By Drew Nelson

A raíz de la reforma energética en 2013, la expansión de la industria del gas y del petróleo ha crecido rápidamente. La primera ronda de licitaciones para el arrendamiento de petróleo en aguas profundas mexicanas terminó en diciembre, marcando el inicio para una serie de compañías privadas como:  ExxonMobil y Chevron, por primera vez desde los años treinta. Durante este año se planean arrendamientos adicionales de lugares que se convertirán en nichos para actividades petroleras y de gas, tanto en tierra como mar adentro.

Todo esto sucede mientras México demuestra un notable clima de liderazgo, y mientras los países y las compañías del sector energético alrededor del mundo empiezan a actuar para controlar las emisiones de metano, un contaminante sumamente dañino que en forma rutinaria escapa de la industria mundial del petróleo y el gas. En otras palabras, el auge energético no pudo suceder en un momento más crítico. México está clasificado como el quinto emisor de metano más grande del mundo. Con la ausencia de reglas sólidas para el desarrollo futuro, estas emisiones pueden aumentar a un ritmo constante conforme más producción de petróleo y gas entre en operación como resultado de la reforma energética.

Por otra parte, tener las reglas adecuadas en México antes de que suceda el auge energético tiene sentido – es más inteligente solicitar una industria limpia desde el inicio que tratar de limpiarla años después de su llegada. Al tomar México medidas ahora para implementar regulaciones sólidas que respalden el desarrollo responsable de la energía, ayudará a asegurar protecciones importantes para los ciudadanos y para la creciente economía.

La buena noticia es que las políticas para reducir el metano son increíblemente rentables, y muchas jurisdicciones ya han empezado a desarrollar e implementar regulaciones para encarar a este poderoso contaminante. El reciente progreso en California es un ejemplo de una de las mejores regulaciones para metano producido por petróleo y gas, y es una importante referencia ahora que México busca desarrollar regulaciones similares propias.

La prevención es la base de las Reglas para el Metano en California.

La semana pasada, California finalizó las regulaciones más sólidas en materia de gas y petróleo  para controlar la contaminación por metano en cualquier parte de los EE. UU. uniéndose a otros estados azules y rojos, que siguen actuando (ver aquí, aquí and aquí). Las nuevas reglas de California requieren que las compañías de petróleo y de gas reduzcan las emisiones tanto en las nuevas como en las viejas instalaciones en tierra y mar adentro, con lo cual, ahorrarán millones de dólares por la pérdida de gas cada año.  Esta es la primera gran regulación ambiental emitida desde el inicio del nuevo gobierno de EE.UU., y envía un claro mensaje de que los estados están trazando su propio futuro, mientras los líderes en Washington desmantelan la energía vital y las políticas ambientales que protegen a los estadounidenses.

Fue fundamental en la trayectoria del metano de California el incidente del Cañón Aliso,  una gran fuga de gas  en el Sur de California que llamó la atención mundialmente, ocasionada por una explosión en un pozo en el subsuelo profundo en una instalación de almacenamiento de gas natural. El desastre se convirtió en vivo ejemplo de lo mal que puede ponerse el problema del metano en la industria del petróleo y del gas cuando faltan normas para inspecciones de rutina contra fugas, para el mantenimiento de equipo y para la operación.  Caso concreto: los documentos demostraron que no fue requerida una inspección a las instalaciones para verificar el espesor del entubado o fugas de gas en la superficie aun cuando habían experimentado un creciente número de problemas en la integridad de la estructura en años recientes y era operado sin sistemas de contención secundarios.

El Cañón Aliso– y la respuesta de California a ello – constituyen un ejemplo para México. Es justamente el interés de México asegurar que todas las compañías de petróleo y gas que operan dentro de sus fronteras, cumplan con los mismos estándares ambientales requeridos en otros lugares. Sin políticas consistentes, las compañías pueden explotar las diferencias en las medidas de seguridad nacionales y subnacionales y lesionar la economía y a los ciudadanos mexicanos.

Metano: Un Contaminante Apremiante del Ambiente.

Para apreciar el significado de la situación de México, se tiene que considerar lo que ocurre alrededor del mundo con relación a la ciencia del clima y la política. En marzo, la Organización Meteorológica Mundial  publicó su Informe del Estado del Clima, y las noticias fueron alarmantes. La temperatura global volvió a romper récords otra vez en 2016, mientras se acelera el aumento del nivel del mar. WIRED Magazine concluyó, “hemos sobrepasado nuestro entendimiento del cambio climático y estamos parados verdaderamente en un, “terreno desconocido”.

