What is the Farm Bill?

Every five years, Congress revisits and passes the Farm Bill. The Farm Bill is a gargantuan piece of legislation that emerged to provide emergency bailouts for millions of farmers and unemployed citizens during the Dust Bowl era and Great Depression. Today, the Farm Bill has emerged as arguably the most influential piece of legislation affecting agriculture, land use and food in the US.

In his book, Food Fight: The Citizen’s Guide to a Food and Farm Bill, Daniel Imhoff highlights specific reasons why the Farm Bill is of utmost importance to US citizens:

· The twilight of the cheap-oil age and the onset of unpredictable climatic conditions;

· Looming water shortages and crashing fish populations;

· Broken rural economies;

· Escalating medical and economic costs of child and adult obesity;

· Record payouts to corporate farms that aren’t even losing money;

· Over 35 million Americans, half of them children, who don’t get enough to eat;

· Almost 50 percent of all commodity subsidies went to 5 percent of eligible farmers in 2005;

· Subsidies help the largest farms to acquire the best land and squeeze out smaller growers;

· Euphoria over corn and soybean expansion for biofuels.

Why Talk About It?

Clearly, given the current climate (politically and ecologically) it is important that the US Farm Bill address issues of agriculture emissions. The agriculture sector is responsible for approximately 70% of total US emissions of nitrous oxide (N₂0) and 30% of total US methane emissions. Unfortunately, as it stands, it appears that the 2007 Farm Bill does little to address issues of emissions and greenhouse gas emissions and has chosen to focus on the production of renewable bio-energies. Biofuels and the Farm Bill

There are 10 Farm Bill proposals listed on the USDA proposal. The 9^th proposal, conveniently titled Energy, discusses renewable energy. In this proposal, the USDA suggest that:

Expand Federal research focused on renewable fuels and bioenergy and reauthorize, revise, and expand programs that provide valuable tools for the advancement of renewable energy production and commercialization.

They continue:

In fiscal year 2005, U.S. ethanol and biodiesel production made from all sources was nearly 4 billion gallons and 91 million gallons, respectively. Comparatively, 140 billion gallons of gasoline and over 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel were consumed in the U.S. in 2005. Even with the success of corn and soybean biofuels, to substantially reduce America’s dependence on imported oil, biofuels will need to be made from cellulosic processes that use feedstocks such as specialty crop biomass, switch grass, corn stover, straw, and other woody biomass. Some cellulosic conversion processes have been scientifically demonstrated to be capable of producing biofuels and other energy. Limited government support, in partnership with the private sector, will help to advance commercial application of these innovations. Government support of cellulosic energy is needed because the scale of investment required is very large, the industry is new and thus faces uncertain risks, and there is an urgent need to diversify energy sources for economic and security reasons. In terms of solutions to the above mentioned problems, in the 2007 Farm Bill, the USDA are proposing that more than $1.6 billion be spent on renewable energy funding and target programs to cellulosic ethanol projects. They contend that these initiatives will advance renewable energy by:

• Providing $500 Million for a Bioenergy and Biobased product research initiative. Advances in technology play an important role in the future of renewable energy. Our scientists, farmers and entrepreneurs must coordinate efforts to continue improvements in crop yields and work to reduce the cost of producing alternative fuels.
• Providing $500 Million for Renewable Energy Systems and Efficiency Improvements Grants Program. This program supports small alternative energy and energy efficiency projects that directly help farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses.
• Providing $210 Million to support an estimated $2.1 Billion in loan guarantees for Cellulosic Ethanol Projects in rural areas. This program will advance the development of cellulosic ethanol production.

I have already blogged about some of the issues concerning bio fuels (see: Environmental Groups Condemn IPCC Push for Biofuels, Food as Oil?) as have many other folks on this site, so I will not reiterate the myriad concerns and issues surrounding the production of biofuel, especially from traditional food crops. I can say that as it stands I am slightly disappointed (although not the least bit surprised) that this Farm Bill is not directing a little more energy towards addressing issues of agriculture emissions.

Find out more:

Imhoff, Daniel. 2007. Food Fight: The Citizen’s Guide to a Food and Farm Bill. Watershed Media. University of California Press. USDA. 2007. America’s Farm Bill. Available at: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usdafarmbill?navtype=SU&navid=FARM_BILL_FORUMS

Questions, comments and ideas for new stories are welcome.

