I don’t know if there’s a list, but I’ve been following Vilsack and he’s walking the fine line of mentioning “food” and “consumers” and “people won’t buy food that scares them” along with the obligatory nod to production agriculture. Conversation that NEVER happens in Iowa.
Vilsack’s proposal to eliminate the nothing-but-giveaway direct subsidies for the 6 basic commodities was a true step in the right direction. Of course, Iowa corn farmers shivered over losing their government handout – even some of our very best friends at Iowa Farmers Union, for example. Changing govt policy is fine, unless it costs me money – I found that reaction very short-sighted (and downright dumb) – so I am following the two food issues that may rise to the surface in federal discussions – better food for school lunch and eliminating direct subsidies designed solely to promote excess production of corn.
While the Sierra Club praised the appointment of Vilsack, the Iowa Chapter has remained quiet. Mostly because of the uproar from this listserv, would be my guess as to why. Biotech is still an outstanding issue, I believe, and because there is at least some science on both sides of the issue, biotech is much harder to pigeon hole than something like CAFOs which are pure bad. Realizing I may cause reaction to my previous sentence… I guess that’s the point, though. We’re up in the air – or downright flat against – biotech. But there is so much more that USDA is involved in and where Vilsack is doing the “right” thing. As far as this current action, I personally follow the ag issues and not national forests. Maybe someone else knows the answers to Ken’s final questions….
Donna
_____
From: Iowa Discussion, Alerts and Announcements [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of KENNETH LARSON
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Vilsack
Is there a list of the things Vilsack has done right (or perhaps "correctly" is a better word), in his new job? Is there a list of things he has done wrong.. ? Was the Iowa Sierra Club one of the first to congratulate him and to thank him for this latest action...? If that note of appreciation has not yet been sent, I am sure it would be appreciated.
I appreciate hearing about this Positive effort that is in line with SC recommendations.. It would be interesting to know if Vilsack made this ruling in response to SC or other environmental group efforts or was he just paying attention to the Laws and Regulations by putting Bush/Cheney efforts to on Hold..
Ken Larson
----- Original Message -----
From: Wally Taylor <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:36 PM
Subject: Vilsack does something right
Vilsack <http://coloradoindependent.com/29841/vilsack-issues-directive-protecting-national-forest-roadless-areas> issues directive protecting national forest roadless areas
<http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php> By <http://coloradoindependent.com/author/dwilliams/> David O. Williams 5/28/09 5:34 PM
Agriculture Secretary <http://www.environmentcolorado.org/uploads/XV/b3/XVb3YtkXHgpoFLMaOe-TjQ/InventoriedRoadless_InterimDirective_Final.pdf> Tom Vilsack Thursday issued a memorandum essentially blocking most development and road building on more than 53 million acres of national forest (4.4 million in Colorado) designated as roadless areas.
Conservationists were quick to praise Vilsack and the Obama administration’s one-year “time out” to establish a long-term policy for managing roadless areas. Most favor a return to the 2001 Clinton administration Roadless Area Conservation Rule.
That highly protective bit of rulemaking was quickly set aside by the Bush administration in favor of allowing states to petition the Forest Service for their own customized roadless rules. Only Idaho and Colorado did so, with Gov. Bill Ritter moving forward in order to protect against the federal rule being scrapped altogether.
Ritter, though, asked for and received a <http://coloradoindependent.com/17103/ritter-slows-down-bush-roadless-rule-conservationists-cheer> slowdown on the implementation of the Colorado roadless rule until the federal rule, which was the subject of conflicting federal court rulings, could be sorted out.
At stake are more than 100 oil and gas leases on federal lands issued after the Bush administration scrapped the Clinton rule. State conservationists also say the Colorado rule allows more road-building exceptions for logging operations and ski-area expansions than the Clinton rule.
_____
Cooking Dinner For Two? Sign <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222652750x1201460983/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215225797%3B37274671%3Bq%3Fhttp:%2F%2Frecipes.cookingfor2.pillsbury.com%2F%3FESRC%3D934> Up & Get Immediate Member-Only Savings.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
|
