Citizens' Daily Lobby

Fresh-faced Patrick Kennedy, lately of the Clinton School, now Democratic candidate for Congress in AR-02, unlike most of his competition, is not afraid to state his position on the issues.    There are ideas aplenty in the  9 pages his website devotes to a range of issues.   Health care reform?  He’s for “non-traditional competition” to private insurers and supports the mandate for preventive coverage.   Fiscal responsibility?  How about corporations pay their  fair share?  National lottery?  More donations to charity?  Innovation prizes for research?

Where does Patrick stand on environmental issues?  He supports modified cap and trade and tighter regulations on wetlands, the gradual end of subsidies for oil and natural gas, and innovation prizes (again with the prize money).  Civil rights?  He supports a woman’s right to choose, the overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  It’s good to know someone out there is willing to separate himself from the Conservatives on these  issues.

Like many Americans on both Left and Right, Patrick thinks the US should pull out of NAFTA, and he adds the World Trade Organization as well.   Many believe taking these steps will strengthen our exports.  It will also likely loosen the stranglehold that multinationals currently have on governments the world over and limit the “race to the bottom” that results when they move jobs and production to countries with the lowest labor costs and least stringent environmental regulations.

His website is well-done and informative, and he seems a solid Democrat in the old sense of the word.   And, oh, yeah, he would like you to know he’s  not one of those Kennedys.

The cap and trade system proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last year could actually lead to increased farm income, according to the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center. This is due to the fact that agricultural enterprises would not be “capped” under the bill, but would still be eligible to make additional income via offsets.    This is in contrast to regulation of CO2 by the EPA without passage of cap and trade legislation, which is predicted to place additional cost and regulatory burden on farmers.  Of the three methods of regulating greenhouse gas emissions (cap and trade, regulation, and carbon taxes), cap and trade is the friendliest to agriculture.   Under cap and trade with offsets, the return to farmers  (of commodities, at least)  might look something like the data presented in Table 2.  The Center acknowledges that without some control of greenhouse gas emissions, the effects of climate change on agriculture would leave agriculture “vulnerable to the vagaries of climate change not only in the US but in the world”.   Full story here.

It will be important for agriculture to carefully consider the offsets available and to choose those that don’t take too much cropland out of production (ie, for forestation).   I would be interested to see what the data might look like for returning land that is currently in commodity production to growing produce and animal protein for local markets.  Mainstream agricultural economics doesn’t do a very good job of looking at serious alternatives to our current agricultural system.

Through Conservative media outlets, the right has billed climate change as a hoax perpetrated by left-wing environmentalists and their goofy scientist-type friends.    Like the Theory of Evolution, climate change has become more a matter of a belief system than a discussion of scientific evidence.   As with other issues where the Right has controlled the dialogue, Americans are confused about climate change.   A recent Pew Center for the People and the Press survey demonstrated that fewer Americans now trust the evidence for “global warming” than last year.    And fewer Americans believe it is caused by human activity, or even that it is a serious problem.    Most disturbing is data showing that more Republicans than Democrats say they have heard “a lot” about global warming.   The most well-informed about cap and trade policy are Conservative Republicans.  That should ring as a challenge to all of us who are committed to seeing strong climate change legislation passed.  We need to get the facts out there.

It is encouraging to note that half  of Americans polled still support setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions and charging companies for those emissions, even if it means higher energy prices.   Only among Conservative Republicans do a majority oppose such policy.    51% of moderate Republicans support such policy.   Finally, in a bit of good news, the South is not bringing up the rear on this issue.  The Midwest and Mountain West have a higher percentage of people who do not trust the evidence of global warming.

I take issue with the Pew organization for its continued use of the term “global warming.”  That term is inaccurate and has been branded by the Right as ridiculous.  A better term is climate change, which accounts for the different effects that warming of the Earth as a whole will have in various regions.  Here are a few links to help you in discussions of climate change.

Arkansas facts from USCAN

Arkansas facts from the Wildlife Federation

Climate Progress reports that 67 Senators are now “in play” for the climate change bill.   It’s fairly obvious that the bill will not go through without some compromises with coal state and oil state Senators.  The question becomes how many compromises will it take to pull the teeth right out of the legislation?  For instance, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) now says she will vote for the bill, but only if it includes a push for more nuclear energy production and domestic oil production.  The reason for her position is clear:  she’s from Alaska, and those people want their oil money right now.   The fact remains that increasing production of carbon-based fuels defeats the purpose of reducing dependence on carbon-based fuels.  You can bet concessions will have to be given to coal states and natural gas states as well.    Americans just can’t stand leaving anything of possible “value” in the ground.

Wouldn’t it be great if people started talking about  “solar” states and “wind” states?

David Sanders of Arkansas News questions whether the 2nd District should continue to allow Vic Snyder to vote his convictions, following his historic vote for the Waxman-Markey bill.   Chambers of Commerce in energy-boom places like Searcy aren’t happy with his vote to approve the bill that includes, among other things, a cap and trade provision.  Vic Snyder showed up at their meeting last week and challenged oil spokesman Claiborne Deming when Deming misrepresented the facts about the bill’s effects on consumers and the economy.  Sanders’ editorial raises the conundrum of representative democracy.  Should those we elect to office vote their convictions or be puppets of the  polls?

It’s true that those we elect to office should reflect the political will of their constituents at a broad level.    However, this is not a direct democracy (and seeing the average voter in Arkansas, I am convinced we never should become one).  Our government operates as a representative democracy, and that leaves room for legislators to make what they believe are the best choices for their constituents on  individual issues.    Too much pandering to the people ends up as demagoguery.  In the case of Dr. Snyder, his convictions are well-known in the state, and we must assume voters have been largely in agreement with his politics.  After all,  they keep returning him to office.

Conundrum aside, it isn’t clear that voters in the 2nd district share the convictions of the Searcy Chamber of Commerce, where the natural gas industry is, naturally, running the show.   I, for one, applaud Dr. Snyder for having the courage to voice his convictions and to stand up to oil industry front man Claiborne Deming.