Tag Archives: Bill 79

Aquaponics, Family of Farms, Food Security, Hydroelectric, Lowering Electric Rates, Peak Oil, Renewable Energy Sources, Sustainability, Water

State of the Farm Report

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

Yesterday at the farm I had a meeting with all our workers. It was an update on where we have been and where we are going.

Where we’ve been

The price of oil has quadrupled in the last 10 years, and those who could pass on the cost did. Those who could not pass on the cost ended up paying more. Farmers are price takers, not price makers, so farmers’ costs increased more than their prices.

Anticipating higher electricity prices, we lobbied for and passed a law that the Department of Agriculture create a new farm loan program that farmers could use for renewable energy purposes. Then we started to design a hydroelectricity program to stabilize our electricity costs.

Where we are today

The hydroelectricity project is within weeks of completion. With the combination of a farm loan and a grant from the Department of Energy, we will stabilize our electricity price at 40 percent less than we pay today.

The pipe that transports the water appears to me like it will last for more than 100 years. After the loan is paid off, our electricity will be practically free for more than 60 years.

Where we are going

We are taking advantage of our resources – free water and stable electricity costs – by working with area farmers to help each other grow more food.

What kind of food? Responding to consumer demand, we want to
produce food with a wide variety of nutritional content, including protein, via aquaculture.

In order to be sustainable, the feed-based protein must be vegetation-based. And since the building block of protein is nitrogen, we are looking for an adequate nitrogen source. Unused, wasted electricity can be used to make ammonia, which is a nitrogen fertilizer and, like a battery, can be used to store energy.

What does the future
look like?

Other than stable electricity, which would help us, our serious
concern is the anti-GMO Bill 79. It seeks to ban any new biotech solutions to farmers’ problems on the Big Island. The result is that the rest of the counties and the nation would be able to use new tools for more successful farming, and the Big Island would not.

What would happen is that Big Island farmers would become
less competitive, which would put even more pressure on those already at the bottom of the pay scale. It would result in higher food costs, making consumers less able to support local farmers.

The folks pushing for the anti-GMO bill have not talked to farmers, and they have no clue that this bill would make Hawai‘i less food
secure. The bottom line is that food security involves farmers farming. If the farmers make money, the farmers will farm. If not, they will quit.

Aquaponics, Food Security, Government

Anti-GMO Bill 79, Farmers & Science

2 Comments

Richard Ha writes:

Hawai‘i County Councilmember Margaret Wille is planning to
resubmit an anti-GMO bill – because, she says, her fellow council members generally recognize there is a need to restrict any further introduction of GMOs here on the Big Island.

And yet, after talking to the other council members, farmers don’t think Councilmember Wille is correct about that.

Note, too, that she has not bothered to meet with the farmer
groups affected – those who produce most of the food grown here on the island – and we can only assume she does not want their input.

In an earlier note, Wille indicated that if GMO crops were allowed, that would be the end of organic, natural farming and permaculture farming.

Actually, the reason organic farming does not produce more food is actually because its cost of production is very high. This would not change with Councilmember Wille’s bill.

The result of her bill passing would actually be more expensive food for the Big Island’s people.

One of the basic reasons Bill 79 is not fair to conventional farming is because farmers on other islands would be allowed to use new biotech seeds for nutrition improvement, disease prevention, heat tolerance and other labor and cost saving methods, while Big Island farmers would not be able to do so.

Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus is an example of a very serious tomato
disease. If farmers on other islands are allowed biotech solutions to such diseases, while Big Island farmers are not, that could be the difference between Big Island tomato farmers surviving or not.

It could also be the difference between whether conventional farmers continue farming, or do not. Yet Councilperson Wille has chosen to not even meet with farmers.

In this morning’s Honolulu Star-Advertiser, Maria Gallo
wrote an excellent commentary on genetically modified foods. She is Dean of the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources and Director of Research and the Tropical Extension Service at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. She writes from a knowledgeable, scientific background.

