Tom Vilsack named as Obama Agriculture Secretary

[inkabinkaboo182]

He's the governor of Iowa right now. I don't know much about him, but Iowa is a center for industrial, unsustainable agriculture, and it seems like you have to suck up to agribusiness to get into office there. Anyone know anything about this? What will it mean for organic and beyond organic agriculture? What will it mean for the organic consumer?

[inkabinkaboo182]

I should probably post a link to where I read this - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/16/tom-vilsack-secretary-of-_n_151566.html

It also mentioned that Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado will be the interior secretary, but honestly I don't even know what that position is. Anyone know anything about that, and/or the appointment?

[inkabinkaboo182]

No one?

[tigerlily78]

I knew the department of the Interior overseas National Parks, the Land Management Bureau, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Here is a directly link to the DOI's description of their role:

http://www.doi.gov/facts.html

I think Salazar seem like a decent pick. He voted against offshore and ANWR drilling and coal shale leasing, so there's two pluses. The article says he will play a role in balancing environmental protection while tapping into our unrealized energy capabilities. That doesn't necessarily imply the tapping will be fossil fuel related. : )

I think someone from out West would have been a better pick for the AG position. They are leading the way with decreased chemical use in agriculture. Maybe Vilsack is a meant to be a figurehead that appeals to the midwestern crowd, but will support progressive changes to the way our agriculture system is run. The article really doesn't tell us too much about him.

[inkabinkaboo182]

From Dailykos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/1 ... 240/674025

[EcoInteractive]

He's the governor of Iowa right now. I don't know much about him, but Iowa is a center for industrial, unsustainable agriculture, and it seems like you have to suck up to agribusiness to get into office there. Anyone know anything about this? What will it mean for organic and beyond organic agriculture? What will it mean for the organic consumer?

I understand the arguments against "industrial, unsustainable agriculture", but I have yet to see a feasible plan to replace it.

We are literally decades away from coming up with another model for feeding the 300 million people that we have in the United States. There is nothing on the horizon that even come close to replacing a significant portion of our food supply.

It is certainly something that we should be talking about. But lets come up with some solutions before we undermine the status quo.

Personally I buy my food from the most amazing little farmers market that you could imagine. So don't start throwing stones at me, I guarantee I live more sustainably the 95% of you.

[Rr_Salamander]

Vilsack seems okay, although I hope he's not too swayed by the whole corn, Iowa thing. As most of us on Treeugger know, the poet G. M. Hopkins was wrong. He claimed that “Nature is never spent.”

It’s simply foolhardy to keep frantically scanning the horizon for a sustainable way to fuel our lifestyles, which are unsustainable due not only to resources and carbon emission, but also to infrastructure and habits.
We need to make fundamental changes in where we live, how often and how far we drive, how many electronics and vehicles we use, etc. Ethanol, coal and oil, wind power, solar power–all of these are not the problem. We are.

What makes Vilsack seem like a good choice is his focus on renewables. Also, he comes from a background of government focused on agriculture. So that's all good.

FIngers' crossed, kids!

[greenteadrinker]

Vilsack-the bad news.............
http://www.organicconsumers.org/article ... _15573.cfm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ag-Sec ... 6-596.html
Some good news....................
"He offered his priorities for protecting organic farmers and organic production systems: labeling to provide consumers a stronger voice in the marketplace and create opportunities for farmers to develop high-valued markets for their products, coupled with separation distances and other similar production, transportation and processing requirements that would protect organic crops from contamination, and establishment of clear liability from the biotechnology company, processor or handler responsible for the contamination when it occurs".
http://www.cfra.org/blog/2008/11/19/dif ... ew-vilsack

Good/bad-you decide................
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/ ... 102302.cfm

[EcoInteractive]

Vilsack seems okay, although I hope he's not too swayed by the whole corn, Iowa thing. As most of us on Treeugger know, the poet G. M. Hopkins was wrong. He claimed that “Nature is never spent.”

It’s simply foolhardy to keep frantically scanning the horizon for a sustainable way to fuel our lifestyles, which are unsustainable due not only to resources and carbon emission, but also to infrastructure and habits.
We need to make fundamental changes in where we live, how often and how far we drive, how many electronics and vehicles we use, etc. Ethanol, coal and oil, wind power, solar power–all of these are not the problem. We are.

I just don't think that this is necessarily true. Personally I choose to maintain a very small footprint.

However I do not think it is necessary to impose this vision upon the future. For example we are working with a technology that carbonizes cellulose and the output of this technology is that you are not only sequestering substantial amounts of carbon, you are also producing energy as well as producing a byproduct that recharges topsoil and sequesters the carbon in the soil (where it belongs). This is just one example.

Another is they now have a paint that act as solar cell. In the future it is possible that everything with a surface exposed to the sun can be producing energy.

I am all for using less, I doubt that there are many on this board that consume less than I do. But lets not impose the limits of our imagination on future generations.

[stevejust]

One of the reasons I threw so much support behind Obama over Hillary is her cozy relationship with Monsano. Vilsack has a much too cozy relationship with Monsanto. Much too cozy. I started a separate thread about Monsanto and GMOs here:


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7676

[inkabinkaboo182]

Vilsack is a huge fan of ethanol, apparently, which is a terrible thing. Obama and Hillary are, as well. But Steven Chu, Obama's energy secretary (I believe), is very much against using it.

Management intensive grazing produces more meat for the relative size of the farm than industrial farming, I believe. Industrial organic farming doesn't, but a lot of truly sustainable farming produces more than non-organic methods. I'm no expert, but that's what I've heard from, among other places, Michael Pollan's books.