Agriculture and Farming

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Did Democrats Lose Control of State Agriculture Policy?

      by

      How Did Democrats Lose Control of State Agriculture Policy?Democrats once dominated statewide elections for the influential post of agriculture commissioner. Now they’re hoping to win just one.Kentucky is one of 12 states with elected agriculture commissioners. Clockwise from top left: A soybean farm in Adairville; harvesting apples in Nancy; a tractor caution sign in Pulaski County; a livestock auction in Somerset.Nov. 1, 2023Jonathan Robertson was preparing to start the workday on his family cattle farm when a campaign ad in the race for agriculture commissioner of Kentucky flashed across his television.He couldn’t hear the narrator, but he noticed that the candidate — the name was Shell, he believed — was shown on the screen baling hay and driving farm equipment.“I haven’t heard anything about who’s running,” Mr. Robertson, 47, recalled a few hours later, stopping with his brother for the $5.99 lunch special at the Wigwam General Store in Horse Cave., Ky. “Who’s his opponent?”Neither Mr. Robertson nor his brother, Josh, 44, knew who was in the race, but they had no doubt how they would vote: “I’m a straight-ticket Republican,” Josh said.Democrats face daunting odds in races for the under-the-radar but vitally important position of state agriculture commissioner — and not just in Kentucky, where the two people competing on Nov. 7 are Jonathan Shell, a former Republican state legislator, and Sierra Enlow, a Democratic economic development consultant.Jonathan Shell, the Republican candidate for Kentucky agriculture commissioner, is a former state legislator and a fifth-generation farmer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.We are confirming your access to this article, this will take just a moment. However, if you are using Reader mode please log in, subscribe, or exit Reader mode since we are unable to verify access in that state.Confirming article access.If you are a subscriber, please  More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Our Immigration System: ‘A Waste of Talent’