Not all genetically modified foods the same and a blanket ban on them would be misguided

By Maria Gallo

For years, I taught a course on genetically modified organisms.

First, we covered the biology behind GMOs so that students had the science background. Then we described agricultural systems so that they understood the challenges facing food production.

Next, we reviewed the applications of GMOs so that they knew the products being used along with their benefits and risks. And last, we discussed the controversy surrounding GMOs.

The objective was to develop students’ critical thinking skills so that they could make informed decisions…. Read the rest (subscription required)

Gallo points out that the GM technique itself is not harmful, and that, in fact, new GM traits aim to do things like reduce how much water crops use, through drought tolerance; to reduce saturated fats and allergens in foods, and to increase disease-fighting nutrients in food. She warns that a blanket ban on GMOs in Hawai‘i, when we are already in a position of so little food self-sufficiency, would be short sighted.

In yesterday’s Hawai‘i Tribune-Herald, Michael Shintaku had a letter to the editor along these same lines. He points out that “Supporters of this bill were surprised that so many farmers rose in opposition,” and says, “Please talk to a farmer before supporting these bills.” He makes some excellent points. From his letter:

“Bill 79 and efforts like it are terrible mistakes. It is fear-based legislation that comes from the misunderstanding that biotechnology is too dangerous to use…. Biotechnology is young, and we haven’t even gotten to the good stuff yet.”

“Bill 79 would condemn all biotechnological solutions based on irrational fear….There is no credible argument on this point in the scientific community. This issue is pretty much settled.”

He asks that we “Please allow Big Island farmers, who are among our best friends and neighbors, to use the best technology available.”

Food Security, Peak Oil, Sustainability

What Our Bottom Line Should Be

Richard Ha writes:

I’ve said this before, but look at it again: The energy we use to get energy, minus the energy used to get our food, equals our lifestyle.
How much is left over – after we’ve used our energy to 1) obtain more energy and 2) feed ourselves – determines how we live.

This is the nexus of energy and agriculture.

Our bottom line right now needs to be: What should we do to ensure energy security? What should we do to ensure food security?

The cost of producing food is the cost of petroleum oil plus the technology that utilizes oil more efficiently.

The cost of the energy we use to get new energy is rapidly getting to the point where consumers are resisting paying. The estimated cost of tar sand and shale oil is close to $112/barrel. The current oil price is a little bit below that. Shell Oil just announced that last quarter it lost $4/ barrel from its shale oil operations.

If producers lose money, they will eventually stop producing the expensive new oil. If they stop production, we will keep on using the old cheaper oil until it runs out. Peak Oil will happen not because we run out of oil, but because we can’t afford to buy the new, more expensive oil. And that time is not as far off as we think.

In recent years I have attended five Peak Oil conferences, talked to many experts, and even traveled to Iceland and the Philippines to observe how they leverage petroleum issues.

Using GMOs is one way we can lower agricultural costs through technology. For example, every biotech solution to a disease eliminates the need for chemicals to control the insect spreading the disease. This results in increased saving to the farmer, in terms
of increased production and fewer labor and chemical costs associated with spray control.

And how can we leverage the Hawaiian sun for its energy? GMO corn could do that. (If you are unsure about genetically modified organisms, see my post about the American Medical Association’s stand, and about how one of the founders of the anti-GMO method has completely changed his mind.)

An added benefit of utilizing GMO corn is that this could rejuvenate the hog, cattle and poultry industries. Right now, organic farmers do not have a manure source to make compost, which limits the ability of organic farmers to feed a significant
number of people.

Bill 79 would make future GMOs disallowed on the Big Island, while other Hawai‘i counties could use them, and this would give the other islands a strong competitive advantage over our Big Island farmers.

I think we need to take a time out before making a decision on Bill 79, in order to make sure we do this right.

Food Security, Government

We’re On The Right Path; Let’s Not Veer Off

Richard Ha writes:

Here in Hawai‘i, we are first in the country for senior citizens in life expectancy and quality of life. We must be doing something right.  

