> Valery's posting is quite interesting. The proof is not in the rhetoric
> but in the reality including the USDA's positions on import/export and
> crop subsidy programs in addition to its position with regards to energy
> including carbon based fuels. The speech would be a little more meaningful
> if it was accompanied by clear policy statements and positions.
> If one reads the report issued on the president's council on
> sustainability, one will see that it too os . as Shkespeare said, full of
> sound and fury and very little of the latter.
> tom abeles
I'm not sure what the point is here. 1) Crop subsidies are being phased
out under Freedom to Farm. 2)Without an export market, US agriculture
would fall hard, since approx. one-quarter to one-third of most major
commodities are exported (to feed people who need it, I might add).
3) I'm not sure USDA has a "policy" on farmers using fossil fuels, but it
seems to me that its pretty unrealistic to condemn fossil fuel use in
today's world, but instead work to lower usage where appropriate. If this
is the direction that USDA is headed in, might it not be better to
support them not criticize?