Robbing Peter To Pay Paul
The current administration has finally decided that we need to find another source of energy, especially since Middle East oil has gotten such bad press of late. Bush's answer is ethanol, the kind produced from corn. While it's hard to argue against considering ethanol as one of many pieces to the puzzle, especially in the short term, this administration is rather heavy-handedly pushing it as the answer, even though this approach will undoubtedly cause many more problems than the one it purports to solve. An article in today's Los Angeles Times showcases just one of those problems.
Over the last two decades, the federal government has built the nation's largest conservation program for private lands by spending billions of dollars to encourage farmers to protect land that is prone to erosion and important to wildlife.
Now the Conservation Reserve Program is about to shrink by millions of acres as part of the Bush administration's plans for stimulating corn production for ethanol to reduce dependence on foreign oil. ...
The $2-billion-per-year federal program pays owners not to cultivate land that is prone to erosion, marginal for farming or significant for wildlife habitat.
Since its inception in 1985, the voluntary program has protected 2 million acres of wetlands, planted 1.7 million acres of grass and trees along streams and other waterways, reduced soil erosion by 450 million tons per year and increased the duck population by millions through improved habitat. ...
Conservation groups say the administration's strategy is counterproductive. "Most of this land was enrolled because it is highly erodible or very environmentally sensitive," said Terry Riley, vice president of policy at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. "So why on Earth would we be encouraging people to get out of the program and put it into production, which encourages more runoff, fertilizer and pesticides?"
Moreover, conservationists argue that opening protected lands for corn production does not make sense because much of it is not suited for that crop. "What are we trying to accomplish here?" asked Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, farm bill coordinator for the Assn. of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. [Emphasis added]
The Bush administration has from the start made it clear that when it comes to the environment, big business interests take precedence. The decision to force corn production on the farmers is no exception to that rule. This government thinks only in the short term: monthly and quarterly bottom lines. Taking highly erodable land out of the program for a crop that requires plenty of water during the growing season is just begging for more, well, soil erosion.
This is bad enough, but pushing corn for the sole purpose of providing another fuel source for the nation causes other problems, as an article in yesterday's Sacramento Bee makes clear.
Matching a national trend, California farmers plan to sow nearly 20 percent more corn this year than last, an increase of 100,000 acres and a state record. But unlike in the rest of the country, most of the new plantings here are driven by the need to feed cattle, not ethanol refineries.
In the past year, demand for corn to feed refineries as well as a robust export outlook have pushed corn prices to their highest levels since the late 1990s. Industry experts say the prices aren't high enough for most farmers to plant corn for ethanol. But they are high enough that planting corn is one way for livestock producers to cut their feed costs.
Corn has never been a big crop in California for many reasons, not the least of which is the water requirement. Water is a precious commodity in this state, and after an unusually dry winter, it is even more precious this year. The problem the state's farmers face is that the emphasis on ethanol production has pushed the price of corn up, which means the price of corn used for silage has gone up. When that higher price is coupled with increased shipping costs, livestock producers find themselves in a bind. Growing their own feed looks to be the only answer, which means that thousands of acres normally used for other California crops are being used for corn.
None of that apparently concerns the White House, which comes as no surprise.
Over the last two decades, the federal government has built the nation's largest conservation program for private lands by spending billions of dollars to encourage farmers to protect land that is prone to erosion and important to wildlife.
Now the Conservation Reserve Program is about to shrink by millions of acres as part of the Bush administration's plans for stimulating corn production for ethanol to reduce dependence on foreign oil. ...
The $2-billion-per-year federal program pays owners not to cultivate land that is prone to erosion, marginal for farming or significant for wildlife habitat.
Since its inception in 1985, the voluntary program has protected 2 million acres of wetlands, planted 1.7 million acres of grass and trees along streams and other waterways, reduced soil erosion by 450 million tons per year and increased the duck population by millions through improved habitat. ...
Conservation groups say the administration's strategy is counterproductive. "Most of this land was enrolled because it is highly erodible or very environmentally sensitive," said Terry Riley, vice president of policy at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. "So why on Earth would we be encouraging people to get out of the program and put it into production, which encourages more runoff, fertilizer and pesticides?"
Moreover, conservationists argue that opening protected lands for corn production does not make sense because much of it is not suited for that crop. "What are we trying to accomplish here?" asked Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, farm bill coordinator for the Assn. of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. [Emphasis added]
The Bush administration has from the start made it clear that when it comes to the environment, big business interests take precedence. The decision to force corn production on the farmers is no exception to that rule. This government thinks only in the short term: monthly and quarterly bottom lines. Taking highly erodable land out of the program for a crop that requires plenty of water during the growing season is just begging for more, well, soil erosion.
This is bad enough, but pushing corn for the sole purpose of providing another fuel source for the nation causes other problems, as an article in yesterday's Sacramento Bee makes clear.
Matching a national trend, California farmers plan to sow nearly 20 percent more corn this year than last, an increase of 100,000 acres and a state record. But unlike in the rest of the country, most of the new plantings here are driven by the need to feed cattle, not ethanol refineries.
In the past year, demand for corn to feed refineries as well as a robust export outlook have pushed corn prices to their highest levels since the late 1990s. Industry experts say the prices aren't high enough for most farmers to plant corn for ethanol. But they are high enough that planting corn is one way for livestock producers to cut their feed costs.
Corn has never been a big crop in California for many reasons, not the least of which is the water requirement. Water is a precious commodity in this state, and after an unusually dry winter, it is even more precious this year. The problem the state's farmers face is that the emphasis on ethanol production has pushed the price of corn up, which means the price of corn used for silage has gone up. When that higher price is coupled with increased shipping costs, livestock producers find themselves in a bind. Growing their own feed looks to be the only answer, which means that thousands of acres normally used for other California crops are being used for corn.
None of that apparently concerns the White House, which comes as no surprise.
Labels: Ethanol
posted by Diane at 4:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home