From the Hawaii Tribune-Herald:

Golden years shine brightest in Hawaii

By MIKE STOBBE

Associated Press

ATLANTA — If you’re 65 and living in Hawaii, here’s some good news: Odds are you’ll live another 21 years. And for all but five of those years, you’ll likely be in pretty good health.

Hawaii tops the charts in the government’s first state-by-state look at how long Americans age 65 can expect to live, on average, and how many of those remaining years will be healthy ones. Read the rest

This is one powerful reason why we should not rush into passing Bill 79, the anti-GMO bill. 

We need to plan for our future generations. The first requirement for food security is figuring out how we are going to provide affordable food for Hawai‘i's families, especially kupuna on fixed incomes and single moms.

The farmers need to be at the table. How do we enable farmers to farm? If the farmers make money, the farmers will farm. So far, the originators of this bill have not had a conversation with the farmers who grow most of the food.

We need our leaders to take charge and LEAD!

My letter to the editor on this same subject just ran in the Hawaii Tribune-Herald:

Dear Editor,

Bill 79, the anti-GMO bill, has brought out a lot of concern
and a lot of anxiety.

I say that we need to slow down. It would be premature to
rush into a decision on this bill without taking the time to hear everybody’s
input and address all the issues on the table.

Before we make big decisions – any of which could have
unintended consequences – we should set up some sort of task force to look at
the bigger picture of Hawai‘i’s self-sufficiency, and how we are going to
achieve that.

How are we going to get there, all of us together? We need
to end up at a place where we aloha each other, and take care of everybody.

Let’s not rush to pass this bill without fully understanding
the bigger picture.

Richard Ha,

Owner, Hamakua Springs Country Farms

Food Security, Government, Science

Big Island Farmers Rally Against Anti-GMO Bill

Richard Ha writes:

At the recent Hawai‘i County Council committee meeting about Bill 79, the anti-GMO bill, I said that it was a “Man Bites Dog” story because 90 percent of the Council room in Hilo was filled by small farmers.

And it’s still a Man Bites Dog story. Yesterday, our local farmers organized a rally, and 50 cattle trucks, papaya trucks, delivery trucks, etc. went around and around in front of the County building.

This video made by Lorie Farrell shows the farmers and the impressive rally:

Most trucks had two people in it. There were cattle ranchers, papaya farmers, nursery industry, banana farmers and others.

Gmo rally 012

From the Hawaii Tribune-Herald:

12:05 am – June 29, 2013 — Updated: 12:05 am – June 29, 2013

Farmers rally against GMO ban

Farmers and ranchers voice their opposition to County bill 79 on Friday in front of the Hawaii County Building

By COLIN M. STEWART

Tribune-Herald staff writer

“I’m here to save my job,” the woman explained as she waved to a honking line of vehicles crawling by the front of the Hawaii County Building on Aupuni Street in Hilo, shortly after 2 p.m. Friday.

The Panaewa papaya packer of nine years, who would only give her first name — Diana — said that she had joined with other agriculture industry workers to voice their opposition to Bill 79, a measure being proposed by County Councilwoman Margaret Wille that would limit the use of genetically modified crops on Hawaii Island.

“We want them to vote no on Bill 79,” she said….

 Read the rest here

In my 30-something years of farming, I have never seen diverse farmers come together to support each other like this. I could see on everybody’s face that it was not a one-time thing!

Gmo rally 012

Farmers have, as their top priorities, taking care of their families, workers, and feeding Hawai‘i’s people. Bill 79 is alarming because it pits the community against farmers, and farmers against farmers. Now farmers are having to defend themselves for being farmers.

In the Hawaiian culture, farmers were highly esteemed. This is not rocket science: If you like eat, you need someone who knows how to grow the food.

Farmers have some good characteristics to help them cope with the future. They are multi-talented and can fix equipment as well as grow crops. But most of all, they have good, old-fashioned common sense. This is the most important trait one must have to face an uncertain future.

