2011 December 06

Alabama Agriculture Department Advances Plan To Replace Immigrant Workers With Prisoners

ThinkProgress has been reporting on the catastrophic economic consequences of Alabama’s harshest-in-the-nation immigration law. Undocumented workers are the backbone of Alabama’s agriculture industry, and their exodus has already created a labor shortage in the state. Farmers say crops are rotting in the field and they are in danger of losing their farms by next season.

GOP politicians have crowed that driving immigrants out of the state will reduce unemployment by letting native citizens fill those jobs. But they’ve quickly discovered that Americans are simply unwilling to do the back-breaking labor of harvesting crops.

To stave off the disastrous collapse of state agriculture, Alabama officials are seriously considering replacing immigrant workers with prison laborers who they could perhaps pay even less than immigrants. Earlier this year, the head of Alabama’s agriculture department floated this idea. Now, the department is actively promoting it to the state’s farmers:

Alabama agriculture officials are considering whether prisoners can fill a labor shortage the agency blames on the new state law against illegal immigration.

The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries is meeting with south Alabama farmers and businesses in Mobile on Tuesday. Deputy commissioner Brett Hall says the agenda includes a presentation on whether work-release inmates could help fill jobs once held by immigrants.

Georgia implemented a similar scheme to deal with its post-immigration-law exodus, but the program had mixed results, with many inmates walking off the job early. In fact, some in Georgia were amazed Alabama did not learn from their mistakes before implementing an immigration law that jeopardized agricultural and construction industries. “It was like, ‘Good Lord, you people can’t be helped. Have you all not been paying attention?’” said Bryan Tolar, president of the Georgia Agribusiness Council.

Replacing skilled workers with virtually free (and sometimes actually free) prison laborers has become a trend in Republican-led states. Under Gov. Scott Walker’s (R-WI) anti-collective bargaining law, at least one Wisconsin county replaced some union workers with prison labor. And Georgia is considering replacing firefighters with prisoners to save money.

Evangelical Group Frames EPA’s Proposed Mercury Emissions Control Rule As ‘Pro-Life’

christian evangelical group frames EPA's regulation of coal emissions as a "pro-life" issue

Bachmann: There’s No Scenario In Which I Would Vote For A Tax On Millionaires

Appearing on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said she would never vote to raise taxes on millionaires under any circumstance, even if the tax exempted small businesses (as the GOP always falsely characterizes millionaires as being overwhelmingly small business owners):

HOST: Is there any scenario in which you would for a tax on millionaires if it keeps businesses, small businesses, out of the loop?

BACHMANN: No. I would not. Because if you look historically at the data, it has led to less job creation than more. And it drove people out of the sate of New Jersey.

Watch it:

It’s unclear what tax data Bachmann — a former federal tax attorney — is referring to, as historical trends show the opposite. As Center for American Progress Director of Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden found, “in the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now.” In fact, “if you ranked each year since 1950 by overall job growth, the top five years would all boast marginal tax rates at 70 percent or higher.”

Bachmann’s claim about New Jersey is also not born out by the facts. A major study on the effect of the millionaires surtax found that New Jersey’s millionaire population actually grew while the tax was in place, even through the recession. The tax’s impact on millionaires leaving the state was “close to zero,” the study concluded. Meanwhile, the tax is overwhelmingly popular; a Quinnipiac University poll released last month found that 64 percent of New Jersey residents want to revive the tax, which Gov. Chris Christie (R) killed, while only 28 percent opposed reinstating it too.

Power Company Constellation Meets Air Toxics Standards AEP Calls Unattainable

A power company that invested millions to cut coal pollution in 2008 is now urging the White House to reject competitors’ complaints they can’t do the same before 2015. American Electric Power has claimed that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed air toxics rule would be ruinously expensive to implement. “It’s entirely possible to comply with these rules and remain a profitable company,” Paul Allen, chief environmental officer of the Baltimore-based Constellation Energy said.

Oil Prices Spiking Again; When Will We Ever Learn?

Dependence on gasoline means the economy tanks when prices get too high. The answer Is to get off gas.

Renewable Energy in 1970, Renewable Energy Now (Maps)

These two maps offer a visual demonstration of the progress the United States has made in installing renewable energy projects since 1970.

Is It Time for California to Phase Out Nuclear Power?

Italy recently became the fourth nation to pledge to phase out nuclear power since Japan's Fukushima disaster. Italy accomplished this feat by a popular referendum, soon after Germany did the same in its legislature (Bundestag). Switzerland has also agreed to a phase out and Japan itself has agreed to phase out much of its nuclear capacity in favor of renewables and natural gas.

