tagged w/ political cronyism
-
I’ll admit it. I’m an unabashed fan of the First Lady. I read every article about the White House organic garden and I go to Michele’s farmers’ market every Thursday. I’m a fan and I’m a little jealous, too. She’s managed to educate DC school children and provide farm fresh food to state dinners. The garden I started at my daughter’s DC public school this spring was abandoned to the office and maintenance staff this summer, then plowed under in a schoolyard renovation before school started in the fall, and has yet to feed any students.
Because I admire the First Lady’s good example, I am shocked by the chemical agribusiness and biotech cheerleading of her husband’s administration. From USDA and FDA appointments of biotech and chemical industry insiders, to support for the preposterous idea that genetic engineering can feed the world, it is obvious that the Obama Administration is happy to assist agribusiness in its quest for world domination.
World domination sounds a little histrionic, doesn’t it? But, there’s no other way to describe the profit-at-any-cost business model of companies like Monsanto that seek to patent and control access to seeds and food and decide for the world what we can eat. The question that faces humanity today is, “Shall we let Monsanto, Cargill, McDonald’s and a handful of other multinational corporations decide the future of food?”
Proponents of the so-called Second Green Revolution, led by the chemical, biotech and industrial biofuels lobby, are spending millions each year on advertisements and donations to politicians, universities, and non-profits to convince us that the only way to feed the world and survive climate change is through high technology—relying on factory farm animal production, genetic engineering, toxic pesticides, nitrate chemical fertilizers, and compliant farmers, farm workers, and consumers.
With far fewer resources, the organic movement is generating the science to support an alternative view. Organic agriculture can feed the world, turn back climate change and make food production more resilient to droughts and floods. Organic agriculture can do it with biodiversity instead of biotech, greenhouse gas sequestration instead of emissions, integrated pest management instead of toxic pesticides, humus-rich compost instead of fossil fuel fertilizers or sewage sludge, more family farmers and better conditions for farm workers.
The question of which agriculture model will dominate food production is a question we only have one opportunity to answer. Once a seed or animal variety is extinct or contaminated with foreign genes, we will never get it back. In an age when a billion people are stuffed while a billion people are starved, most people on the planet suffer from either poor nutrition, exposure to toxic ingredients, diet-related diseases, or all three. Agriculture is a life and death issue for all of us.
So, which side is the Obama Administration on? The first answer to that question is, well, who’s in the Obama Administration?
Let’s start with the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. While Iowa Governor, Vilsack was a leading advocate for Monsanto, genetic engineering, and factory farming.
The senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety is Michael Taylor. The Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 until 2001, Taylor exemplifies the revolving door between the food industry and the government agencies that regulate it.
Rajiv Shah is the USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist. Agricultural policy experts initially expressed concern that Shah, Director of Agricultural Development Programs at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, lacked real experience in agriculture. Shah was the founding director of the Gates Foundation's agriculture program, which has donated $37 million to GM research.
much more about GMO cronyism at the link.I’ll admit it. I’m an unabashed fan of the First Lady. I read every... more
-
-
The Obama administration announced the winners of the first phase of "clean coal" dollars from the economic stimulus package, with the largest sums going to oil firms.
Only $21.6 million of the $1.4 billion for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies was made available in phase one. The money was awarded to 12 companies that will test ways to catch and compress CO2 from polluting plants, transport it by pipeline and pump it underground.
The biggest winners were C6 Resources, a Shell Oil affiliate; ConocoPhillips; and Shell Chemicals, another division of Shell Oil. Each nabbed $3 million to demonstrate their technologies for seven months.
In the announcement, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recycled the 'clean coal' boilerplate of past releases: "These new technologies will not only help fight climate change, they will create jobs now," although there was no estimate of how many jobs will be generated.
He also repeated this claim:
"The investments will help position the United States to lead the world in carbon dioxide capture technologies."
America still has a long way to go, though. A few subsidy-funded R&D tests are now being carried out, but none is considered economically feasible on a large scale, or even that clean.
A massive, 1,300-MW West Virginia coal plant just became the nation's first facility to pipe a small portion of its global-warming emissions back in the Earth. For an investment of more than $100 million, about 1.5 percent of the plant's CO2 will be sequestered.
Despite his critics, Chu has stood firm on CCS, becoming one of its staunchest proponents. In a September op-ed in Science Magazine he explained why:
"... the United States, Russia, China, and India account for two-thirds of the [world's coal] reserves. Coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions. It is highly unlikely that any of these countries will turn their back on coal any time soon, and for this reason, the capture and storage of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued."
Some form of CO2 reduction technology is necessary. And while CCS has become the solution of choice for politicians, its actual implementation worldwide is all close to absent – and it's certain to be devilishly complex if and when it begins.