También hay un mayor entendimiento del papel tan poderoso que juega el metano en el calentamiento global. El metano es un potente gas de efecto invernadero, 80 veces más dañino que el dióxido de carbono en los primeros 20 años en que se asienta en la atmósfera. Los científicos dicen que el metano representa alrededor del 25 por ciento del calentamiento actual y los niveles de emisión están alcanzando su máximo mundial. Globalmente, la industrial del petróleo y del gas está entre los más grandes emisores de metano, ya sea por liberaciones accidentales o intencionales.

Un científico climático de la Universidad Simon Fraser, en Canadá, lo explicó de manera simple: “Necesitamos mitigar ambos [metano y dióxido de carbono] tan pronto como sea posible. No hay soluciones intermedias .”

Esta urgencia tiene un lado positivo. Ya que el metano es tan potente, que reducirlo tendrá un rápido y poderoso impacto en el clima. Por ejemplo, cortar las emisiones mundiales de metano producidas por petróleo y gas en un 45 por ciento para el 2025, tendrá el mismo beneficio a corto plazo que cerrar un tercio de las plantas de carbón a nivel mundial. Además, los análisis han mostrado que reducir las emisiones de metano del sector petrolero y del gas puede conseguirse razonablemente con la tecnología existente.

El Auge de la Energía en México Será el Siguiente Gran Escenario para el Metano.

México ha sido un líder confiable y visible en el cambio climático – aún antes del compromiso del metano realizado el año pasado- y tiene una larga historia de trabajo con los líderes en California, en una gran variedad de iniciativas relacionadas con el medio ambiente y el clima.

Ahora, con el nuevo y sólido modelo para el metano en California, México tiene una gran oportunidad de potenciar su auge energético pendiente para ayudar, en vez de obstaculizar, sus esfuerzos para cumplir su compromiso internacional sobre el metano. Al establecer reglas justas y sensibles para su creciente industria energética, no sólo reforzará el impacto económico de este auge, sino que demostrará una vez más la buena fe en el entorno internacional que ganó en años recientes.

Image source: Wokandapix, Pixabay

As CPRA advances the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion and other priority projects toward construction, Restore the Mississippi River Delta staff experts will aim to give you updates on key steps of the process. The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion aims to be “the first controlled sediment diversion reconnecting the Mississippi river with its delta,” Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) indicated in a recent press release, and, recently, there have been some important developments toward that end. In March, CPRA announced that ...

Read The Full Story

The post Getting Down to Basics: The Environmental Impact Statement Process for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

As CPRA advances the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion and other priority projects toward construction, Restore the Mississippi River Delta staff experts will aim to give you updates on key steps of the process. The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion aims to be “the first controlled sediment diversion reconnecting the Mississippi river with its delta,” Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) indicated in a recent press release, and, recently, there have been some important developments toward that end. In March, CPRA announced that ...

Read The Full Story

The post Getting Down to Basics: The Environmental Impact Statement Process for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

As CPRA advances the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion and other priority projects toward construction, Restore the Mississippi River Delta staff experts will aim to give you updates on key steps of the process. The Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion aims to be “the first controlled sediment diversion reconnecting the Mississippi river with its delta,” Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA) indicated in a recent press release, and, recently, there have been some important developments toward that end. In March, CPRA announced that ...

Read The Full Story

The post Getting Down to Basics: The Environmental Impact Statement Process for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Written by Ronnie Citron-Fink

This is an exclusive Moms Clean air Force interview with State Representative Leanne Krueger-Braneky of Pennsylvania:

What is unique about protecting Pennsylvania’s resources?

PA Rep. Leanne Krueger-Braneky

Right now Pennsylvania’s resources feel uniquely under attack by almost every front. As a mom I feel protecting our children is a high priority. As a legislator I feel it is a responsibility. I have been shocked by attacks on human rights such as clean air.

As a parent are you worried about the effects of climate change on your children and the children of Pennsylvania?

Absolutely. I think no one can deny that our climate is changing and I have a four-year-old son.

Why is a bipartisan effort so important and how can these efforts be achieved in our politically polarizing culture?