It’s Getting Hot In Here hones in on global efforts aimed at stopping, or at least slowing down, global warming. Given the focus of this column, it is appropriate to begin by answering the inevitable question: What’s agriculture got to do with it?

What’s Agriculture Got To Do With It?

Agriculture contributes significantly to global climate change and it is also significantly affected by climatic shifts. But agriculture can, and must, be part of the solutions. In this, the first article in a series, I am going to focus primarily on “Agriculture as Culprit” and “Agriculture as Victim.”

Agriculture: Guilty as Charged

Agriculture is a net contributor to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases.

• According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency “[i]n 2005, the agricultural sector was responsible… 7 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.”
• In Canada, agriculture contributes 10% of the country’s greenhouse gases.
• According to the IPCC’s latest report, between 1970 and 1990, direct greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture grew by 27%.

But this isn’t even half of the problem.

• The processing, packaging and distribution of food consumes four times more energy than goes into growing the food.

The numbers I have listed above do not even include energy used on these stages of the food chain. Consider this: if you live in North America, it is estimated that the ingredients on your plate, at any given meal, have traveled over 2,500 km. For every kilogram of food imported, it is estimated that 1.3 kg of greenhouse gases are emitted. This is a major reason why food activists are moving away from promoting “organic” produce and encouraging people to purchase regionally-grown foods instead.

Efficient? I think not

Industrial farming is often touted as being the most “efficient form” of agriculture, but perhaps we should consider the following:

• Between 1910 and 1983, the energy consumption of the agricultural sector grew by 810%.
• A head of lettuce grown in California shipped back east uses 36 times as many calories of fossil energy as the lettuce actually contains.
• 75% of the apples for sale in New York city come from the West Coast or from overseas. But, New York State produces 10 times as many apples as the residents of NYC consume.

What’s more, in the latest USDA Census of Agriculture it was found that smaller farms produce farm more food per acre, whether you measure in tons, calories or dollars! Jules Pretty, an English agronomist recently studied two hundred sustainable agriculture projects in fifty two countries. He found that sustainable agriculture led to an average 93% increase in per hectare food production. What we do know is that industrial food production provides us with cheap food. The small farms grow more food per acre because they are more dependent on labour. Not only is sustainable agriculture more productive and more energy efficient than industrial agriculture, but it also provides healthy employment opportunities.

In his book “Deep Economy” Bill McKibben writes:

“The deepest problem that local-food efforts face… is that we’ve grown used to paying so little for food. It may be expensive in terms of how much oil it requires, and how much greenhouse gas it pours into the atmosphere, and how much tax subsidy it receives, and how much damage it does to local communities, and how many migrant workers it maims, and how much sewage it piles up, and how many miles of highway it requires –but boy, when you pull your cart up to the register, it’s pretty cheap.”

McKibben is right; we pay far too little for our food. The reality is that local food is expensive and that many people cannot afford it. That being said, in Canada and the US we spend less on our food than any other country (less than 10% of our income).

Why is this important?

Agriculture as Victim
Fundamentally, I am talking about access to food. Food is the intimate commodity. What I mean is that unlike sneakers, t-shirt, iPods and most other consumer goods, food enters our bodies and becomes a part of us. Furthermore, we depend on food to live. In an article titled “Climate Change and Food Security” P.J. Gregory and colleagues explain that[c]limate change may affect food systems in several ways ranging from direct effects on crop production (e.g. changes in rainfall leading to drought or flooding, or warmer or cooler temperatures leading to changes in the length of growing season), to changes in markets, food prices and supply chain infrastructure.The UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) suggests that as climatic variability increases, we can expect the following:

• The overall predictability of weather and climate will decrease, making planning of farm operations more difficult.
• Climate variability might increase, putting additional stress on fragile farming systems.
• Climate extremes – which are almost impossible to plan for – might become more frequent.
• The sea-level will rise, threatening valuable coastal agricultural land, particularly in low-lying small islands.
• Biological diversity will be reduced in some of the world’s most fragile environments, such as mangroves and tropical forests.
• Climatic and agro-ecological zones will shift, forcing farmers to adapt, as well as threatening indigenous vegetation and fauna.
• The current imbalance of food production between cool and temperate regions and tropical and subtropical regions will worsen.
• Distribution and quantities of fish and seafoods will change dramatically.
• Pests and vector-borne diseases will spread into areas where they were previously unknown.

Food security exists when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe, culturally appropriate and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. Climate change is and will continue to impact food production and will thus undoubtedly threaten food security, especially for the world’s most vulnerable people. Concern over achieving food security around the world has increased with the rapid climate change coupled with other global environmental changes such as water availability, land cover and altered nitrogen availability. P.J. Gregory and colleagues explain that “[b]ecause of the multiple socio-economic and bio-physical factors affecting food systems and hence food security, the capacity to adapt food systems to reduce their vulnerability to climate change is not uniform.” Indeed, approaching global climate change from a food systems or agriculture perspective leaves little doubt that climate change is fundamentally a social justice issue.

The Good News… Not so Fast

Now some of you may have heard that climate change will actually increase yields, at least in the North. There is some truth to this, but agriculture is not just weather dependent. Growing food requires quality soil and water, both of which are increasingly limited. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this fact, proclaiming “[t]he nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.” More recently, Alice Friedemann has written recently on the idea of “peak soil.”

• Referencing many peer-reviewed studies, she explains that for example over the past century, Iowa’s has lost almost half of its soil, from an average depth of 18 to 10 inches.
• “Productivity” she explains “drops off sharply when topsoil reaches 6 inches or less, the average crop root zone depth.”
• “Crop productivity continually declines as topsoil is lost and residues are removed.”
• Quoting Lal (2004), Freidemann write “[s]oils contain 3.3 times the amount of carbon found in the atmosphere, and 4.5 times more carbon than is stored in all the Earth’s vegetation.”
• Highlighting O’Neal’s (2005) findings, Friedemann explains “[i]f we want to reduce global warming, storing carbon in the soil will be essential. But that will be hard to pull off, because climate change could increase soil loss by 33% to 274%, depending on the region.”

And then there is the issue of water.

• 70% of global human water use is directed to irrigating crops.

The future of farming (and consequently the future of eating) looks bleak indeed, but this is arguably not even the worst of it. Most farmers I have talked to suggest that the biggest threat to farming is increased uncertainty. Farming involves a great deal of planning and has traditionally relied on generations of experience and local knowledge (think Farmers’ Almanac). However, with climate change we know that we will be less able to determine weather patterns making planning very difficult.

Finally

The outlook is not all that bright, but I do not believe that it is all doom and gloom. I began by stating that agriculture contributes significantly to global climate change and that agriculture will be significantly impacted by climate change. However, I also suggested that agriculture has a role to play in solutions to climate change. In future articles I will be addressing some of these solutions as well as positive food-focused initiatives that are working to combat climate change.

Stay tuned for the next article – due out July 1^st – that will explore the 2007 US Farm Bill and its connection to climate change.

References? Please contact me (jessica(a)itsgettinghotinhere.org) if you want the citation for, or information on, any of the references I have used above.

The Food and Agriculture Organization released a report on May 3, 2007 encouraging states to integrate organic agriculture objectives within national priorities. According to the FAO NewsRoom (click here to view it) “organic agriculture is no longer a phenomenon in developed countries only, as it is commercially practiced in 120 countries, representing 31 million hectares and a market of US$40 billion in 2006.‚Äù These findings and recommendations are elucidated in a paper Organic Agriculture and Food Security, presented at an International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security (3-5 May 2007). The FAO paper relies on the Codex Alimentarius Commission and all existing national regulations, to define organic agriculture as ‚Äúa holistic production management system that avoids use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms, minimizes pollution of air, soil and water, and optimizes the health and productivity of interdependent communities of plants, animals and people.‚Äù

Of particular interest to readers of this site is that the paper illuminates “[t]he strongest feature of organic agriculture is its reliance on fossil-fuel independent and locally-available production assets; working with natural processes increases cost-effectiveness and resilience of agro-ecosystems to climatic stress.”

It also contends that “[b]y managing biodiversity in time (rotations) and space (mixed cropping), organic farmers use their labour and environmental services to intensify production in a sustainable way. Organic agriculture also breaks the vicious circle of indebtedness for agricultural inputs which causes an alarming rate of farmers’ suicides.” The FAO paper draws attention to the high labour input required on organic farms. They highlight the benefits of increased labour opportunities citing an opportunity for increased and/or safeguarded rural livelihoods. I am glad to see this in the analysis but when applied to the Global North, labour exists as a major impediment to the capacity of organic farmers to get their lands planted, harvested and processed. Agricultural zoning makes it difficult for farmers to build on-farm accommodations. As a result, these workers are often trucked on-farm daily. I am glad to see the FAO encouraging states to forward organic principles within their agriculture policy. I think most farmers (big and small) are cognisant that with global warming, peak oil (limited access to petroleum will have an HUGE impact on industrial farming that relies heavily on the substance for fertilisers and transport, etc.), organic farming is the way of the future, whether we like it or not. Funny how things come full circle!