Photo

Biofuel, Food Security, Peak Oil, Sustainability

Nothing Is More Important Than Being Able to Afford Food

1 Comment

Richard Ha writes:

How are these two things related: The Aina Koa Pono biofuel project, which is subsidized by the rate payer at $200 per barrel, and Bill 79, the anti-GMO bill submitted by Councilwoman Margaret Wille?

There is a very good chance that we will soon start down the backside of the world oil supply curve. If there is even the remotest chance this will happen, we need to be focusing sharply on the things that are crucial to us, living out here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Nothing is more important than being able to afford food.

We cannot waste time subsidizing $200 per barrel oil; what is the objective there? And we cannot waste time pitting farmer against farmer. We need to focus on helping all farmers make money. Because food security involves farmers farming. And if the farmer makes money, the farmer will farm.

Here in Hawai‘i, nearly 90 percent of our food is imported. We are going to need the help of all farmers to achieve food security. Bill 79 is a distraction that takes our focus away from helping farmers become economically viable. Worse, and most distressing, is that it pits organic farmers against conventional farmers.

We need the help of all the farmers to make Hawai‘i food secure.

The problem is that farmers’ customers are being squeezed by rising energy costs. The rubbah slippah folks can only go so far in supporting locally grown products. Oil costs have quadrupled in the last 10 years and electricity rates have continuously risen. It’s as if we had a massive tax hike. We’re in the middle of a crisis and we don’t even recognize it.

The small farmers on the Big Island know it, though. That’s why they are taking valuable time off from work to show support for each other.

An Interview with Steven Kopits

 | May 1, 2013

By Steve Andrews – The following is taken from an interview with Steven Kopits, managing director of the New York office of Douglas-Westwood, an international energy analysis firm.  The views expressed are atttributable to Mr. Kopits and do not necessarily represent those of Douglas Westwood.

…Peak oil does not occur when we run out of oil.  Peak oil occurs when the marginal consumer is no longer willing to pay the cost of extracting and processing the marginal barrel of oil.  And we can actually calculate what the related numbers are.

Q:  How do we do that?

Kopits: To begin with, we refer to the price a nation’s oil consumers are willing to pay as its “carrying capacity.”  For the US, carrying capacity is about $95-100 Brent [per-barrel oil price in London].  If the oil price is above this level, oil consumption will decline—which is exactly what we see and what we predicted four years ago.  But carrying capacity is not a static number.  It changes over time, specifically, with three things: GDP growth, efficiency gains in the use of oil, and dollar inflation.  So if GDP goes up, efficiency goes up and the CPI goes up, then the amount that consumers are willing to pay for oil will increase.  For China, by the way, we estimate the carrying capacity at around $115-120 / barrel Brent.  So oil consumption will increase in China at $115 Brent, but fall in the advanced economies—exactly the pattern we’ve seen in the last few years.

Q: So the story line getting a ton of ink of late—peak oil is dead….it isn’t actually quite dead yet, is it?

Kopits:   No.  But importantly, we’re going to peak out production not because we’re “running out of oil,” but because the marginal consumer is not willing to pay for the marginal barrel.  We seem to be pretty much at that level today.

We need to understand these dynamics better.  What are the combined effects of flat oil prices and rising production costs, that’s where I think the challenge is and where our professional work is focusing on the macro side…to better understand what these trends are, what they mean, and how companies in the industry should respond to it.

I’ll give you an example.  Normally, if you look at an oil production system, it tends to be symmetrical around the peak.  The rate at which you approach the peak is the rate at which you depart from the peak.  We haven’t done that.  What we’ve done is that we’ve approached the peak and we’ve leveled out production, the so-called “undulating plateau”.  But we’ve maintained that plateau by turning to non-oil liquids, by dramatic increases in upstream spend, and also by technological innovation related to hydrofracking.  All of these, as of today, look to be running their course.  Even shale oil.  Yes, it will grow for the next few years from the three majors plays in the US, but the peak of production growth is already behind us in the Bakken, for example.  On current trends, Bakken production will be increasing by single digits within two years.  Not a tragedy by any means, but not enough to move the global oil supply at that time, either.

Related article