A bipartisan effort is important particularly in Pennsylvania, where there are only 84 Democrats out of 203 in the State House. Republicans have a huge majority and Democrats are constantly on the defensive. Yet I truly believe these issues are nonpartisan. The oil and gas industry is pumping in millions and millions of dollars. The challenge is giving people the courage to stand up to the oil and gas industry

Is there anything you’d like to share that is important for Moms Clean Air Force members to know?

I think Moms need to mobilize. I have seen first hand how powerful their voices are when they meet with legislators. Yet I’ve also seen how quickly things can swing the other way. It took only 12 days to undue the commonsense legislation around oil and drilling. Moms’ voices need to be heard.

—

State Representative Leanne Krueger-Braneky represents the 161st district in Delaware County. She has received national attention for her work in economic development, program development, and public policy and served as the first Executive Director of the Sustainable Business Network of Greater Philadelphia for eight years. Rep. Krueger-Braneky also currently serves as member of the Environmental Resources & Energy Committee and of the newly formed and 1st ever “Climate Change” Caucus. She has become a voice for change on the issues she cares about:  economic development, education, and the environment.

TELL YOUR SENATOR: PROTECT OUR AIR AND OUR RESOURCES

The proposed plan takes direct aim at California's clean energy leadership. Regional. C4.

The proposed plan takes direct aim at California's clean energy leadership. Regional. C4.

The proposed plan takes direct aim at California's clean energy leadership. Regional. C4.

Louisiana’s rich and productive estuaries – zones where salt water from the Gulf mixes with fresh water from rivers – create an array of habitats that support numerous and diverse fish and wildlife species. One such species is the iconic American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Louisiana’s state reptile and a true conservation success story. In the 1960s, the future of our alligators was in doubt. Loss of freshwater habitat, where alligators reside, combined with over-hunting took a toll on their population. ...

Read The Full Story

The post Cooking for the Coast: Eat Alligator, Restore the Coast! appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Louisiana’s rich and productive estuaries – zones where salt water from the Gulf mixes with fresh water from rivers – create an array of habitats that support numerous and diverse fish and wildlife species. One such species is the iconic American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Louisiana’s state reptile and a true conservation success story. In the 1960s, the future of our alligators was in doubt. Loss of freshwater habitat, where alligators reside, combined with over-hunting took a toll on their population. ...

Read The Full Story

The post Cooking for the Coast: Eat Alligator, Restore the Coast! appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

Louisiana’s rich and productive estuaries – zones where salt water from the Gulf mixes with fresh water from rivers – create an array of habitats that support numerous and diverse fish and wildlife species. One such species is the iconic American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), Louisiana’s state reptile and a true conservation success story. In the 1960s, the future of our alligators was in doubt. Loss of freshwater habitat, where alligators reside, combined with over-hunting took a toll on their population. ...

Read The Full Story

The post Cooking for the Coast: Eat Alligator, Restore the Coast! appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.

By Martha Roberts

Many of the features of the Regulatory Accountability Act render it a disastrous piece of legislation for public health, safety, and the environment. By tying up essential safeguards in enormous amounts of red tape, the legislation would covertly undermine longstanding protections for child safety, food safety, auto safety, and other broadly shared values.

But the key problem is not just that the Regulatory Accountability Act would impose needlessly convoluted, burdensome requirements on federal agencies: it is that it would impose needlessly convoluted, burdensome requirements that we know have failed in the past.

The Regulatory Accountability Act would resurrect many of the worst features of the former, failed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA was supposed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals, but for many years—before the recent enactment of reforms aimed at curing its substantial defects—it made regulatory decision-making so burdensome, that it effectively prevented regulators from doing their jobs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) failed attempt to regulate asbestos under the pre-reform TSCA offers a telling example of how important safeguards are stymied under this decision-making framework. Over 25 years ago, EPA had tried to employ TSCA to protect the public from asbestos. The Agency spent 10 years analyzing asbestos’ effects on health and considering policy options along with their economic implications. After this exhaustive investigation, documented in over 45,000 pages of supporting materials, EPA issued a final rule that called for a phased-in ban on the use of asbestos in commercial products.

But EPA’s efforts to protect the public were rejected. Asbestos manufacturers sued, contending that EPA’s meticulous decision-making was still inadequate to meet the onerous standards of TSCA. A court agreed, vacating the rule in 1991 on the basis that “EPA failed to muster substantial evidence to support its rule” under TSCA’s mandates—despite the Agency’s voluminous record justifying a phase-out of asbestos. Following this ordeal, EPA all but gave up, never again trying to ban a chemical under the old TSCA.