      by

      More from our inbox:Cruelty at the BorderLimiting the President’s Pardon PowersAre A.I. Weapons Next?U.S. Food Policy Causes Poor Food ChoicesMateo Miño, left, in the church in Queens where he experienced a severe anxiety attack two days after arriving in New York.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesTo the Editor:“As Politicians Cry Crisis, Migrants Get a Toehold” (news article, July 15) points up the irrationality of the U.S. immigration system. As this article shows, migrants are eager to work, and they are filling significant gaps in fields such as construction and food delivery, but there are still great unmet needs for home health aides and nursing assistants.The main reason for this disjunction lies in federal immigration law, which offers no dedicated visa slots for these occupations (as it does for professionals and even for seasonal agricultural and resort workers) because they are considered “unskilled.”Instead, the law stipulates, applicants must demonstrate that they are “performing work for which qualified workers are not available in the United States” — clearly a daunting task for individual migrants.As a result, many do end up working in fields like home health care but without documentation and are thus vulnerable to exploitation if not deportation. With appropriate reforms, our system would be capable of meeting both the country’s needs for essential workers and migrants’ needs for safe havens.Sonya MichelSilver Spring, Md.The writer is professor emerita of history and women’s and gender studies at the University of Maryland, College Park.To the Editor:We have refugee doctors and nurses who are driving taxi cabs. What a waste of talent that is needed in so many areas of our country.Why isn’t there a program to use their knowledge and skills by working with medical associations to qualify them, especially if they agree to work in parts of the country that have a shortage of doctors and nurses? It would be a win-win situation.There are probably other professions where similar ideas would work.David AlbendaNew YorkCruelty at the BorderTexas Department of Public Safety troopers look over the Rio Grande, as migrants walk by.Suzanne Cordeiro/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Officers Voice Concerns Over Aggressive Tactics at the Border in Texas” (news article, July 20):In the past year, I have done immigration-related legal work in New York City with recently arrived asylum seekers from all over the world: Venezuela, China, Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador and Ghana. Most entered the U.S. on foot through the southern border. Some spent weeks traversing the perilous Darién Gap — an unforgiving jungle — and all are fleeing from horribly violent and scary situations.Texas’ barbed wire is not going to stop them.I am struck by the message of the mayor of Eagle Pass, Rolando Salinas Jr., who, supportive of legal migration and orderly law enforcement, said, “What I am against is the use of tactics that hurt people.” I desperately hope we can all agree about this.There should be no place for immigration enforcement tactics that deliberately and seriously injure people.I was disturbed to read that Texas is hiding razor wire in dark water and deploying floating razor wire-wrapped “barrel traps.” These products of Gov. Greg Abbott’s xenophobia are cruel to a staggering degree.Noa Gutow-EllisNew YorkThe writer is a law school intern at the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.Limiting the President’s Pardon Powers Tom Brenner for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “U.S. Alleges Push at Trump’s Club to Erase Footage” (front page, July 28) and “Sudden Obstacle Delays Plea Deal for Biden’s Son” (front page, July 27):With Donald Trump campaigning to return to the White House while under felony indictment, and with Hunter Biden’s legal saga unresolved, there should be bipartisan incentive in Congress for proposing a constitutional amendment limiting the president’s pardon power.A proposed amendment should provide that the president’s “reprieves and pardons” power under Article II, Section 2, shall not apply to offenses, whether committed in office or out, by the president himself or herself; the vice president and cabinet-level officers; any person whose unlawful conduct was solicited by or intended to benefit any of these officials; or a close family member of any of these individuals.Stephen A. SilverSan FranciscoThe writer is a lawyer.To the Editor:Beyond asking “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” Donald Trump may now ask, “Where’s my Rose Mary Woods?”David SchubertCranford, N.J.Are A.I. Weapons Next? Andreas Emil LundTo the Editor:Re “Our Oppenheimer Moment: The Creation of A.I. Weapons,” by Alexander C. Karp (Opinion guest essay, July 30):Mr. Karp argues that to protect our way of life, we must integrate artificial intelligence into weapons systems, citing our atomic might as precedent. However, nuclear weapons are sophisticated and difficult to produce. A.I. capabilities are software, leaving them vulnerable to theft, cyberhacking and data poisoning by adversaries.The risk of proliferation beyond leading militaries was appreciated by the United States and the Soviet Union when banning bioweapons, and the same applies to A.I. It also carries an unacceptable risk of conflict escalation, illustrated in our recent film “Artificial Escalation.”J. Robert Oppenheimer’s legacy offers a different lesson when it comes to advanced general-purpose A.I. systems. The nuclear arms race has haunted our world with annihilation for 78 years. It was luck that spared us. That race ebbed only as leaders came to understand that such a war would destroy humanity.The same is true now. To survive, we must recognize that the reckless pursuit and weaponization of inscrutable, probably uncontrollable advanced A.I. is not a winnable one. It is a suicide race.Anthony AguirreSanta Cruz, Calif.The writer is the executive director and a co-founder of the Future of Life Institute.U.S. Food Policy Causes Poor Food Choices Steven May/AlamyTo the Editor:Re “Vegans Make Smaller Mark on the Planet Than Others” (news article, July 22):While I agree that people could help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by eating plants only, I find it crucial to note that food policy is the main reason for poor food choices.Food choices follow food policy, and U.S. food policy is focused on meat, dairy, fish and eggs. Our massive network of agriculture universities run “animal science” programs, providing billions of dollars’ worth of training, public relations, research, experimentation and sales for animal products.Our government provides subsidies to the meat, dairy, fish and egg industries far beyond what fruits, vegetables and other plant foods receive. Federal and state agriculture officials are typically connected to the meat or dairy industry. The public pays the cost of animal factories’ contamination of water and soil, and of widespread illness linked to eating animals since humans are natural herbivores.No wonder the meat, dairy, fish and egg industries have so much money for advertising, marketing and public relations, keeping humans deceived about their biological nature and what is good for them to eat.David CantorGlenside, Pa.The writer is founder and director of Responsible Policies for Animals. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Climate Activists and Steve King Unlikely Allies in Iowa Pipeline Fight

      by

      Liberal environmentalists and conservative landowners, led by the former congressman Steve King, are pressuring Republican candidates to oppose three Midwestern pipelines.Emma Schmidt, a lifelong environmental activist in Rockwell City, Iowa, had long searched for potent allies in her fight against a massive carbon dioxide pipeline planned for her state.But she never expected to find herself at former Representative Steve King’s house, making her case as she stared up at a pistol in the paw of a taxidermied raccoon in his home office.That meeting in June between a liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican who lost his seat in Congress in 2020 after incendiary racist comments was the beginning of a left-right alliance that is trying to push the debate of the pipeline to the forefront of the heated G.O.P. presidential caucuses.“We’re putting in a whole lot of money into pipelines that are not necessary, that bulldoze their way through some of the richest farmlands in the world, to sequester CO2,” said an incredulous Mr. King on Tuesday.Steve King, a former member of Congress who lost his seat after a series of racist comments, is an unlikely ally for liberal climate activists in Iowa. Joshua Lott/Getty ImagesThe $4.5 billion Summit, $3 billion Navigator and $630 million Wolf Carbon pipelines may not be front and center next month at the first Republican presidential debate. They probably won’t be featured in super PAC advertising or mentioned during Fox News appearances. But the pipelines capture a national debate with local consequences, and they will give candidates a chance to showcase their understanding of Iowa, the first state to weigh in on the Republican nominating fight — if they can navigate the issue.The Summit, Navigator and Wolf pipelines, fueled by federal tax credits embraced by both parties, would draw carbon dioxide from the factories that turn Iowa corn into ethanol. They would snake through 3,300 miles of farmland in Iowa and other Midwestern states, then pump the planet-warming gas into the bedrock beneath Illinois and North Dakota. And they are pitched as a climate protection measure, though some experts and environmentalists say it is only a partial solution at best.Earlier this month, an Iowa woman seemed to stump the front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, when she asked how he would “help us in Iowa save our farmland from the CO2 pipelines.”Mr. Trump stammered that he was “working on that” and that he “had a plan to totally, uh, it’s such a ridiculous situation,” before reassuring the crowd, “if we win, that’s going to be taken care of.”The moment has been laughed off as a show of Mr. Trump’s ability to bluster his way through anything, but the issue is tricky: Several of the Republican candidates have cast doubt on the established climate science and would seem disinclined to back a project aimed at reducing carbon emissions. But opposing the pipeline also means opposing Iowa’s all-important ethanol industry.The state’s popular Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, has avoided taking a public position. Opponents believe she supports the deal, which is backed by some of her biggest political contributors, including Bruce Rastetter, founder of the Summit Agricultural Group. Ms. Reynolds’s office did not respond to requests for comment.The state’s popular Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, has avoided taking a public position on the pipeline, which is backed by one of her biggest political contributors. Kelsey Kremer/The Des Moines Register, via Associated PressPowerful figures from both parties have signed with the pipeline companies, including Terry Branstad, Ms. Reynolds’s predecessor, and Jess Vilsack, the son of another former Iowa governor and the current Democratic secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack. Agriculture giants like John Deere and A.D.M. have invested in the efforts.Presidential candidates have tried to skirt the issue; most campaigns declined to comment, including Mr. Trump’s. But campaign aides said this week that they knew a time for choosing was coming. The first public hearings on the Summit pipeline will begin on Aug. 22 in Fort Dodge, Iowa.Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida is expecting questions later this week in a swing through the state, according to people familiar with the campaign.The left-right alliance is giving voice to Iowa landowners infuriated by the prospect that their land could be seized by eminent domain for the pipelines. Tim Baughman, who farms 330 acres with his sister in Crawford County, Iowa, brought his anti-pipeline sign to a Vivek Ramaswamy event in Dennison, eliciting a promise from the Republican entrepreneur to oppose the projects.“I’m fighting this to the end,” vowed Dan Wahl, who grows corn, soybeans and alfalfa on 160 acres near Spirit Lake, Iowa, and recently chased Summit surveyors off his land.The left-right alliance is giving voice to Iowa landowners concerned about the prospect that their land could be seized by eminent domain for the pipelines. Walker Pickering for The New York TimesSupporters — including agribusiness conglomerates and oil and gas tycoons — see the projects as a way to persuade liberal states like California it is possible to both continue ethanol production and fight global warming. If it works, so-called carbon capture and sequestration, the practice of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, could be expanded to oil and gas, extending the life of the fossil fuel economy.Dean Ferguson, president of the Canada-based Wolf Carbon Solutions’s American subsidiary, said in a statement that he was hopeful that the pipeline planned from Iowa to Illinois would be built through voluntary easements.“Our approach is to build lasting relationships with landowners, so we can work together for years to come,” he said.In a statement, Summit Carbon Solutions said 75 percent of Iowa landowners along the project route had signed voluntary easements “and more are signing every day.”To opponents, the pipelines are dangerous, taxpayer-subsidized boondoggles that will destroy farmland and do nothing to curb global warming. A carbon dioxide pipeline ruptured in tiny Satartia, Miss., in 2020, sending 40 people to the hospital, forcing the evacuation of more than 300 others and releasing more than 31,000 barrels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.“Climate change money should be spent on things that are proven to actually work,” said Jessica Mazour, the conservation program coordinator of the Sierra Club in Iowa, who is helping to unite environmental activists with conservative farmers who doubt climate change is real.The unusual alliance can be strained. Sherri Webb, 73, who owns 40 acres of farmland in Shelby County, Iowa, said she had her doubts about climate change: “I don’t believe it’s as bad as some people are thinking.” If anything, she added, she worries more about taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and away from her crops.But it was the threat of eminent domain that got her involved in the fight against the Summit pipeline. Summit Carbon Solutions says the pipeline on her land would be buried four feet deep, covered with top soil and reseeded. But her climate-friendly, no-till farm has been in her family for 123 years and hasn’t had the soil turned in decades. The pipeline digging, she said, will bring heavy diesel-powered equipment onto her property, and may cause erosion and crop loss for years. .Sherri Webb, who owns 40 acres of farmland in Shelby County, Iowa, says it was worries about losing land to eminent domain that got her involved in the fight against the pipeline. Walker Pickering for The New York TimesMs. Schmidt is fine with climate skepticism. “A key tenet for change,” she said, “is to meet people where they’re at.”Mr. King was first ousted from his committee assignments, then defeated in a primary challenge, after a series of racist comments culminated in an interview with The New York Times in which he asked, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”But Ms. Schmidt said that Mr. King, after 18 years in Congress, remained influential in conservative western Iowa.“I certainly never thought we’d be in a position to have a meeting where you have incredibly liberal socialists teaming with very right-wing QAnon believers,” she continued. “People have to open their minds a little bit, and sometimes they have to shut their mouths.”How Republican presidential candidates respond is, at this point, anyone’s guess. Despite Mr. Trump’s more recent comments, when he was president, his administration said it had no plan to stop the pipelines. In fact, a tax credit created in 2008 to incentivize carbon capture programs like Summit, Navigator and Wolf was expanded by a budget law in 2018 that Mr. Trump signed, and expanded again by a tax bill signed by Mr. Trump in 2020. The credit was expanded yet again by President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.Mr. Rastetter has donated around $10,000 to Mr. Trump’s campaigns since 2016, along with the hundreds of thousands he has donated to national and state Republican interests over the past 15 years.Officials at Navigator declined to comment.Critics say Mr. Trump has every reason to oppose the pipeline now. He has called climate change a “hoax” devised by China, so the pipelines are billed as a solution to a problem he does not recognize. Even better, he could use his stated opposition to continue a feud with Ms. Reynolds, whom he has blasted for refusing to endorse him, said Jane Kleeb, a Nebraska Democrat and anti-pipeline activist who has been pressing Mr. Trump to get involved.“There’s no downside for him,” she said.When Mr. Ramaswamy, who has called climate activism a cult, was asked about the issue last month in Davenport, Iowa, he dismissed the pipelines as a solution in search of a problem.But in an interview this week, Mr. Ramaswamy did not blame economic and political interests in Iowa. They are merely responding to incentives set by the federal government, large states like California, and even climate-conscious European nations, he said.“The debate in Iowa is just collateral damage,” he said.Other candidates might have a tougher time threading that needle. The companies backing the pipelines frame them as a salvation for ethanol, which Iowa corn farmers depend on, in a world increasingly hostile to internal combustion engines. One candidate, Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, does not have the luxury of silence. He has already championed the Summit pipeline, which would end in his state, telling The Bismarck Tribune in May that two carbon dioxide pipelines have operated safely in the state for years.“And then now it’s like these are the most dangerous things in the world,” he scoffed. More