The IPCC Assessment Report Four has made a compelling case on what global warming means to the planet this century. It is the IPCC’s strongest warning yet that drastic cuts in carbon emissions are vital if we are to avoid a catastrophic acceleration of climate change. Environmental groups are, however, deeply concerned that the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers on climate mitigation, released earlier today, includes a recommendation for large-scale expansion of biofuels from monocultures, including from GM crops, even though monoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. The IPCC also recommend the expansion of large-scale agroforestry monoculture plantations. These plantations, which will include GM trees, are similarly linked to ecosystem destruction. Monoculture expansion is a major threat to the livelihoods and food
sovereignty of communities many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialised countries.

Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch stated: “It is already clear that the burgeoning demand for biofuels that has been created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually increasing them by deforestation in the tropics and accelerating climate change. So far, only 1% of global transport fuel comes from biofuels, yet already biofuels cause steep rises in grain and vegetable oil prices, threatening the food security of poor people and spurring agricultural expansion into forests and grasslands, on which we depend for a stable climate”.

The IPCC recommend second generation GM biofuels, which are widely believed to be at least 10-15 years away from commercialisation. There are serious concerns about the risks involved in technologies which will rely heavily on GM microbes and fungi for the refining process, as well as GM crops and trees. Mayer Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute
said: “There is an inherent and acutely serious problem within the report. On the one hand, it leaves us in no doubt to how vital conservation of the planet’s ecosystems and carbon sinks are to
averting the worst predictions made in the previous sections of the report. On the other, it proposes the large scale use of the biosphere to satisfy demand in the transport and energy sectors.”

Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, a worldwide coalition of NGOs and Indigenous Peoples Organizations added: “It is difficult to see how an emphasis on protecting
rainforests and curbing deforestation is compatible with using biofuels as a solution to climate change when there are no policy instruments that guarantee biofuel expansion without accelerating
deforestation.”

The IPCC report would appear to suggest that the climate can be stabilised at a safe level without reducing growth. The signatories to the press release believe that only large-scale reductions in
energy use in the industrial nations, together with investment in sustainable forms of renewable energy, such as wind and solar power, can avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

The environmental groups involved in this release are: Global Forest Coalition, Biofuelwatch, Global Justice Ecology Project, Grupo de Reflexion Rural (Argentina), Rettet den Regenwald e.V., Econexus, Munlochy Vigil, and Noah (Friends of the Earth Denmark), Corporate Europe Observatory, and Gaia Foundation.

Currently, much of the corn grown in the US and Canada is destine for animal feed. Indeed, there are serious environmental impacts associated with livestock factory farming but increasingly, the people who grow the feed for these animals (for big operations and small alike) are switching to another genetically-modified corn plant for ethanol production. This is already having a significant impact on local food production as farmers are increasingly unable to afford to feed their animals. There are also significant environmental consequences associated with bio-fuel production (monoculture, pesticide and herbicide use and etcetera). If small-scale, sustainanble local farmers (most of whom require second jobs to continue farming) are unable to feed their animals, they will have to a) bump up the cost of their food, or b) go out of business. The result is even less access to locally produced food. Beyond the threat to local food security, there are significant social issues that must be raised with respect to biofuel production.

Runge and Senauer’s article How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor illuminates that:

The push for ethanol and other biofuels has spawned an industry that depends on billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, and not only in the United States. In 2005, global ethanol production was 9.66 billion gallons, of which Brazil produced 45.2 percent (from sugar cane) and the United States 44.5 percent (from corn). Global production of biodiesel (most of it in
Europe), made from oilseeds, was almost one billion gallons.

The enormous volume of corn required by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system. (The United States accounts for some 40 percent of the world’s total corn production and over half of all corn exports.) In March 2007, corn futures rose to over $4.38 a bushel, the highest level in ten years. Wheat and rice prices have also surged to decade highs, because even as those grains are increasingly being used as substitutes for corn, farmers are planting more acres with corn and fewer acres with other crops.>

This might sound like nirvana to corn producers, but it is hardly that for consumers, especially in poor developing countries, who will be hit with a double shock if both food prices and oil prices stay high.