In the years following the asbestos fiasco, broad agreement began to emerge that TSCA was a failure due to its inability to protect Americans and to provide certainty to businesses. In a bid to address these deficiencies, Congress finally reformed TSCA last year through legislation that was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Regulatory Accountability Act would reverse this progress, with implications far beyond TSCA—major aspects of the Regulatory Accountability Act would resurrect features of the pre-reform, failed TSCA and apply them to all federal safeguards. That bears repeating:  passage of the Regulatory Accountability Act would impose requirements similar to those that had doomed the old TSCA and extend those requirements to all federal agencies, with detrimental implications for the development of new food safety requirements, veterans’ care standards, pollution controls, and other essential protections for public health, safety, and the environment. I discuss two key examples below.

First, the Regulatory Accountability Act would impose an unworkable, cost-based decision standard, setting up agencies for paralysis by analysis that would obstruct protections for Americans.

The pre-reform TSCA demanded that EPA prove it had selected the “least burdensome” regulatory option when promulgating a rule. If EPA had wanted to adopt an option any more burdensome than the “least burdensome” one—for example, banning the sale of asbestos, instead of just labeling asbestos-containing products—TSCA required that the Agency perform a full risk analysis and cost-benefit analysis of every less burdensome alternative, and prove each alternative was insufficient to address the risk. These requirements imposed evidentiary and analytic burdens on EPA that proved impossible to meet, effectively tying the Agency’s hands with respect to protecting the public from hazardous chemicals.

The newly reformed TSCA eliminated all of these problems in the service of regulatory efficiency and certainty. Under the reformed statute, EPA is required to demonstrate that it has considered key factors—including costs and risk—and has reached a rational conclusion. But it is not required to prove that its decision meets a specific cost-based decision metric, as it was under the pre-reform TSCA.

Yet the Regulatory Accountability Act would revive the pre-reform TSCA approach, imposing an onerous analytic cost-based standard for major protections. All federal agencies generally would be required to prove that their rule met the specific analytic standard laid out in the Act. The Act would also require agencies to consider and analyze substantial alternatives or other responses identified by interested persons, without imposing any clear limit on how many alternatives that would entail, and regardless of whether information concerning those alternatives was reasonably available. In addition, for major or high-impact rules, agencies would have to conduct formal cost-benefit analysis and other analyses on each such alternative. Any deviation from these nitpicky procedures, meanwhile, could prompt a court to toss out the promulgated regulation, regardless of the threat to the public as result of the regulation’s demise.

A second example of how the Regulatory Accountability Act would resurrect failed features of the pre-reform TSCA law would be through its imposition of a requirement on agencies to hold needless, burdensome public hearings. The pre-reform TSCA allowed any person to request a hearing on any rule. These hearings allowed for witnesses, cross-examinations, oral presentations, and other onerous, unnecessary hearing procedures to resolve material issues. This feature of the statute created a powerful opportunity for critics to slow down the rulemaking process, and it duplicated many other aspects of the law that already provided ample opportunity for the public to comment and provide feedback. Not surprisingly, this requirement was thoroughly rejected and excised from the new, reformed TSCA.

Nevertheless, the Regulatory Accountability Act would reinstate this failed requirement and apply it broadly to the development of all government safeguards. Under the bill, any person would be able to request a hearing on any major or high-impact rule, except in certain narrow circumstances. EPA would have to hold a hearing if any factual issue was in dispute—which is virtually always the case for someone. With this approach, attorneys would argue over science-based determinations made by agency scientists in needless show trials. Any individual seeking to delay a rulemaking could use this provision to draw out and delay protections for Americans.

The Regulatory Accountability Act may sound innocuous, but it puts our health, safety, and environment at risk. Imagine a world where efforts to update food safety requirements in the face of a pressing health threat were stymied. Or attempts to establish new protections after a disaster like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill were thwarted. Or efforts to protect the public from asbestos were derailed.

This is the world that the Regulatory Accountability Act would create, across all areas of government. This blandly titled bill is deeply flawed and deeply problematic—a sneak attack on essential protections.

This post originally appeared  on Reg Blog.