    • 125 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      In Ag-Friendly Iowa, Trump Goes After DeSantis on Farming Issues

      by

      At a rally in Iowa on Friday, the former president questioned his top Republican rival’s support for the agriculture industry.Donald J. Trump attacked Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida on Friday over his support for farmers, saying his chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination would be “a catastrophe” for the country’s agriculture industry.Mr. Trump claimed at a rally in Iowa that Mr. DeSantis would outsource American farming jobs overseas and oppose the federal mandate for ethanol, a fuel made from corn and other crops. Support for ethanol, which Iowa is a national leader in producing, is a quadrennial issue in presidential elections in this early voting state.In 2017, Mr. DeSantis supported legislation that would end the renewable fuel standard, a nearly two-decade-old standard that requires refiners to blend biofuel into gasoline nationwide. The policy is opposed by some conservatives, who see the mandate as onerous government regulation.Speaking to more than 2,000 supporters in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday, Mr. Trump rattled off his record of delivering on priorities for conservative farmers, including raising the exemption limit on the estate tax and replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement. Then, he eagerly highlighted what he claimed was his rival’s history of opposing an issue that carries outsize political weight in Iowa.“He has been fighting for years to kill every single job supported by this vital industry,” he said of ethanol. “If he had his way, the entire economy of Iowa would absolutely collapse.”Bryan Griffin, a spokesman for the DeSantis campaign, said in an email that Mr. Trump’s comments were a sign of his “eroding support” in Iowa.“This unfortunately isn’t the first instance of Donald Trump distorting the governor’s record, and we know it won’t be the last,” Mr. Griffin said. “As president, Ron DeSantis will be a champion for farmers and use every tool available to open new markets.” The event marked Mr. Trump’s first large event in the state in nearly four months, after a rally scheduled for May was canceled by the campaign, which cited possible severe weather.Held in a convention hall near the Nebraska border, the rally was packed with voters from the neighboring — and non-early voting — state.“I hope Nebraska is represented here,” Mr. Trump said as the crowd exploded in cheers. “That’s a big contingent.” More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      House G.O.P., Divided Over Immigration, Advances Border Crackdown Plan

