Farm Bureau Picks Chinese Hegemony over American Energy Independence

Kelly Fuller wonders what the Farm Bureau is smoking. At their annual meeting in Seattle, the corporate mouthpieces of monoculture, factory farms, industrial food, and Big Ag are taking the same hard line against energy security legislation that made the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lose members. The Farm Bureau appears to plan to stop using "polite," "respectful," and "friendly" language* with any "extremists" who threaten their profits (oh, sorry: I mean their storied way of life) with sensible cap-and-trade legislation.

Perhaps the Farm Bureau will further change their language... to Chinese:

Andy Grove, co-founder of Intel, liked to say that companies come to “strategic inflection points,” where the fundamentals of a business change and they either make the hard decision to invest in a down cycle and take a more promising trajectory or do nothing and wither. The same is true for countries.

The U.S. is at just such a strategic inflection point. We are either going to put in place a price on carbon and the right regulatory incentives to ensure that America is China’s main competitor/partner in the E.T. revolution, or we are going to gradually cede this industry to Beijing and the good jobs and energy security that would go with it [Thomas Friedman, "Who's Sleeping Now?" New York Times, 2010.01.10].

The Farm Bureau has its cute little marketing caps pulled so far down over their eyes they can't see that cap-and-trade is about establishing a sustainable energy future. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will lay the groundwork for a new energy economy that will make energy more affordable and more secure in the long term for farmers and everyone else in America. It will also make our planet a little cleaner.

We can seize this moment to pass serious energy security legislation, including a cap-and-trade system to set a market price on carbon, and position ourselves to compete with China on energy technology, the golden ticket of the modern economy. Or we can stick our heads in the Saudi sand and the oil sands and let this become the Chinese Century.

But if the Chinese get rich on clean energy technology, maybe they'll buy more meat from American factory farms....

p.s.: 48% of Canadians consider climate change a "critical threat" to their country. 28% of Canadians say the same about terrorism.

pp.s.: The Pope might also be wondering what the Farm Bureau is smoking. Of course, the Farm Bureau thinks churches don't have any business advising us how to live in the world.

---------------------------
*This language from American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman sounds alarmingly like a declaration of war on civil discourse. I'm expecting a particularly ugly marketing campaign from AFBF's front blogs, with more of diversionary attacks against reasonable people like Michael Pollan. Stay tuned....

---------------------------
Update 2010.01.17 12:53 CST: Paula Crossfield at Civil Eats writes the Farm Bureau is "denying climate change, undermining labor, and losing relevancy."

Climate Change Legislation: Green Jobs for SD, or Attack on (Corporate) Agriculture?

SDPB's Charles Michael Ray posts a Dakota Digest report on how wind power is boosting the Howard economy. Randy Perry of the forward-thinking Rural Learning Center says that green jobs and green energy have brought more than 230 jobs to Howard this decade. Unfortunately, Miner County as a whole has seen a decline in its workforce from 1500 to 1245 over this decade.

Perry believes, as I do, that climate change legislation would bring even more high-tech, high-pay jobs to Howard and all of South Dakota. But out stomps hog farmer, Clearwater Township chairman Larry Haak to tell us climate change legislation will raise farm input costs and give the EPA power to regulate large farms.

More EPA regulation? Haak evidently missed the point that the American Clean Energy and Security Act is actually a market-based solution that would forestall EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. Haak also evidently missed the point that climate change legislation will do less harm to farmers than unmitigated climate change itself.

But missing the point is to be expected of a vice-chair of the Miner County Farm Bureau. The Farm Bureau, a big corporate lobby founded by the New York Chamber of Commerce and Rockefeller money, is well known for its opposition to climate change legislation or anything else that might force the corporate ag-industrial complex to behave responsibly.

You'd think the average farmer, paragon of patriotism and self-sufficiency, would see the case business leaders and even a South Carolina conservative and former Marine can make for how climate change legislation is good for America's economy, energy independence, and national security (good work, Badlands Blue!). I guess the Farm Bureau is all about flying the flag... until we ask them to support environmental action and innovation that might actually bring small farmers and rural communities new income streams and greater independence from the big ag processors.