By Martha Roberts

Many of the features of the Regulatory Accountability Act render it a disastrous piece of legislation for public health, safety, and the environment. By tying up essential safeguards in enormous amounts of red tape, the legislation would covertly undermine longstanding protections for child safety, food safety, auto safety, and other broadly shared values.

But the key problem is not just that the Regulatory Accountability Act would impose needlessly convoluted, burdensome requirements on federal agencies: it is that it would impose needlessly convoluted, burdensome requirements that we know have failed in the past.

The Regulatory Accountability Act would resurrect many of the worst features of the former, failed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA was supposed to protect the public from dangerous chemicals, but for many years—before the recent enactment of reforms aimed at curing its substantial defects—it made regulatory decision-making so burdensome, that it effectively prevented regulators from doing their jobs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) failed attempt to regulate asbestos under the pre-reform TSCA offers a telling example of how important safeguards are stymied under this decision-making framework. Over 25 years ago, EPA had tried to employ TSCA to protect the public from asbestos. The Agency spent 10 years analyzing asbestos’ effects on health and considering policy options along with their economic implications. After this exhaustive investigation, documented in over 45,000 pages of supporting materials, EPA issued a final rule that called for a phased-in ban on the use of asbestos in commercial products.

But EPA’s efforts to protect the public were rejected. Asbestos manufacturers sued, contending that EPA’s meticulous decision-making was still inadequate to meet the onerous standards of TSCA. A court agreed, vacating the rule in 1991 on the basis that “EPA failed to muster substantial evidence to support its rule” under TSCA’s mandates—despite the Agency’s voluminous record justifying a phase-out of asbestos. Following this ordeal, EPA all but gave up, never again trying to ban a chemical under the old TSCA.

In the years following the asbestos fiasco, broad agreement began to emerge that TSCA was a failure due to its inability to protect Americans and to provide certainty to businesses. In a bid to address these deficiencies, Congress finally reformed TSCA last year through legislation that was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.

The Regulatory Accountability Act would reverse this progress, with implications far beyond TSCA—major aspects of the Regulatory Accountability Act would resurrect features of the pre-reform, failed TSCA and apply them to all federal safeguards. That bears repeating:  passage of the Regulatory Accountability Act would impose requirements similar to those that had doomed the old TSCA and extend those requirements to all federal agencies, with detrimental implications for the development of new food safety requirements, veterans’ care standards, pollution controls, and other essential protections for public health, safety, and the environment. I discuss two key examples below.

First, the Regulatory Accountability Act would impose an unworkable, cost-based decision standard, setting up agencies for paralysis by analysis that would obstruct protections for Americans.

The pre-reform TSCA demanded that EPA prove it had selected the “least burdensome” regulatory option when promulgating a rule. If EPA had wanted to adopt an option any more burdensome than the “least burdensome” one—for example, banning the sale of asbestos, instead of just labeling asbestos-containing products—TSCA required that the Agency perform a full risk analysis and cost-benefit analysis of every less burdensome alternative, and prove each alternative was insufficient to address the risk. These requirements imposed evidentiary and analytic burdens on EPA that proved impossible to meet, effectively tying the Agency’s hands with respect to protecting the public from hazardous chemicals.

The newly reformed TSCA eliminated all of these problems in the service of regulatory efficiency and certainty. Under the reformed statute, EPA is required to demonstrate that it has considered key factors—including costs and risk—and has reached a rational conclusion. But it is not required to prove that its decision meets a specific cost-based decision metric, as it was under the pre-reform TSCA.

Yet the Regulatory Accountability Act would revive the pre-reform TSCA approach, imposing an onerous analytic cost-based standard for major protections. All federal agencies generally would be required to prove that their rule met the specific analytic standard laid out in the Act. The Act would also require agencies to consider and analyze substantial alternatives or other responses identified by interested persons, without imposing any clear limit on how many alternatives that would entail, and regardless of whether information concerning those alternatives was reasonably available. In addition, for major or high-impact rules, agencies would have to conduct formal cost-benefit analysis and other analyses on each such alternative. Any deviation from these nitpicky procedures, meanwhile, could prompt a court to toss out the promulgated regulation, regardless of the threat to the public as result of the regulation’s demise.