International Implications

Runge and Senauer are quick top point out that “[b]iofuels may have even more devastating effects in the rest of the world, especially on the prices of basic foods. If oil prices remain high — which is likely — the people most vulnerable to the price hikes brought on by the biofuel boom will be those in countries that both suffer food deficits and import petroleum.”

Mexico

Not only is our food supply being challenged by our desire to drive-clean, our demand for ethanol is already having an impact on the price of corn in Mexico, where the corn tortilla is a staple.

On January 13, 2007, the Associate Press released a story elucidating that:

Soaring international demand for corn has caused a spike in prices for Mexico’s humble tortilla, hitting the poor and forcing President Felipe Calderon’s business-friendly government into an uncomfortable confrontation with powerful monopolies. Tortilla prices have jumped nearly 14 percent over the past year, a move the head of Mexico’s central bank called “unjustifiable” in a country where inflation ran about 4 percent.Economists blame increased U.S. production of ethanol from corn as an alternative to oil. The battle over the tortilla, the most basic staple of the Mexican diet, especially among the poor, demonstrates how increasing economic integration is felt on the street level.“ This is direct evidence of the way globalization is affecting all walks of life in Mexico and all over the world,” said David Barkin, an economics professor at the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Mexico City.

Brazil

Runge and Senauer explain that Brazil currently produces comparable amounts of ethanol as the
United States, but that they derive it from sugar cane. “Like the United States,” note the authors, “Brazil began its quest for alternative energy in the mid-1970s. The government has offered incentives, set technical standards, and invested in supporting technologies and market promotion. It has mandated that all diesel contain two percent biodiesel by 2008 and five percent biodiesel by 2013.”

This push for ethanol production is not being well received on the ground. Recently, representatives of organizations and social movements of Brasil, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Colombia, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic, gathered at a forum on the expansion of the sugarcane industry in Latin America. After the conference, they released a statement outlining their perspective on the sugar cane industry in
South America.

The current model of production of bioenergy is sustained by the same elements that have always caused the oppression of our peoples: appropriation of territory, of natural resources, and the labor force. Historically the sugar industry served as an instrument to maintain colonialism in our countries and the creation of dominant classes that have controlled, through today, large extensions of land, the industrial process, and commercialization. This sector is based on latifundio ownership, on the overexploitation of labor (including slave labor) and the appropriation of public resources. This sector was created upon intensive and extensive monocropping, provoking concentration of land, profit, and wealth.The sugarcane industry was one of the main agricultural activities developed in the colonies. It allowed sectors that controlled production and commercializaction to continue accumulating capital and with this contribute to the development of capitalism in Europe. In Latin America, the creation and control of the State, beginning in the 19th century, continued to service the colonial interests. Currently, control of the State by this sector is characterized by so-called “bureaucratic capitalism”. The sugar industry defined the political structures of national States and of Latin American economies.

To conclude

Runge and Senauer conclude:

The future can be brighter if the right steps are taken now. Limiting U.S. dependence on fossil fuels requires a comprehensive energy-conservation program. Rather than promoting more mandates, tax breaks, and subsidies for biofuels, the U.S. government should make a major commitment to substantially increasing energy efficiency in vehicles, homes, and factories; promoting alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind power; and investing in research to improve agricultural productivity and raise the efficiency of fuels derived from cellulose.Washington’s fixation on corn-based ethanol has distorted the national agenda and diverted its attention from developing a broad and balanced strategy. In March, the
U.S. Energy Department announced that it would invest up to $385 million in six biorefineries designed to convert cellulose into ethanol. That is a promising step in the right direction.

As for my thoughts on this all, well, I kinda feel like “here we go again.” When it comes to climate change and alternative energy use, it is really, really, really, really, important that we do not jump to quick (read: simple/too good to be true) solutions. There are myriad negative social and environmental impacts associated with bio-fuel production. Let’s not forget how much CO₂ is released from tilling– from the soil itself and from the machines that do the tilling– or the impacts of monoculture agriculture, or, what the rise of another cash crop means for Indigenous Peoples and traditional lands as more and more land is usurped, rid of indigenous plants and replanted with GMO seeds. We must analyse the global impacts of our actions or we will continue to hit up against Western solutions that have devastating implications for others. It also comes back to our culture of consumption. For me, consumption patters form the root of many of the problems that we currently face.

