I voted for Obama. But I have mixed feelings about his environmental policies. His campaign was full of fancy eco-friendly talk that, in many ways, still didn’t really boil down to anything substantial. For instance, his proposed plan was to “encourage organic and sustainable agriculture” by increasing funds that would help farmers to afford the costs associated with compliance with national organic certification standards (www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/EnvironmentFactSheet.pdf). What about decreasing farm subsidies that support farmers who produce absurd amounts of genetically engineered crops in monocultures that rob the soil of its health, causing soil erosion, not to mention the health effects these foods may very well prove to have on humans. How about capping big businesses like GM seed manufacturing giant Monsanto from acquiring a monopoly not only on the American food market, but the international one as well? Want to help small farmers, Obama? How about stepping in and stopping Monsanto from suing farmers whose fields have been unintentionally contaminated by neighboring fields?
In the end, I understand his logic. You can’t hate on Monsanto in your presidential campaign. First of all, I’m willing to bet the majority of the country still doesn’t know what Monsanto is or does (but in the next few years, they will), much less the devastating effects their products have on the environment and low income farmers all over the world. Second of all, Monsanto has big and deeply rooted ties to the US Government (http://www.organicconsumers.org/bytes/ob121.cfm#7), so openly criticizing their company and its devastating effects its policies have on farmers around the world would be political suicide.
Sure, I could stand to have a ‘greener’ president. But mostly, I’d love to have a greener Congress. The President has essentially no real power over these matters. He can propose a bill, he can support a bill, he can veto a bill… but he can’t actually pass one and make it into law.
Yet I can’t let him off the hook entirely, either. Some may argue that the president is little more than a political puppet (http://hooverch.blogspot.com/2010/09/do-we-have-president.html), but even if that is so, he’s a very important puppet with a voice that people hear. He needs to rally the support of his constituents on these issues – he needs to speak out loudly about environmental issues.
As for those who are upset with Obama’s administration (rather than simply Obama himself as the executive), I understand and share their frustrations. I, too, want to know why the administration is not fighting for cleaner energy, and instead supporting utility companies like Duke Energy, American Electric Power, Southern Company, and others (http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/08/obama-utilities-pollution-green-house-gases) when they are have spoken so ardently about the need to pursue sources of clean, efficient energy. But I get lost in the titles – is it Obama, or is it the “Obama Administration?” It is hard to know exactly where he stands, but if we look at the administration’s actions as a reflection of his stance, I think environmental advocates have every right to be upset.
I agree that Obama has done nothing to help farmers gain organic certification, however it would be a bad idea to put the kabash on farm subsidies. Many farmers rely on subsidies to help pay for property taxes. Additionally they are good for the environment by keeping gallons of herbicides and pesticides out of the soil and water and there are other programs that are designed to reestablish the soil composition to prevent erosion. I would actually argue that there should be additional subsides that encourage farmers to reforest their property which would absorb CO2 and grant farmers an income from their property. A win win!
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing about Monsanto is really interesting for me. I've never even heard of them but with the research and your blogs and our conversations in class I'm starting to get a little more enlightened. Is it just Monsanto though, that controls the seed market? And were they supporters of Obama's campaign? I think that would be interesting to research.
ReplyDeleteMartha,
ReplyDeleteby providing subsidies for the use of a certain type of seed, they're enabling a seed monopoly. It doesn't make sense for farmers to be able to sell their crop for BELOW the cost of production. How are farmers interested in growing other varieties of seeds supposed to compete? And this type of bio-diversity is essential to the health of the human diet, and the health of the planet.
And you can hardly say that these subsidies are keeping gallons of herbicides and pesticides out of the soil and water - these seeds REQUIRE the use of very dangerous pesticides and herbicides whose environmental effects are devastating. Monocultures require such chemicals, so maybe the problem lies fundamentally in the way we've changed our farming methods in the last century. You can manage pests in more ways than spraying chemicals all over them - how do you think humans have done it since the dawn of agriculture?
But, I can agree with you that perhaps the government should increase subsidies that might actually encourage a reduction in CO2 emissions (like re-forestation, as you mentioned). I'm not against the government helping farmers out - I'm against the government supporting companies like Monsanto to gain a monopoly whilst effectively destroying the environment and the quality of our food.
Molly,
ReplyDeleteMonsanto is not the only company controlling the seed market, but they are in the lead. The proprietary seed market accounts for roughly 82% (that figure is from 2009) of the commercial seed industry, and of that 82%, Monsanto controls 23%. The runner up is DuPont with control over 15% of the proprietary seed market.
When you consider the fact that in the first half of the 20th century, the seed business was overwhelmingly in the hands of farmers (and public seed breeders, i.e. not for a profit, or at least no significant one), these numbers are alarming.
I have to agree with Molly here the Idea of Monsanto is something that I've never really heard about. It seems as though they have an extremely heavy stake within the market and from our discussions in class it appears as though their practices somewhat shady (having to buy new seeds every year) I also like the point that you make about the president being a political puppet. The obligation of individuals to stick to their parties ideology trumps that of the people that voted them into office. The president is an extremely glorified position that at the surface seems to be more powerful than in actuality. The dependency that the federal government has on corporations like Monsanto makes it especially difficult to institute any substantial change within the economy as a whole. Are political actors accountable for their promises? Because it seems hard to hold them accountable when there is no way for them to implement original ideas--rather they are forced to follow the expectations of their party.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I love hearing about your knowledge about seeds, farming and Monsanto thanks for enlightening me.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Erik's comment, I do think it is important to hold political leaders to their promises. While they feel pressured to follow the expectations of their party, it is because of their political campaigns that they are elected.