      by

      Republicans are eyeing a vote next month on legislation that would reinstate Trump-era policies, after feuding that led leaders to drop some of the plan’s most extreme provisions.WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday pushed ahead with a sweeping immigration crackdown that would codify several stringent border policies imposed by the Trump administration, after months of internal feuding that led G.O.P. leaders to drop some of the plan’s most extreme provisions.The House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees in recent days approved their pieces of the plan, which has little chance of being considered in the Democratic-led Senate but sets up a pivotal test of whether Republican leaders can deliver on their campaign promise to clamp down on record migrant inflows.For Republicans, who have repeatedly attacked President Biden on his immigration policies and embarked on an effort to impeach his homeland security secretary, the measure is a chance to lay out an alternative vision on an issue that galvanizes its right-wing base.The legislation, now expected on the floor next month, would direct the Biden administration to resume constructing the border wall that was former President Donald J. Trump’s signature project. It would also mandate that employers check workers’ legal status through an electronic system known as E-Verify and reinstate the “Remain in Mexico” policy, forcing asylum applicants to wait in detention facilities or outside the United States before their claims are heard.The plan “will force the administration to enforce the law, secure the border, and reduce illegal immigration once again,” Representative Mark E. Green, Republican of Tennessee and the Homeland Security Committee’s chairman, said during the panel’s debate on Wednesday.Democrats have derided the package as misguided and draconian, accusing Republicans of seeking to invigorate their core supporters in advance of the 2024 election by reviving some of Mr. Trump’s most severe border policies. They made vocal objections to provisions that would ban the use of the phone-based app known as “C.B.P. One” to streamline processing migrants at ports of entry, expedite the deportation of unaccompanied minors, and criminalize visa overstays of more than 10 days.Republicans “want to appeal to their extreme MAGA friends more than they want progress,” Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, said Wednesday, calling the Republican legislation a “profoundly immoral” piece of legislation that would “sow chaos at the border.”Still, the package represents a compromise of sorts between hard-right Republicans and more mainstream G.O.P. lawmakers, including a mostly Latino group from border states that balked at proposals that threatened to gut the nation’s asylum system.The party’s immigration plan — which top Republicans had hoped to pass as one of their first bills of their new House majority — has been stalled for months. A faction led by Representative Tony Gonzales, Republican of Texas, has raised concerns about the asylum changes, threatening to withhold votes that Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, cannot afford to lose given his slim majority.Over the last week, G.O.P. leaders have quietly made a series of concessions to win over the skeptics. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee agreed to drop a provision that would have effectively stopped the intake of asylum seekers if the government failed to detain or deport all migrants seeking to enter the country without permission. But the measure still contains a number of new asylum restrictions.“It’s in a good spot,” Mr. Gonzales said of the legislation on Thursday, saying that the changes made to the asylum provision had satisfied his concerns. “As long as nobody does any funny business — you’ve got to watch it till the very end.”G.O.P. leaders predicted on Thursday that they would be able to draw a majority for the legislation when it comes to the House in mid-May, a timeline selected to coincide with the expected expiration of a Covid-era policy allowing officials to swiftly expel migrants at the border. The termination of the program, known as Title 42, is expected to inspire a new surge of attempted border crossings and supercharge the already bitter partisan debate over immigration policy.But it was unclear whether Republicans who had objected to the E-Verify requirement would be on board.Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky withheld his support for the Judiciary Committee’s bill because of the work authorization mandate, arguing that people “shouldn’t have to go through an E-Verify database to exercise your basic human right to trade labor for sustenance.”Such databases “always get turned against us, and they’re never used for the purpose they were intended for,” added Mr. Massie, a conservative libertarian.Representative Dan Newhouse, a Republican farmer in Washington State, has expressed concern that the E-Verify mandate could create labor shocks in the agricultural sector, which relies heavily on undocumented immigrant labor. Though the legislation delays the requirement for farmers for three years, Mr. Newhouse has argued that any such change should be paired with legislation creating more legal pathways for people to work in the United States.With the expected floor vote just weeks away, G.O.P. leaders have been treading carefully, even making last-minute concessions to Democrats in hopes of bolstering support for the legislation.During the wee hours on Thursday morning, as the Homeland Security Committee debated its bill, Republicans pared back language barring nongovernmental organizations that assist undocumented migrants from receiving funding from the Department of Homeland Security. They did so after Democrats pointed out the broadly phrased prohibition could deprive legal migrants and U.S. citizens of critical services as well.Their changes did not go far enough to satisfy Democrats, who unanimously opposed the package on the Judiciary and the Homeland Security panels — and are expected to oppose the combined border security package en masse on the House floor.They have also argued that any measure to enhance border security or enforcement must be paired with expanded legal pathways for immigrants to enter the United States. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Dutch Pro-Farmer Party Sweeps Elections, Upsetting the Status Quo