Finally, Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma provides a very thorough review of the politics and consumption of corn in the US (read the introduction and first chapter for free online http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore_excerpt.pdf). It is no surprise, given this history, that corn has been crowned the crop of choice when it comes to bio-fuel.

Congratulations go out to the Sierra Club who just secured a 5-4 ruling to stop the (ironically named?) US Environmental Protection Agency from putting politics ahead of science and social justice.
The Sierra Club (http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2007-04-02.asp) has issued a press release outlining the case and the outcomes.

(Washington, DC)–In a huge victory in the fight against global warming the Supreme Court today issued a ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA decisively rejecting the Bush administration’s inaction on global warming. In a 5-4 vote, the High Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3 cities, and the other petitioners in the case by agreeing that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Additionally, in a separate 5-4 ruling, the Justices wrote that the EPA cannot refuse to regulate these pollutants for political reasons. The Court gave its overwhelming stamp of approval to states that are taking action to fight global warming. At a time when automakers are suing states for taking this step forward, the Supreme Court stated clearly that states have the right to protect their citizens and the environment. It also provides momentum for efforts in Congress to reduce vehicle emissions.

“Today’s ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. “The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration’s refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming. It also sends a clear signal to the markets that the future lies not in the dirty, outdated technologies of yesterday, but in the clean energy solutions that will fuel the economy of tomorrow. It also vindicates the leadership that California and other states have taken on this issue.”

In the majority opinion, the Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants meet the definition of “air pollutant[s]” under the plain language of the CAA. This ruling, in and of itself, does not compel EPA to issue regulations limiting the emissions of global warming pollutants. However, the CAA states that EPA “shall regulate” any air pollutant “reasonably anticipated” to endanger “public health or welfare,” which includes effects upon “climate or weather.” Since EPA incorrectly argued that carbon dioxide was not an air pollutant under the CAA, it refused to even issue an endangerment determination. Today’s ruling compels EPA to issue such a determination.

“It’s unfortunate–but not surprising–that it took a Supreme Court case to clarify the meaning of words such as ‘pollutant,’ ‘endanger,’ ‘weather,’ and ‘climate’ for the Bush administration,” commented David Bookbinder, Sierra Club’s Director of Climate Litigation. “The only way EPA can continue to refuse to do its job and not regulate global warming pollutants is by claiming that the effects of global warming pose no danger to the public. Bush’s EPA may try do so, but I suspect they’d be laughed out of court.”

The Court’s secondary ruling compels EPA to follow the CAA provision that states that EPA “shall regulate” any air pollutant that it determines is reasonably anticipated to pose a danger to public health or welfare. EPA had made a wide variety of specious arguments claiming why, even if they had the authority to regulate global warming pollutants, it could simply choose not to do so. Today’s ruling compels EPA to adhere to the unambiguous language found in the CAA. The CAA already affords the agency wide latitude in its rulemaking process–specifically stating that any potential regulations must meet tests for economic and technological feasibility.

“EPA pursued a kitchen sink strategy by throwing a variety of arguments at the Court about why it could simply choose to ignore the law and come up with its own political criteria for deciding what is a pollutant and whether or not to regulate it,” said Bookbinder. “This ruling simply sets into motion the process to establish the kind of regulations for global warming pollutants that have successfully regulated other pollutants for decades without the kind of dire economic effects predicted by industry.”

Today’s decision will impact numerous other cases currently working their way through the courts. It will most directly affect the Coke Oven Task Force v. EPA case currently pending in the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Both that case and Mass. v. EPA hinge on the same question of EPA’s authority under the CAA. The ruling will also affect challenges brought by the auto industry against the Clean Car Laws enacted by California and 13 other states. California and the other states derive their authority to enact stricter standards from the same passage of the Clean Air Act at issue in Mass. v. EPA, so the High Court’s ruling should strengthen the states’ hand in cases pending in California and Vermont.

“Cities and states have been taking the lead on global warming action for the past years,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. “Today’s decision will help protect those hard-fought victories from spurious attacks by polluters and other special interests.”

Today’s ruling does not affect the ability of Congress to address global warming through new legislation. Congress remains free to amend the Clean Air Act or pursue alternative legislation to limit global warming emissions.