A second example of how the Regulatory Accountability Act would resurrect failed features of the pre-reform TSCA law would be through its imposition of a requirement on agencies to hold needless, burdensome public hearings. The pre-reform TSCA allowed any person to request a hearing on any rule. These hearings allowed for witnesses, cross-examinations, oral presentations, and other onerous, unnecessary hearing procedures to resolve material issues. This feature of the statute created a powerful opportunity for critics to slow down the rulemaking process, and it duplicated many other aspects of the law that already provided ample opportunity for the public to comment and provide feedback. Not surprisingly, this requirement was thoroughly rejected and excised from the new, reformed TSCA.

Nevertheless, the Regulatory Accountability Act would reinstate this failed requirement and apply it broadly to the development of all government safeguards. Under the bill, any person would be able to request a hearing on any major or high-impact rule, except in certain narrow circumstances. EPA would have to hold a hearing if any factual issue was in dispute—which is virtually always the case for someone. With this approach, attorneys would argue over science-based determinations made by agency scientists in needless show trials. Any individual seeking to delay a rulemaking could use this provision to draw out and delay protections for Americans.

The Regulatory Accountability Act may sound innocuous, but it puts our health, safety, and environment at risk. Imagine a world where efforts to update food safety requirements in the face of a pressing health threat were stymied. Or attempts to establish new protections after a disaster like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill were thwarted. Or efforts to protect the public from asbestos were derailed.

This is the world that the Regulatory Accountability Act would create, across all areas of government. This blandly titled bill is deeply flawed and deeply problematic—a sneak attack on essential protections.

This post originally appeared  on Reg Blog.

Despite growing up without any real interest in conservation or farming, I now spend every working day knee deep in agricultural policy – and I love it. I grew up in the suburbs of Louisville, Kentucky, the daughter of a teacher and a salesman. My parents instilled in me a love and deep respect for […]

By Callie Eideberg

Despite growing up without any real interest in conservation or farming, I now spend every working day knee deep in agricultural policy – and I love it.

I grew up in the suburbs of Louisville, Kentucky, the daughter of a teacher and a salesman. My parents instilled in me a love and deep respect for the place. I was taught to value the importance of rural America, farming, horse racing, and bourbon.

But it’s an obsession with food and history that brought me to where I am today. For as long as I can remember, I’ve started planning my dinner at breakfast time. After college, my passion for government led me to law school – but I just couldn’t ignore my love of food.

How Callie Eideberg's passion for food, history and her Kentucky roots led her to the #FarmBill…
Click To Tweet

From candy to cooking

My daughter Madeleine baking Derby pie, a Kentucky specialty.

My grandmother ran a candy shop out of her house, all while raising six children. As she was working full time, she taught her two daughters and four sons to cook from an early age, and I grew up that same way with my father.

Holidays as a kid were always about food and baking my grandmother’s famous coconut cake, also known unofficially as the “better than Robert Redford cake.” I recall all of us kids raiding the Thanksgiving dinner table early every year – food was integral to family gatherings.

Today, when my dad visits, we spend all day cooking, and I’ve started to do the same with my 5-year-old daughter. She loves stirring and cracking eggs, and will eat anything.

Passion for politics

Deep pride in my Kentucky roots grew into an interest in history and political science in college. I’ve always had a strong belief in the origins of our country and in the functions of government. I majored in history and grew to admire the unique and strong form of government our Founding Fathers set up.

Law school felt like a natural next move, but in my first year at Tulane Law School I worried that my love for food would leave me dissatisfied as a full-time lawyer. Nonetheless I decided against a transition to culinary school and kept food as a part-time hobby. And as law school progressed, so did my interest in government policy.

The right combination

My agricultural policy career started in earnest on Capitol Hill, working for members of Congress, being intimately involved in the 2008 Farm Bill, really getting to know the specialty crop and dairy industries, and supporting farmers in Florida and then in the Central Valley of California. Right off the bat, working in ag policy felt like a perfect combination of the great interests in my life.

After having my first child, I transitioned to working in the Office of Congressional Relations at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). There, I gained a deep understanding of the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which focuses on working hand-in-hand with landowners across the United States. Through voluntary incentive-based programs, the agency supports farmers in implementing on-the ground conservation practices.

Sustainability in the Farm Bill

Thanks to my NRCS experience, sustainable agriculture and conservation are now my full-time focus. Transitioning to the Environmental Defense Fund last year was seamless, because EDF has a similar philosophy to NRCS in terms of collaborative conservation.

As the next Farm Bill approaches, I’m working with EDF colleagues to highlight the federal programs that have been beneficial to growers – especially conservation initiatives. The current Administration may want to eliminate government waste and bureaucracy, but we don’t want to throw out the good with the bad.

