Economic power comes with a price, often an environmental one; and the American Midwest is no exception. Accompanying the recent explosions in demand for corn and food crops is hypoxia, in the Gulf of Mexico, spanning a larger area than has ever been recorded. This dead zone, engrossing more than 10,000 square miles, is mainly the result of modernized, chemically intensive agricultural practices, and is not the only one (though the only one if its magnitude) in the world. Algae blooms and feeds off of the nutrients, depleting the water's oxygen and making the areas uninhabitable for other marine life. What was not taken into account in the recent measure of this dead zone, however, is the massive amount of farmland, and subsequently chemicals, that will reach the Gulf via recent Midwest flooding.
The EPA has issued a statement on the matter, outlining an 11-point “plan of action” to prevent further spreading and restore the area. Despite this, critics of the bill have pointed out that most of the points have no due dates or minimum standards for its goals. Rather more surprisingly, however, is the impact that our current agricultural policy (the most recent aspect of it being passed last month) may be having on this environmental crisis.
Subsidies have been given to farmers by our government seemingly in spite of the fact that farmers have been turning a record amount in profits. What is more ridiculous is that these subsidies generally support the largest, most polluting, most water and energy consuming farm operations. Which has had this minuscule environmental side effect. The interconnection of policy astounds me. Our politicians need to re-examine the “Policy Adjudication/Evaluation” phase of their Public Policy flow charts.
What surprised me more about this was that President Bush actually vetoed last month's farm bill, though Congress promptly overrode him. Apparently, the bill was laden with enough pork-barrel spending that both the Republican and Democratic members of the Legislature couldn't resist passing it. Out of all fairness, it did include some environmental conservation measures. Obviously not enough to prevent something as dangerous as 10,000 square miles of the Gulf of Mexico becoming uninhabitable, though.
What is discouraging is the willingness of our Congress members to succumb to this pork-barrel spending methodology. Politicians are so eager to appease their constituencies, so scared of losing their jobs, that they will willingly sacrifice the more long-term choices (in this case it was the national budget and the environment) to maintain favor. Granted, it is a fairly difficult situation – the economic crisis is solidifying daily. However, I disagree that the method by which we should attempt to assuage the economy is by giving breaks to those making the most money. We must tend to our deeper problems (our dependency on foreign oil (or oil, for that matter)) while giving breaks to those who are feeling the crunch the most. Our money can be used more efficiently; we citizens are becoming frustrated that it is not.
Equally frustrating is the fact that such an advanced country as us is still struggling with preserving the environment. Industrializing countries, such as the BRIC countries, grapple between economic development and environmental preservation. But the US is at (or near) the forefront of development. It is imperative that we set an example, and not destroy a resource that is a humanity's property, and not just our own. We have to do something about environmental degradation of this magnitude, before much more damage becomes irreversible.
Oh, and John McCain backed Bush's veto, while Obama and Clinton opted for the bill. Unexpected.
Additional Links:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/09/MN1110JA53.DTL
No comments:
Post a Comment