“Considering the often glacial pace of rulemaking at EPA and the Bush administration’s long-professed opposition to mandatory carbon limits, any new regulation coming out of EPA is likely to be years in the making unless the administration moves quickly to establish a weak regulation favorable to the biggest polluters,” said Bookbinder. “The next administration will probably be largely responsible for implementing the Court’s decision.”

Environmental Defense v. Duke

The second decision issue today, also in an environmental case, upheld EPA’s view that changes in power plants that may contribute to air pollution must be done only with a permit if there is an annual increase in emissions. The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit Court’s view that the permit requirement applied only if there is an hourly increase in emissions. The case was Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp. (05-848). The decision was written by Justice Souter. The vote was unanimous, although Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate concurring opinion.

For a complete set of documents related to Mass v. EPA, see:

http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/lawsuits/0316.asp

“Norway has announced plans to offset the greenhouse gases produced by public employees when they fly abroad by buying emissions credits. The move, which is intended to fight global warming, was announced by Norway’s prime minister. He said the scheme was thought to be the most ambitious of its kind in the world and hoped others would follow. Under the scheme the government will buy credits to be invested in projects which reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

David Suzuki Foundation notes (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/carbon_offsets.asp ) that:

A “carbon offset” is an emission reduction credit from another organization’s project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur. Carbon offsets are typically measured in tons of CO2-equivalents (or ‘CO2e’) and are bought and sold through a number of international brokers, online retailers, and trading platforms.

For all you new climateers, we must tell you that you don’t need to be a Norwegian Public Employee to offset your emissions. You can neutralize your carbon outputs by purchasing credits online. There are many organizations that can facilitate this process, with a simple click of the mouse and a few hits to the old credit card. It goes without saying (but just incase you forget) be sure to do your research and find an organization that you trust.

Here are just a few links:

http://www.carbonneutral.com/shop/

http://www.climatecare.co.uk/

NOW. . . just because you can pay to neutralize your emissions, does not give you free rein to drive around recklessly in an SUV or drying your laundry, 1 t-shirt at a time. No, I see carbon offsetting as a way of helping to limit emissions that are created by necessity (i.e., business trips (where teleconferencing was not feasible), trips to Kenya to lobby governments at COP12, etc.).

SO to all you happy climateers, it looks like the political climate is warming up to climate change, even though in Canada we continue to move at a glacial pace.

Finally, looking for that perfect gift for the hard to buy for person in your life . . . buy them carbon credits . . . or get them a bike.

Some of you know that I have spent perhaps an unhealthy amount of time pondering my future as an academic. I came to academia to be an activist and have been, time and again, overwhelmed by the elitism and hierarchy of the ivory tower. That being said, there are people actively chipping away at the tower. 

This morning I got an email about a new environmental justice initiative called “JustEarth” coming out of the Status of Women committee of the Canadian Sociology Association. They have established  a web site with information as well as a place for people to sign the Declaration. 

The web site address is http://www.justearth.net/declaration/index.aspx 

Please take the time to visit the site and to sign the declaration if you agree with what it says. If you disagree with something, I am sure that those involved are keen to hear your input. In fact, they are actively looking for feedback on what you think of the site and also further initiatives we can undertake to help bring about the needed changes. 

Also, I think it is important to note that Dr. Lynn McDonald, the founder of the initiative, has expressed to me through personal correspondence that “[y]oung people are crucial–it’s your world we are wrecking.” 

Don’t we know it! 

SIGN AWAY, YOUNG CLIMATEERS! 

http://www.justearth.net/declaration/index.aspx 

On Tuesday, November 14th, a group of seven youth from around the world met with David Miliband to discuss the Youth Stakeholder Proposal and plans for the Post-Kyoto Regime.
David Miliband is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for the United Kingdom. In this role has overall responsibility for all departmental issues; represents the UK at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council and at the EU Environment Council; and leads for the UK in other international negotiations on sustainable development and climate change.
Overall, the meeting went as well as could be expected. General impressions: Mr. Milliband is a young, energetic, empathetic and frank individual.

We presented him with a copy of the Youth Stakeholder Proposal and he made the following initial observations:

• The importance of considering the strategic advantages as well as disadvantages of distancing ourselves from the ENGO banner. He noted that there were advantages of being part of this group but did not elaborate as to what they were.