      by

      The surprise victory is widely seen as a protest vote against Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s government and some of his policies, including a goal to slash nitrogen emissions, which many say will imperil farming operations.A small pro-farmers party has swept provincial elections in the Netherlands to become the biggest in the Senate by channeling wide dissatisfaction with the Dutch government, in a sharp challenge to Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s administration.The results put the party, the Farmer Citizen Movement, which has fewer than 11,000 members, according to its website, on track to become a major player in a government body that approves or rejects legislation that comes out of the House of Representatives.Some Dutch voters said they viewed the party’s success as a victory against the country’s elites as well as the government. They said it showed support for the preservation of rural life in the Netherlands and the farming economy, in particular, though voters from all parts of the country, including suburban areas, supported the party.But the victory could make it difficult for Mr. Rutte’s government to pass a strict law to cut nitrogen emissions in the Netherlands by 50 percent by 2030, to fight climate change and place it in line with European Union requirements to preserve nature reserves. The prime minister’s party, which does not have a majority in the Senate or the House, needs a coalition vote to pass laws.The pro-farmers party, known by its Dutch acronym BBB, opposes the plan, saying it could imperil farmers’ operations in a country renowned for its agricultural industry. To reach the government’s emission-reduction goals, thousands of farmers would have to significantly reduce the number of their livestock and the size of their operations, farmers and their supporters say. If they cannot help meet the government’s target, they may have to close down their operations altogether, they say.Mr. Rutte, who is not up for election for a few more years and is one of Europe’s longest-serving leaders, having been elected in 2010, called the results a “scream at politics,” according to the Dutch wire service ANP.Caroline van der Plas, the co-founder and leader of BBB, said after the vote: “They already couldn’t ignore us. But now, they definitely can’t.”Ben Apeldoorn, a dairy farmer in the Utrecht Province who voted for the pro-farmers party, said the win felt like “a victory of the common man over the elite.”“I’m pleasantly surprised,” he said. “As farmers, we felt abandoned by the political society.”The Farmer Citizen Movement did not exist until four years ago. The party, which had zero seats going into the election, won at least 16 in the 75-seat Senate, according to exit polls and projections. A bloc formed by left-of-center Labor and Green parties had 15 seats, local news reports said. (BBB holds one seat in the 150-member House of Representatives.)Now, BBB, which presents itself as a party of the countryside, appears to be on track to become the largest party in all but one province, according to the Dutch public broadcaster NOS. Vote counting was still wrapping up late Thursday night.Prime Minister Mark Rutte in Den Bosch, the Netherlands, on Wednesday, called the election results a “scream at politics.”Robin Van Lonkhuijsen/EPA, via ShutterstockIn Dutch provincial elections, held every four years, voters choose the lawmakers for the country’s 12 provinces, who then pick members of the Senate, which will be done in May. With BBB’s victory, the fate of the government’s plan to drastically cut nitrogen emissions is in question.Bart Kemp, the chairman of Agractie, a farmers interest group founded in 2019, says the party’s victory means “the Netherlands has taken a big step toward being more reasonable.” He added, “The government has unrealistic plans.”Research from 2019 shows that the Netherlands produces, on average, four times as much nitrogen as other European countries. The agricultural industry is responsible for the largest share of nitrogen emissions in the country, much of it from the waste produced by the estimated 1.6 million cows that provide the milk used to make the country’s famed cheeses, like Gouda and Edam.Scientists have long sounded the alarm about the urgent global need to reduce harmful emissions. Too much nitrogen acidifies the ground, which reduces the amount of nutrients for plants and trees. That, in turn, means that fewer kinds of plants can grow together. Nitrogen emissions also cause less fungus in the ground, which makes it more vulnerable to extreme weather such as drought or rain.Excess nitrogen in the ocean can also help create conditions in which vital organisms cannot survive.The nitrogen-reduction plan led to nationwide protests last year, with people burning manure and hay bales and hanging upside-down flags along highways.Police officers used a water cannon on environmental activists protesting against tax breaks for fossil fuel use in The Hague this month.Piroschka Van De Wouw/ReutersChristianne van der Wal, the minister for nature and nitrogen in Mr. Rutte’s government and a member of his People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, acknowledged that many Dutch residents were against the government’s nitrogen emissions plan.“We’ve known that for a long time,” she said, calling it a complicated issue that would have a major effect on people’s lives. But, she added, “at the same time, there’s no choice.”Farmers say they have always followed the rules, trying to find innovative and more sustainable ways of producing and ensuring safe and high-quality food. They say the government’s plan, which includes the possibility of forced buyouts, made them feel unwanted.“Everyone in the Netherlands cares about nature, including farmers,” said Ms. van der Plas, who occupies BBB’s only seat in the House. The Netherlands simply has to follow European rules for preserving its nature preserves, she added, even though the bloc has not stipulated how exactly to do so.A Dutch dairy farmer in Oldetrijne, in the Friesland Province, on Wednesday. Farmers say they may have to reduce their livestock under the government’s emissions-reduction plan.Piroschka Van De Wouw/ReutersWhether the government’s proposal will come up for a vote in its current form in the Senate is unclear.Ms. van der Wal, the nitrogen minister, said it was up to the provinces to find policies to prepare for the reduction of nitrogen emissions.“All parties, left or right, pro- or anti- the nitrogen approach, have plans for their provinces: the building of houses or energy transition,” she said through a spokesperson.“But without the reduction of nitrogen emissions,” she said, “that simply won’t be possible.” More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Czech Court Clears Andrej Babis of Fraud in E.U. Funds Case