Conservation programs within USDA – which are all cost-share programs – are part of the reason we have such a variety of foods every time we go to the grocery store. Agricultural policy is the reason for what’s on every shelf, in every aisle!

Related: 

How Congress can help farmers stay profitable and resilient >>

Farmers are helping to heal the Chesapeake Bay, but they can't do it alone >> 

By Callie Eideberg

Despite growing up without any real interest in conservation or farming, I now spend every working day knee deep in agricultural policy – and I love it.

I grew up in the suburbs of Louisville, Kentucky, the daughter of a teacher and a salesman. My parents instilled in me a love and deep respect for the place. I was taught to value the importance of rural America, farming, horse racing, and bourbon.

But it’s an obsession with food and history that brought me to where I am today. For as long as I can remember, I’ve started planning my dinner at breakfast time. After college, my passion for government led me to law school – but I just couldn’t ignore my love of food.

How Callie Eideberg's passion for food, history and her Kentucky roots led her to the #FarmBill…
Click To Tweet

From candy to cooking

My daughter Madeleine baking Derby pie, a Kentucky specialty.

My grandmother ran a candy shop out of her house, all while raising six children. As she was working full time, she taught her two daughters and four sons to cook from an early age, and I grew up that same way with my father.

Holidays as a kid were always about food and baking my grandmother’s famous coconut cake, also known unofficially as the “better than Robert Redford cake.” I recall all of us kids raiding the Thanksgiving dinner table early every year – food was integral to family gatherings.

Today, when my dad visits, we spend all day cooking, and I’ve started to do the same with my 5-year-old daughter. She loves stirring and cracking eggs, and will eat anything.

Passion for politics

Deep pride in my Kentucky roots grew into an interest in history and political science in college. I’ve always had a strong belief in the origins of our country and in the functions of government. I majored in history and grew to admire the unique and strong form of government our Founding Fathers set up.

Law school felt like a natural next move, but in my first year at Tulane Law School I worried that my love for food would leave me dissatisfied as a full-time lawyer. Nonetheless I decided against a transition to culinary school and kept food as a part-time hobby. And as law school progressed, so did my interest in government policy.

The right combination

My agricultural policy career started in earnest on Capitol Hill, working for members of Congress, being intimately involved in the 2008 Farm Bill, really getting to know the specialty crop and dairy industries, and supporting farmers in Florida and then in the Central Valley of California. Right off the bat, working in ag policy felt like a perfect combination of the great interests in my life.

After having my first child, I transitioned to working in the Office of Congressional Relations at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). There, I gained a deep understanding of the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which focuses on working hand-in-hand with landowners across the United States. Through voluntary incentive-based programs, the agency supports farmers in implementing on-the ground conservation practices.

Sustainability in the Farm Bill

Thanks to my NRCS experience, sustainable agriculture and conservation are now my full-time focus. Transitioning to the Environmental Defense Fund last year was seamless, because EDF has a similar philosophy to NRCS in terms of collaborative conservation.

As the next Farm Bill approaches, I’m working with EDF colleagues to highlight the federal programs that have been beneficial to growers – especially conservation initiatives. The current Administration may want to eliminate government waste and bureaucracy, but we don’t want to throw out the good with the bad.

Conservation programs within USDA – which are all cost-share programs – are part of the reason we have such a variety of foods every time we go to the grocery store. Agricultural policy is the reason for what’s on every shelf, in every aisle!

Related: 

How Congress can help farmers stay profitable and resilient >>

Farmers are helping to heal the Chesapeake Bay, but they can't do it alone >> 

FirstEnergy bailout -- Where's the beef? New newsletter from @dickmunson: ow.ly/8BR730aysWH

Each week, Delta Dispatches, the weekly podcast from Restore the Mississippi River Delta, looks at one component of coastal restoration in Louisiana. This week, Jacques Hebert has two guests to talk about how wildlife plays an integral role in restoration.  From LSU, Jacques talks with Dr. Andy Nyman, a wetland wildlife scientist about how wildlife is in Louisiana is different than neighboring states. Later in the show, Dr. Eric Johnson from Audubon Louisiana is here to discuss the variety of bird species that depend ...

Read The Full Story

The post Delta Dispatches Podcast – Wildlife appeared first on Restore the Mississippi River Delta.