New Website Launched To ‘SaveUSAWindJobs’

Wind power is creating one of America's fastest-growing manufacturing sectors, providing 75,000 jobs in the U.S. currently and the promise of 500,000 jobs less than 20 years from now. But these jobs are in jeopardy without stable tax policy for the wind energy industry. Now a new website—complete with a compelling and informative new video—has launched to help enable Americans to do something about it.

Local Versus Non-Local Food: Is The Kind of Food You Eat More Important Than Where it Comes From?

by Cole Mellino

Proponents of local food production have long argued that you drastically decrease your carbon footprint by eating locally-sourced food.

There have been numerous studies in recent years showing that non-local food, especially imported food, which is making up a larger and larger percentage of Americans’ diets, has a much higher emissions impact than locally produced food. A study from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has the numbers to prove it. Here is some of the data on the staggering impact imported food has in California:

• In 2005, the import of fruits, nuts, and vegetables into California by airplane released more than 70,000 tons of CO2, which is equivalent to more than 12,000 cars on the road. These are all foods that can be grown in California
• Almost 250,000 tons of global warming gases released were attributable to imports of food products—the equivalent amount of pollution produced by more than 40,000 vehicles on the road or nearly two power plants
• More than 6,000 tons of smog-forming nitrogen oxides were released into the air— the equivalent of almost 1.5 million vehicles or 263 power plants
• 300 tons of sooty particulate matter were released into the air—the equivalent of more than 1.2 million cars or 53 power plants
• Approximately 950 cases of asthma, 16,870 missed schools days, 43 hospital admissions, and 37 premature deaths could be attributed to the worsened air quality from food imports, according to freight transport–related projections by the California Air Resources Board.

These numbers show the major impact that our food choices have on the environment and human health. This heavy reliance on imports is alarming considering that California is the number one state for agricultural production in the U.S. After examining the top six imports to California (table grapes, navel oranges, wine, garlic, rice, and fresh tomatoes — all grown in the state), NRDC discovered a disturbing trend:

Harmful air pollution in California produced from transporting these six foods into California was up to 45 times more than local or regional transport of California grown foods—and global warming pollution went up to 500 times that of locally grown foods when the food was imported by airplane.

In another study comparing the impact of local versus non-local produce, researchers at Virginia Tech conducted an assessment of carbon dioxide emissions of local broccoli and non-local broccoli. Here’s what they found:

The average distance traveled by nonlocal broccoli delivered to Virginia Tech during the month of October 2009 was 2786.0 miles. The total amount of carbon dioxide emitted as a result of this transport was 105,830.0 pounds. This averaged to approximately 11,758.9 pounds carbon dioxide per shipment and 15.3 pounds carbon dioxide per pound of broccoli delivered.

In contrast to the high mileage of non-local broccoli:

The distance traveled per trip by the cargo van transporting the local broccoli was 19.1 miles. The amount of carbon dioxide emitted per trip was 23.2 pounds, which added up to 258.3 pounds of carbon dioxide emitted during all transport occurring in the month of October. Per pound of broccoli, 0.04 pounds of carbon dioxide were emitted.

This is a very specific case study. But it shows how local food can substantially reduce emissions. Just look at this map of the non-local broccoli’s trek across America when it can be grown in Virginia to be eaten in Virginia.

And here’s the much more sensible journey of local broccoli:

There is, however, valid criticism of the idea that local food is always the best. Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews, of Carnegie Mellon University did a life-cycle analysis of the average American diet by tracking greenhouse gas emissions through all phases of a food’s production, transport, and consumption. Weber and Matthews found that overall, transport accounts for about 11 percent of the food system’s emissions. Agricultural production accounts for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, or 83 percent. They found that the kind of food is much more important than where it comes from. A diet containing meat and dairy products is much more resource intensive than a plant-based diet. The Worldwatch Institute’s article on Weber and Matthews’ report sums it up well:

Weber and Matthews calculated that reducing food miles to zero-an all-but-impossible goal in practice-would reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the food system by only about 5 percent, equivalent to driving 1,000 miles less over the course of a year.

By comparison, replacing red meat and dairy with chicken, fish, or eggs for one day per week  would save the equivalent of driving 760 miles per year. Replacing red meat and dairy with vegetables one day a week would be like driving 1,160 miles less. “Thus,” they write, “we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than ‘buying local.’”

So yes, eating less meat and dairy will greatly reduce the impact your diet has on the planet. However, the combination of choosing the right foods with a local approach will have the biggest impact:

Weber acknowledges, “These calculations were done assuming that local foods are no different than non-local foods.” And that’s not usually the case. For example, local-food advocates also emphasize eating seasonal (often meaning field-grown) and less-processed foods. Those qualities, along with shorter distances from farm to table, will also contribute to lower emissions compared to the “average” diet.

Separating the debate into an either/or is a red herring. Ideally, we’d do both.

Cole Mellino is an intern on the energy team at the Center for American Progress