The babbling of the unenlightened

Commentary

Today’s Washington Post carries an irksome piece of scrivening by a writer named Steven Pearlstein, roundly bashing collective agriculture – some call it “food production” — for trying to balance the badly crafted climate change/cap-and-trade bill heading for a floor vote in the House today.  Under the headline, “For the Farm Lobby, Too Much is Never Enough,” Scoop Pearlstein – I use the nominative “Scoop” because Pearlstein refers to food producers collectively and patronizingly as “Elmer” throughout his piece – implicitly admits the House bill will bring economic pain and angst to one and all, so why shouldn’t food producers suck it up and suffer their fair share?  He calls agriculture “the world’s most selfish lobby.”

Scoop is offended farmers and ranchers are not included in the emission reporting requirements of the act because, as both the Bush and Obama Administrations discovered, it would be nearly impossible to calculate the individual greenhouse gas output of each and every farm in America. What Scoop doesn’t mention/might not know is that all of ag is determined to be so small a contributor to overall greenhouse gas emissions, that trying to measure and cap emissions just didn’t make economic or common sense.

One of the reasons food production is so small a contributor is the steps it’s taken over the last several years to control exactly what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) is browbeating her colleagues to pass today, namely reducing the carbon footprint.  Agriculture was aggressively reducing its footprint before anyone knew what a carbon footprint was. 

But Scoop finds it objectionable that Rep. Collin Peterson (D, MN), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, went to bat for rural communities when he determined the House climate change bill would place a disproportionate economic burden on farmers, ranchers and the communities in which they live.  Somehow, Scoop implies, it’s a good thing for farmers, ranchers and others to pay more – and perhaps significantly more – for their “fuel, fertilizer and electricity.” After all, he writes “other Americans will suffer similar effects.”  I infer that’s called “sharing the pain.” 

The fact farmers and ranchers – and those who own/manage private forestland – will be allowed to sell credits for the good things they do to “cut down on cow burps and farts…or put in devices to trap the methane released from animal poop” – Scoop’s words, not mine – means there are additional incentives to further reduce the ag footprint.  This is a good thing.  And, it puts food production on an even footing with every other industry out there that will be buying and selling carbon credits, according to the climate change bill.  Last time I looked that was called an even playing field.

The fact Peterson demanded and won a concession from Pelosi that USDA oversee the ag program, not EPA, is that agriculture in the 21^st century has become such an arcane practice that it might just make better sense to have the folks with on-farm expertise actually determining if the program is working.  I’d also advise Scoop to sit down with the current leadership at USDA to get their take on whether their mission is “preserving, protecting and defending American farm subsidies.”  I’m guessing he might hear a bit more about consumers, farmers markets, organic and “locovarians.”

I will admit there are times when ag runs to the Hill with hat in hand when perhaps we should just ride out the crisis du jour. But for every time legislators say “yes” to a request for assistance, there are just as many if not more occasions when they tell us in no uncertain terms to “pound sand.”

What’s forgotten or perhaps not understood is that every additional cost paid by a food producer creates impact on food availability and the price to the consumer.  And the reality is, whether it’s “natural causes, market forces or government regulation” that drive up the cost of production, the longer that pain continues, the less likely it is that smaller farms and ranches will survive. So, to answer the unasked question, for the government to ignore the unique needs of food production is to accelerate consolidation of farms and ranches into larger and larger operations, and to penalize the consumer at the supermarket through fewer choices and higher prices.

Scoop is aghast we still recognize the House climate change bill as a seriously broken vehicle.  What Peterson did was duct tape a broken hose; someone has to now overhaul the engine. How dare we bite the hand Scoop thinks feeds us so well?