      by

      Andrej Babis, a billionaire agriculturalist, had been accused of illegally obtaining farm subsidies for one of his properties.A Czech court on Monday cleared Andrej Babis, the billionaire former prime minister of the Czech Republic who became a symbol of how the E.U. farm subsidy program enriched the well-connected and powerful, of fraud charges in a case regarding one of his properties.The court on Monday cleared Mr. Babis of fraudulently obtaining E.U. subsidies for the property, citing lack of evidence, just days before the first round of a presidential election in the Czech Republic in which Mr. Babis is considered a front-runner.“NOT GUILTY!” Mr. Babis said on Twitter on Monday. “I am very happy that we have an independent judiciary and the court has confirmed what I have argued from the beginning. That I am innocent and have done nothing illegal.”The case revolved around Mr. Babis’s use of the E.U. farm subsidy program, a pot of money worth dozens of billions that is handed out every year.A 2019 New York Times investigation found that politicians used the money to enrich themselves and their political patrons. That did not necessarily mean they broke the law. The investigation found that Mr. Babis’s companies received $79 million in subsidies.In the case resolved on Monday, Mr. Babis was accused of fraudulently transferring a company to his wife and children as a way of receiving subsidies.The case is separate from an audit by the European Commission that found that as prime minister, Mr. Babis breached conflict of interest rules and influenced the allocation of E.U. subsidies to the business conglomerate he built. Mr. Babis has said that the audit was flawed.For a decade, Mr. Babis was dogged by scandals related to Agrofert, the conglomerate he built out of companies in a range of sectors including food and agriculture. It is one of the country’s largest employers.The case resolved Monday involved a farm in the Czech Republic known as the Stork’s Nest, which received about $2.2 million in E.U. subsidies after its ownership was transferred from Agrofert to Mr. Babis’s wife and children.The prosecutor had said that in 2007 and 2008 Mr. Babis removed the Stork’s Nest from Agrofert to allow it to qualify for E.U. funding as a small- to medium-size business, and accused him of fraud. In 2018 the funds the company received were returned to the European Union.The judge, Jan Sott, said on Monday that the prosecutor did not provide relevant evidence proving that Mr. Babis held shares of the Stork’s Nest. He also said “it was not proved that the acts as described by the prosecutor were criminal.” The decision can still be appealed.In 2017, Mr. Babis placed his businesses into a trust amid accusations of conflicts of interest. The farm is now part of that trust, according to Agrofert’s website.Mr. Babis has also been accused of purchasing a villa and other properties on the French Riviera worth more than $20 million through offshore shell companies. According to French media, he is facing an investigation in France into money laundering. He has denied any wrongdoing.Mr. Babis, who was the finance minister between 2014 and 2017 and prime minister between 2017 and 2021, had not entered politics when he bought the French properties.In 2019, Czechs organized large demonstrations calling for Mr. Babis’s resignation. In 2021, he was defeated in parliamentary elections.In the presidential election set to take place on Friday and Saturday, Mr. Babis is running against Gen. Petr Pavel, a former NATO official, and Danuse Nerudova, a university professor and economist, both of whom are supported by the political coalition of Prime Minister Petr Fiala.On Monday, Mr. Fiala said on Facebook that the court’s verdict needed to be respected.“The actual political fights in democracy take place during elections,” he added. “Let’s come to the polls and let’s solve our future.” More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Chaos and Concessions as Kevin McCarthy Becomes Speaker