• He also spoke to the need for grounded approaches that address local needs. In the UK, for example, there are 9 youth climate change champions who were selected to represent 9 regions. These youth engage in localised initaitves to promote awareness and education about the issues of climate change. They also have a role at higher levels and interact with government.

Overall, Mr. Miliband was supportive of our proposal and said he would consider the possibility of including some of the youth climate change champions on the official delegation. Mr. Miliband has been outspoken on the need for action on a post-2012 protocol. Earlier this week, he took a trip to Tekina in norther Kenya to visit with people being adversely effected by climate change. However, he has also conceded that “[t]he world is not going to cut a global emission deal this week, but we can develop and make progress.”
Mr. Miliband is keeping a blog of his experiences here in Nairobi. According to Mr. Miliband, his blog is an “attempt to help bridge the gap – the growing and potentially dangerous gap – between politicians and the public. It will show what I’m doing, what I’m thinking about, and what I’ve read, heard or seen for myself which has sparked interest or influenced my ideas. My focus will be on my ministerial priorities. This supplements the existing ways of doing day-to-day business with me and my department.” Check it his blog at http://www.davidmiliband.defra.gov.uk
He is also posting podcasts on the Guardian Unlimited site http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/11/13/david_miliband_at_the_un_climate_change_conference.html

Koran

Water is the “stuff of life.” According to the UN Secretary General, “Access to safe water is a fundamental basic human need and, therefore, a basic human right.” However, this vital resource is currently embroiled in a crisis that threatens the lives of countless millions of people worldwide.
The United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report 2006, has just been released. The report, Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis, contends that climate change “now poses what may be an unparalleled threat to human development.”
The report itself is 441 pages and I am writing this blog entry in the throws of high-level negotiations. As a result, what I offer you, dear readers, is a very quick review of the report’s finding and recommendations. What I hope to get across in this blog is the extent of the water crisis. Due to restrictions on time and space, I will not spend time reviewing how the impacts of global climate change (drought, weather variability, salination of fresh water) enhance this problem. Rather, I encourage you to read the report for a detailed, yet accessible, review.
The report starts with the assertion that there is a water crisis and laments the paucity of action. The authors contend that the “root of the crisis of water can be traced to poverty, inequality and unequal power relationships, as well as flawed water management policies that exacerbate scarcity.”

Annually,

• 1.8 million children die as a result of diarrhoea and other diseases caused by water and poor sanitation.
• 443 million school days are lost each year from water-related illness.

Currently,

• More than 1 billion people lack access to clean drinking water.
• 2.6 billion people lack access to adequate sanitation.
• The basic minimum threshold for water use if approximately 20 liters a day
• 1.1 billion people are categorized as having access to only 5 liters of clean water a day.

Water insecurity violated the following principles of social justice:

• Equal citizenship
• The social minimum
• Equality of opportunity
• Fair distribution

The sources of the water crisis are varied, but the report highlights a series of common themes:

1. Few countries treat water and sanitation as a political priority;
2. The poorest people are paying the highest prices for water;
3. The international community has failed to prioritize water and sanitation in the partnerships for development that formed around the Millennium Development Goals.

Foundations for crucial success as outlined in the report are:

· Make water a human right- and mean it.

· Draw up national strategies for water and sanitation.

· Support national plans with international aid.

· Develop a global action plan.
Core strategies for overcoming national inequalities in access to water, as outlined in the report include:

• Setting clear targets for reducing inequality as part of the national poverty reduction strategy.
• Establishing lifeline tariffs that provide sufficient water for basic needs free of charge at affordable rates.
• Ensuring that no household has to spend more than 3% of its income to meet its water need.
• Targeting subsidies for connections and water use to poor households.
• Increasing investments in standpipe provision as a transitional strategy to make clean, affordable water available to the poor.
• Enacting legislation that empowers people to hold providers to account.
• Incorporating into public-private partnership contracts clear benchmarks for equity in the extension of affordable access to poor households.
• Developing regulatory systems that are effective and politically independent, with a remit that stretches from the utility network to informal providers.

The report notes that “[t]here is more than enough water in the world for domestic purposes, for agriculture and for industry. The problem is that some people – notably the poor – are systematically excluded.”

I must concede that I don’t know enough about water politics to provide a thorough or critical analysis of the reports findings or recommendations. What I can say is that the report itself engages powerful language and is on-the-whole, a very accessible and moving document.

Download the report at: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/