot of carbon is sequestered by 2500 acres of corn and soybeans.
Why does this matter? Industrial ag doesn't raise its own grains, small farmers do. You want to create a system that actually promotes family farms? This is the way to do it.
Also, I still think a lot of you east coasters should actually try coming out to the great planes some time and fathom how big it is, and how much of the worlds foods are actually grown here. Or even look to see what percent of our exports are ag related.
Posted by: yo-z | January 27, 2009 5:05 PM
Carbon sequestration?
When stalks lie on the ground and rot, the carbon goes back into the air. To sequester the carbon, you have to take that stuff and put it somewhere. There are plans to do this (e.g. "biochar"), but this adds significant cost and complication.
Posted by: C- | January 27, 2009 7:22 PM
I am involved with several sustainable ag groups in Iowa.
It's a stretch to say that John Norris is "beloved" by this community. Not that they dislike him, but I am hard-pressed to think of something Norris did for them when he was chief of staff for Governor Vilsack.
Many Iowa environmentalists are happy to see Norris get a job at the USDA, because perhaps someone less coal-friendly will be appointed to the Iowa Utilities Board in his place. Background:
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1333
Posted by: desmoinesdem | January 27, 2009 7:57 PM
Sustainable farming does sequester carbon by building up the nutrients in the soil. Most of that organic matter in the rich soil is carbon.
Industrial farming depletes the soil and therefore releases more carbon into the atmosphere.
Background on this:
http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2316
Posted by: desmoinesdem | January 27, 2009 8:00 PM
It demonstrates again how central addressing climate change is to all aspects of this administration.
Oh yeah. Except when it comes to transport spending in the stimulus bill.
Posted by: rufustfyrfly | January 27, 2009 11:07 PM
What is "industrial ag"? If you are talking about large farmers who use commercial fertilizer and agrochemicals then you should know that they can and do sequester just as much or more carbon than small farms.
Posted by: Russ | January 28, 2009 8:29 AM