      by

      More from our inbox:Should Babies Sit in First Class on the Plane?A Chatbot as a Writing ToolSupport Family Farms Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “McCarthy Wins Speakership on 15th Vote After Concessions to Hard Right” (nytimes.com, Jan. 7):So Kevin McCarthy is finally speaker of the House. It took 15 votes to get him there.But considering the concessions he had to make, the unruly nature of right-wing Republicans and the razor-thin margin, the next two years are likely to be a nightmare for Mr. McCarthy.Sometimes be careful what you wish for.Allan GoldfarbNew YorkTo the Editor:It’s easy to blame Republicans for the debacle of the House leadership vote and all its predictable miserable consequences. But where were the 212 Democrats in all this?Sure, I can see the rationale behind a show of support and unity for Hakeem Jeffries at the outset. He’s much deserving and would have done a fine job. But that’s a battle Democrats were never going to win.Deep into the voting rounds when it became apparent that there would be no win for Kevin McCarthy without further empowering the right-wing extremists, wouldn’t it have been smarter for Democrats to have gotten together to nominate some (any!) moderate Republican and hope to deny both Mr. McCarthy and the extremists their day?Democrats are just as bad as Republicans in putting party loyalty ahead of what’s best for the American people.Russell RoyManchester, N.H.To the Editor:Re “How a Battle for Control Set the Table for Disarray” (news article, Jan. 8):As Emily Cochrane points out, in getting elected speaker, Kevin McCarthy accepted making changes to the rules of the House that are not merely a weakening of the powers of the speakership, but also a danger to the country. If Congress cannot agree to raise the debt ceiling, the United States could default on its debt for the first time. The mere threat is a clear and present danger.Is it possible that some Republican members of the House could, even though they voted for Mr. McCarthy, nonetheless join Democrats in voting against the most dangerous changes in the rules?If, instead, all House Republicans regard their vote for Mr. McCarthy as a vote for the concessions he made to become speaker, then each and every one of them has as much responsibility for the damage these rules will do the country as the radicals who insisted on the changes.Jeff LangChapel Hill, N.C.The writer is a former chief international trade counsel for the Senate’s Committee on Finance.To the Editor:What a day. I imagine that the second anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection will go down in history as the day the Democrats commemorated all the patriotic heroes who fought to save our democracy, while simultaneously the Republicans in Congress could be seen doing their level best to destroy it.Sharon AustryFort WorthTo the Editor:It’s not just the far-right representatives who can disrupt the workings of the House. The concession to change the rules to allow a single lawmaker to force a snap vote to oust the speaker gives the Democrats a filibuster-like power.If they want to stop a particular vote for a Republican-sponsored bill, all the Democrats have to do is keep calling for votes to remove the speaker. That vote would take precedence until the Republicans give up and take their bill off the agenda.By insisting on having the power to disrupt the workings of the House, the far-right Republicans have given the same power to the Democrats.Henry FarkasPikesville, Md.To the Editor:Teachers seeking to explain to their students the meaning of a Pyrrhic victory, look no further than Kevin McCarthy!Peter RogatzPort Washington, N.Y.Should Babies Sit in First Class on the Plane? Brian BritiganTo the Editor:Re “Um, Perhaps Your Baby Will Fit in the Overhead Bin?” (Travel, Jan. 7):This article has particular relevance for me, as someone who has traveled more than 100,000 miles every year for the last 25 years. I have seen a number of variations on this theme of babies in first class.The alternative to having one first-class or business seat with an infant on one’s lap is to buy two seats or even three seats in coach, which allow for the parent to have the option of holding the child or placing the child in a travel seat. It would also be fairer for airlines to require that parents buy an actual seat for an infant when it comes to purchasing seats in business or first class.There is a clear difference between a domestic first-class cabin for a two-hour flight and an overnight transcontinental flight where the entire point of paying $5,000 for a seat is to be able to sleep so one may function the next day during back-to-back meetings.My heartfelt advice to those parents contemplating their options is to buy a Comfort Plus or premium coach seat for you as well as for your infant to have ample space and to be a good citizen.Ronnie HawkinsWashingtonTo the Editor:A few years ago, my husband and I flew on Scandinavian Airlines from D.C. to Copenhagen. There were perhaps half a dozen babies on the plane, but we heard not a peep from any of them for the length of the flight. Why? The plane had fold-down bassinets in the bulkheads, and people traveling with babies were assigned those seats.Of course, there are no surefire ways to prevent disruptive passengers, whether they’re children or adults, but the airlines in this country disregard their own role in this mess by making flying such a miserable experience for everyone.Debra DeanMiamiA Chatbot as a Writing Tool Larry Buchanan/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Fourth Grader or Chatbot?” (The Upshot, Jan. 4):I have been a teacher of writing for the past 38 years, and my first reaction to ChatGPT, a new artificial intelligence chatbot, was dread: How could I prevent my students from using this technology? My second reaction was to wonder how I might use it myself.Once we are done with denial and hand-wringing, teachers need to think about how we can use A.I. to help teach student writing. This tool can help generate ideas, offer suggestions, map out structures, transform outlines to drafts and much more that could demystify the writing process.The technology is here to stay; our job will be to advance the education of our students by using A.I. to develop their writing and thinking skills.Huntington LymanMiddleburg, Va.The writer is the academic dean at The Hill School in Middleburg.Support Family Farms Antoine CosséTo the Editor:Re “What Growing Up on a Farm Taught Me About Humility,” by Sarah Smarsh (Opinion guest essay, Dec. 25):I am just one generation removed from the family dairy farm, and my cousins still operate one in Idaho and their lives are tough. In the words of Ms. Smarsh, they’re “doing hard, undervalued work.”Ms. Smarsh makes a strong case against giant agricultural corporations and their “torturous treatment of animals.”Currently, the majority of farm production is driven by corporate greed. However, small-farm, organic-raised meat and produce are expensive alternatives, which are out of reach for low-income, food-insecure families.More moral, sustainable food production is a policy issue that our lawmakers should address. Ms. Smarsh is right: Family farms are being “forced out of business by policies that favor large industrial operations.”Mary PoundAlexandria, Va. More