Former Iowa Gov. May be Obama’s Choice for Agriculture Chief
Tom Vilsack — former two-term Governor of Iowa, strong biofuels supporter, and former democratic candidate for president himself — has been leaked as President-elect Obama’s frontrunner for Agriculture Secretary.
From a biofuels standpoint, the choice of Vilsack would be a clear indication of the direction an Obama administration would likely take. As a political leader from a corn farming state, Vilsack has shown strong allegiances with the corn ethanol industry in the past and has been an outspoken advocate of alternative energy.
- » See also: The CitiCar Capital Of The USA (And Perhaps The World): Browntown, Wisconsin
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
Yet, although Vilsack has ties to the corn ethanol industry, he has also shown an understanding that the future of biofuels lays in non-food sources. From an interview last year, Vilsack stated:
“Don’t assume that I necessarily think corn is the answer. I think it was a great way to start the conversation but in the long run there is not enough corn and we do not want to create a competition between food, fiber and fuel.”
“We need to encourage the research and development of alternatives to corn. We also need to take a look at the tariffs in terms of Brazil. We need to reduce and ultimately eliminate those tariffs, bring the Brazilian ethanol into this country, create a demand for E85, put pressure on Detroit to create more flexible-fuel vehicles and you’re going to see a growing economy and a less-dependent oil economy.”
With those statements, it seems Vilsack clearly agrees with John McCain that the Brazilian ethanol tariffs should be eliminated. This was somewhat of a hot topic during the presidential campaign and was brought up several times in the debates.
In the past, Obama has defended the ethanol tariffs saying that it doesn’t make sense to replace one foreign source of energy with another and that “the U.S. needs to dramatically expand domestic biofuels production, not embrace a short term fix that discourages investment in the expansion of the domestic renewable fuels in industry.”
If Vilsack does become Agriculture Secretary under President Obama, it should be interesting to see how the two reconcile their differences over the Brazilian ethanol tariff situation.
Source: Biofuels Digest
Image Credit: Wikimedia in the public domain
This guy seems way to logical, no way he makes it to D.C..
“This guy seems way to logical, no way he makes it to D.C..”
Agreed. He’s actually thinking instead of pandering. I’ll be extremely surprised if he makes it into the Obama administration. If, somehow, he does, I look for him to suddenly “realize” the error of his ways within a few weeks of getting there.
If it grows it competes with food. Doesn’t matter if it is made of non-food feedstock or not. This notion that we can grow fuel and have it not compete with food is nonsensical. There’s only so much farmland.
Cameron,
You’ve got to remember that not all land that is farmland is capable of growing food. Depending on soil type, rainfall, irrigation availability and climate, some lands are only suitable (and provide profit) for things like growing grasses (for instance, about 500,000 acres of the Willamette Valley in Oregon). Also remember that much of the farmland we currently use to grow food can only support food with intensive (some might say destructive) management. Growing non-food replacements (like grasses) on that land might actually be better in the long run. Additionally, there is a lot of land that currently isn’t classified as farmland that lies fallow or barely used and is not critical habitat that could be put to use growing biofuel crops (like grasses).
So, in answer to your statement, I disagree.
Nick,
Being a farmer in the Pacific Northwest I know beyond a shadow of doubt that the Willamette Valley is capable of growing crops, including corn.
I happen to turn grass into protein in the form of beef, so yes, areas that can only grow grass have to be considered capable of growing ‘food’. Properly managed ruminants (cattle, sheep, etc) recycle nutrients back into the soil (and carbon in the form of increased organic matter) via manure.
If grasses like switchgrass are raised as feedstock for ethanol those lands will require copious amounts of synthetic fertilizers. If they are marginals lands the nutrients will quickly be mined out and then they will be truly worthless for raising anything.
Finally, if farmers can get more money for growing fuel, then why would they plant anything else? It will compete with food.
Cameron,
Working for the Oregon Department of Agriculture, regulating the grass seed industry and being a licensed professional soil scientist, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Willamette Valley has far more than 500,000 acres of arable land. What your comment implies is that you assumed there were only 500,000 acres of arable land in the Valley.
For sure the Valley can grow crops other than grass seed (and where it can it does very well, like close to the Willamette River in the sandy well-drained soils with plenty of irrigation), but not on that land that doesn’t have irrigation or the wells run dry in the middle of the summer. If you are a farmer of any size in the Willamette Valley, you should know this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Turning grass into cows is one of the most inefficient uses of land to make food that I can think of. Not that I’m opposed to it (I’m a meatie), just that I think it happens to be a horrible way to argue that land incapable of producing food crops can “grow” food.
In all of the switchgrass trials and research I’ve seen, it doesn’t require “copious” amounts of fertilizer or pesticides (in fact that’s one of the selling points). It doesn’t matter if you get some weeds in your cellulosic biofuel feedstock because it can all be turned into biofuel.
Farmers will never make more money growing fuel crops than food crops once we get our subsidies worked out and the commodities markets find their new tracks. And again, there are some types of land that cannot be used to grow food, so people with that land will be profiting from this new type of income potential.
Nick,
“Turning grass into cows is one of the most inefficient uses of land to make food that I can think of.”
Name a more efficient way to raise beef. I’ll give you the alternative: confining animals to feedlots and trucking the feed to them and hauling out the waste.
Cameron man,
I didn’t say the “least efficient way to raise beef,” I said the “least efficient use of land to make food.” You’d have to agree that there are other types of food besides beef. And certainly, you’re right, if we’re going to raise beef to eat, the most humane and healthiest way is on open pasture eating grass.
Regardless, all that still doesn’t change the fact that it takes way more land and energy to feed a cow and subsequently feed a human off that cow than it does simply to feed a human from that same land.
Again, I’m not personally advocating that we all stop eating meat, just stating that your argument that even land incapable of growing actual human food crops can be used to raise beef is not a good argument. From the standpoint of energy efficiency and making the best use of land, when you compare making cellulosic biofuels on a particular plot of land to growing beef, the cellulosic ethanol wins hands down no contest.
Folks,
Let’s face it. Oil is still has a much smaller carbon footprint and social consequences than ethanol. Part of our plan, at least for the short term is to use oil wisely.
As for the geopolitical ramifications, I suggest that we take that leftover $350 billion from TARP, buy oil on the market and pump it back into the Prudhoe bay field which is 1/2 full right now (14B bls of capacity). The oil price is heading for $25/bl. At that point, the math works.