Research shows that returning a fraction of global emissions back into the Earth would require pumping as much compressed gas underground as all the oil being taken out. The infrastructure needed for that exceeds what is possible to build in a generation – or maybe ever.The Obama administration announced the winners of the first phase of "clean... more
-
-
First Michael Taylor, NOW Dennis Wolff? VERY DISAPPOINTING. Please sign this petition and tell Obama to stop appointing Monsanto point men to the FDA while spouting about how much he cares about food safety.
Where's the change?First Michael Taylor, NOW Dennis Wolff? VERY DISAPPOINTING. Please sign this petition... more
-
-
Last month Chevron was awarded the "Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Business Leadership" in "recognition of the company's global public health programs." (And, no, this is not a story from The Onion.) It was first reported by Newsweek's Michael Isikoff. The award, from the Global Business Coalition, was bestowed upon Chevron at a June 24 ceremony in honor of its work "to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria." In a world where war criminals like Henry Kissinger receive the Nobel Peace Prize and murderous thugs like former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe are given the U.S. "Presidential Medal of Freedom," perhaps this award should not come as a surprise. Other award recipients included Shell Oil (which just paid $15.5 million to settle a lawsuit over its alleged involvement in the killing of Nigerian playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other activists), Marathon Oil and Anglo Coal of South Africa. In giving Chevron the award, the GBC asserted Chevron "has long been a leader in the fight for global health." But those who have monitored the company's record for years beg to differ.
"Giving Chevron an award for its fight against malaria is like giving Phillip Morris an award for smoking cessation programs," says Steve Kretzmann, a longtime environmental activist and Executive Director of Oil Change International. "Chevron is doing everything it can to lobby against climate change legislation and produce more oil, which causes climate change. A changing climate will greatly increase the spread and range of malaria globally, and higher rates of HIV in oil producing communities owing to the prevalence of prostitution is well documented."
Judith Chomsky, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which sued Chevron for its involvement in killings and other abuses in the Niger Delta says the awarding of such a "prize to Chevron elevates form over substance," adding, "Outside of photo ops and international scrutiny, where the populations are poor and lacking the ability to effect Chevron's behavior, Chevron operates in total disregard for the health and environmental consequences of its operations." In recognizing Chevron, the GBC cited the company's work in Nigeria. But Chomsky charges that in Nigeria the company has severely damaged the environment and harmed indigenous communities. "The fact that Chevron uses some of its ill-gotten profits for public displays of civic actions does not balance out the greater harm for which it is responsible," she says.
While giving such an award to Chevron is perverse enough on its own, let's remember whom it is that the award is named after. Richard C. Holbrooke is currently the Obama administration's point man on Afghanistan and Pakistan with a substantial portfolio that includes areas of Chevron's current and, likely, future operations. Before becoming Obama's "Af/Pak" envoy, Holbrooke was the president and CEO of GBC, an organization he spent the past decade building. Holbrooke, who cut his teeth working for Henry Kissinger during Vietnam, has, for decades, marched back-and-forth over the golden bridge linking corporations and government. Chevron received the award in large part because it committed $30 million over three years to the GBC-affiliated Global Fund in 2008 while Holbrooke was GBC's president and CEO.
In its press release on the award, Chevron labeled the prize "prestigious" despite the fact that it is the first time it has been presented and was named after Holbrooke after he joined the Obama administration.
____________________
It never really changes, does it?Last month Chevron was awarded the "Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Business... more
-
-
And if Michael "Monsanto" Taylor states their concerns are overblown, then you know there is something to be worried about. The fact that the words "food safety" were used as part of the title of this bill to thwart criticism is a political ploy that is glaringly so obvious. Make no mistake about it, because of this bill small farmers will suffer on some scale while the real culprits (industrial agriculture and factory farms) once again get a free ride.
Excerpt:
Members of a powerful House committee and farmers raised alarms Thursday about a food-safety bill steamrolling through Congress, saying it could hurt small farmers, conflict with organic growing methods and trump efforts to boost wildlife habitat and water and air quality.
Overshadowed by the health care debate on Capitol Hill, the bill is part of a broad effort backed by the Obama administration and consumer groups to tighten food-safety rules after national outbreaks of food-borne illness caused by salmonella, E. coli and other pathogens in cookie dough, peanuts, produce and beef.
The Food Safety Enhancement Act by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, would give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate all farms. It has provoked uproar among small farmers.
"There's been a battle cry in North Carolina, that the FDA is coming onto the farm," said Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture oversees most farms, but regulates only meat, poultry and egg safety. FDA oversees other food but generally has not extended its reach to farms.
The legislation divides large and small growers in California, where most of the nation's fresh produce is grown.
Drew McDonald, head of quality systems for Taylor Farms in Salinas, the world's largest salad processor, said he favors FDA regulation as a way to fight the proliferation of private, often unscientific, food safety rules imposed by large buyers.
Farmers around Monterey Bay say that many of the rules, which are kept secret, have forced them to poison wildlife, destroy habitat and remove vegetative buffers that naturally filter pollutants and pathogens.
A Chronicle report Monday on environmental damage in the Salinas Valley caused by the rules was cited in testimony at Thursday's Agriculture Committee hearing.
Large growers have devised a Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement based on the best available science to try to thwart the private rules, but progress in getting large buyers to accept them has been slow.
Small growers say they are not the source of the problem, which is confined almost entirely to mass-processed food, including bagged greens intended as a convenience to consumers.
Organic growers fear food-safety rules that could mandate production techniques banned in organic agriculture or duplicate rules they already follow.
Nicolas Maravell, a small organic farmer in Maryland, said the ancient practice of raising livestock and food on the same farm is banned under the FDA's current voluntary rules. He said the rules put sustainable farming methods at risk.
"This is a fast-moving train," Maravell said. "Nobody wants to stand in front of legislation that has the words 'food safety' in it."
end of excerpt.And if Michael "Monsanto" Taylor states their concerns are overblown, then... more
-
-
Just two weeks after the federal government revived plans to build the FutureGen power plant in eastern Illinois, two of the experimental coal plant's financial backers announced Thursday they are withdrawing.
The exit of American Electric Power Co. and Southern Co. leaves the nine power and coal companies that are still part of what's known as the FutureGen Alliance searching for new partners to help cover building and start-up costs they expect to reach roughly $2.4 billion.
The Department of Energy said it would provide just over a billion dollars on June 12 when it agreed to restart the long-stalled project, aimed at proving that the pollutant carbon dioxide can be removed from coal and safely stored.
Both AEP and Southern, two of the country's largest utilities, cited concerns about cost.
AEP says it will leave the project by July 1, mentioning both uncertainty about its details and how much money the Columbus, Ohio-based utility would have to spend.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Illinois | Steven Chu | American Electric Power | Consol Energy | Southern Company
"There's like a billion dollar shortfall between what the alliance originally agreed to fund and what we think it's going to cost," AEP spokeswoman Melissa McHenry said. "There's not a definitive message from the Department of Energy of what scope and scale the project" will be, she said.
In reviving the project, the Department of Energy has said FutureGen's carbon removal and storage goals might have to be scaled back.
In a weak economy, AEP is cutting its capital spending and will focus on other carbon capture projects that it is involved in, McHenry said.
Southern Co. spokesman Steve Higginbottom called the decision "definitely financial" and declined to elaborate. The Atlanta-based company will spend only on other carbon capture projects it is working on, he said.
FutureGen had already said it needed to find new partners to help share the costs of the project, spokesman Lawrence Pacheco said, and is negotiating with several companies. He declined to name them.
"The alliance," Pacheco added, "will be working with DOE to figure out the cost share of the project moving forward, and that agreement will reflect the scale of the project, as well as the cost."
The Department of Energy did not immediately return a message from The Associated Press.
_______________
2.4 billion dollars that could be used for SOLAR energy that we already know WORKS. Just what is this administration thinking? There is no such thing as clean coal, and this is a waste of taxpayer dollars. How can anyone claim this climate bill is any good if they are going to allow projects like this? This is just another mechanism to allow coal companies to continue spewing the same amount of CO2 they always spew. It matters not if it is in the air or in the ground, it it still BEING MADE and CO2 under ground has not been definitively proven to not have longterm effects on groundwater resources. And of course, HOW that coal is gotten through mountaintop removal makes it the dirtiest source of energy regardless of what you try to tell us about "cleaning" it. I would think any Energy Secretary who was a Nobel prize winner would know that. But I suppose since this is in Illinois, it is being revived for Obama's buddies. Clean coal is ok to them if it makes their campaign contributors money.Just two weeks after the federal government revived plans to build the FutureGen power... more
-
-
I suspect they are doing this because most of the comments previously were against it, so they redo their risk assessment and open comments again. They can't wait to release yet another environmental time bomb on the planet as if there isn't enough transgenic contamination already to go around. And in this case, GM corn for ethanol means it is definitely not fit for human consumption. But who cares, right? Let's just grow it in open fields for the wind to carry its toxic dust onto our food and in our water while they continue to tell us there is no difference between this frankenstein corn and natural food. All for the profit margins of Monsanto and Syngenta. And once again it will fall on deaf ears.I suspect they are doing this because most of the comments previously were against it,... more
-
-
The Bush administration forced out the U.S. EPA's top Midwest regulator on Thursday, after months of contention over a pollution case involving Dow Chemical, the Chicago Tribune reports. Mary Gade, who was appointed by President Bush in 2006, had been tussling with Dow over plans to get the company to clean up extensive dioxin pollution that it dumped into Michigan waterways for decades. Dow asked EPA headquarters to intervene in the dispute, and top deputies to EPA chief Stephen Johnson repeatedly questioned Gade about the case. Then she was stripped of her authority and told to quit or be fired. "There is no question this is about Dow," Gade said. "I stand behind what I did and what my staff did. I'm proud of what we did."
~~~~~
Just how much are they going to get away with?The Bush administration forced out the U.S. EPA's top Midwest regulator on... more
-
