One of the more encouraging things that Vilsack said in his press conference when he was nominated was that he was going to put nutrition at the center of his nutrition program in the Department of Agriculture, which must have struck a lot of listeners as, "Well, duh," but in fact nutrition has not been at the center of these programs; disposing of agricultural surplus has been at the center of these programs. So if that really comes to pass I think that would be wonderful. (emphasis added)"Disposing of agricultural surplus?" Perhaps this is why we have been reaping the "benefits" of corn ethanol in our fuel for the past number of years? Corn ethanol which, in its most common form of E85, reduces fuel mileage by about 25%? (Read further on in the linked Consumer Reports article and you get to the fact that the Bush Administration gave tax credits to the American auto manufacturers to build "flex-fuel vehicles," usually large-trucks/SUVs, so that the auto manufacturers could greenwash their vehicles through the use of an inefficient biofuel that contributes to the creation of high-fructose corn syrup that is making our children fat. I would argue that it is through the collusion of the federal government in cases such as this that permitted the US auto manufacturers not to move towards more efficient vehicles, thereby helping them get to their mostly insolvent current state. Hmm, nefarious much Bushies?) When you get right down to it, is it not the mark of a society with a surplus of surplus that we would even consider developing a source of food into a fuel to put in our automobiles? Not only that, but the fact that all of government could get behind this inefficient fuel as a way to satisfy a key caucus state in the presidential primaries? (See page 2 of the Pollan interview.) How can we justify ourselves to nations with millions of starving people?
The battle between Tom Vilsack and the environmental wing of the Obama Administration that will occur is going to be rather fascinating, and knowing what I have observed of Obama over the past 1.5 years of close observation, I am sure he will find a third way to walk between the two extremes. I'm really thrilled about Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy, however. This guy has credibility to spare, being a Nobel Laureate in physics and all, but he will also have to toe the line on conventional versus alternative energy in order to satisfy Congressional Republicans and moderate Democrats. The fact that last week Chu and Obama effectively declared Yucca Mountain, the boondoggle of a nuclear waste storage facility 100 miles outside of Las Vegas, dead shows me that Chu won't be playing by the usual Washington rules of continuing to fund Yucca simply because it's a waste of money to let it die. Hopefully he'll shake up the rest of our energy sector the same way, starting with the electrical transmission system in our country that needs upgrades and expansion to accommodate future alternative energies.
So this post was supposed to be about food, not energy, but honestly, the fact that food is being employed for energy production these days forces me to address both, so I apologize for getting "off-track" somewhat. It pains me to think of the children I saw in Rwanda with their bellies swollen from malnutrition, while knowing that millions of cars getting gas pumped into them in this country are ingesting food that could benefit those children. As with so many things in life, this will be a wait-and-see deal, but keep your eyes peeled for news of Obama's energy plan and where ethanol fits into the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment