Where do we go from here?

So where does the election leave us? I suppose that depends on who you ask and what they hope new administrations in Washington DC and various states offer by way of public policy. Here in North Carolina Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue will become Governor in January. The statehouse, for the most part will remain the same. For fishermen Governor Perdue is a welcomed change from the current Governor (Old What’s His Name) who did/would not meet with any commercial seafood industry reps the entire nine years he was in office. Because Governor-elect Perdue has friends in the industry who supported her and because she still calls Eastern Carolina home the industry expects, at least, an opportunity to bring its issues to her office and have a dialogue about them. That itself will be a vast improvement over the lame duck Easley. Washington DC politics is potentially a little more unsettling. Because the three branches of government will be in control of the same party, it means the checks and balances so important to our system of government will essentially cease to exist as a practical matter, and the new administration has made public pronouncements with respect to energy, for example, that cause concern. Energy costs drive the economic engine of this nation as they do the seafood industry, from boats and engines to trucking and packing houses. A national energy policy that embraces domestic supplies of clean burning coal, natural gas, and oil is a must if this nation and its industries are ever to recover and become viable once again. Unfortunately, the new administration seems to favor an approach to domestic energy production that could exacerbate the problems we currently face. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle Barack Obama said “What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.” (See article: “The Cost and Futility of Trading Hot Air” inside) He went on to say “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.” About half of the electricity generated in the United Sates comes from coal fired power plants (3/5ths of NC’s power comes from coal) and despite what one thinks about that industry bankrupting it is not the answer. Obama went on to say that under his cap and trade plan electricity rates would “necessarily skyrocket” and whatever the industry, whether coal, natural gas, or domestic oil, it would have to “retrofit” its operations to meet government criteria (not market) with the exorbitant costs inherent in retrofitting a large business passed on to the consumer. In other words the administration favors a punitive economic policy for industries that do not go along with the master plan of green energy as defined by the incoming administration and the radical environmental groups that will certainly have a major voice at the policy table. For the seafood industry skyrocketing energy costs cannot be absorbed as readily as they once were considering the ever dwindling access to the nation’s fisheries resources, and the spiraling costs of doing business all of which may get worse under the new administration. (See article The Cost and Futility of Trading Hot Air inside) According to the Heritage Foundation, “The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) foreshadows new regulations of unprecedented scope, magnitude, and detail. This notice is not just bureaucratic rumination, but could very well become the law of the land. Jason Grumet, a senior environmental advisor to Barack Obama, has promised that a President Obama would "initiate those rulings.” These rulings offer the possibility of regulating everything from lawn-mower efficiency to the cruising speed of supertankers. Regardless of the chosen regulatory mechanisms, the overall eco­nomic impact of enforced cuts in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions as outlined in the ANPR will be equivalent to an energy tax. By expanding the scope of the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA will severely restrict CO2 emissions, thereby severely restrict­ing energy use. Specifically, the EPA would use the CAA to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from a vast array of sources, including motor vehicles, boats and ships, aircraft, and rebuilt heavy-duty highway engines.” According to the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA) restricting CO2 emissions by 70 per­cent will damage the U.S. economy severely. While some may view these statements as partisan they are, in fact, an analysis of what the new administration has proposed based on its own words. Sadly, many who voted for the president-elect did so without seriously listening to what he was saying beyond the now famous cliché “change.” He told the American people that the free market is dead, that government not the private sector is the solution for the problems facing this nation, that taxes will go up for those who pay them so those who don’t can get a government check, that energy policy will be wholly politically driven not based on the economic and security interest of this nation, and that America, once the greatest bastion of liberty and hope in the world, must now sacrifice its freedom in order to secure some wild-eyed idea of security. In an effort to run far and fast from one bad administration the American electorate may have embraced a far more radical one whose stated objectives for the nation may quite possibly push it over the cliff. I have always maintained that the seafood industry is a conglomerate of small businesses, some competing and vastly different to be sure, but that it did indeed have a few issues around which it could coalesce; things like support for policies that reduce the cost of doing business, sweeping away the debris of unfair and arbitrary regulations, and opposition to advocacy driven science driving management, to name a few. It is why I often write about issues that on the surface may not seem to be “fishing” issues at all, but rather issues of a broader scope, ones that are at the heart of small businesses and their survival. It would seem, therefore, that the industry may be in for rockier road than it has been on even under the Bush administration with its decidedly anti-commercial leanings. To seek change for change sake without significant inquiry as to what “change” means is to invite the potential that the cure may be worse than the disease. National Marine Fisheries Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, Endangered Species, and the various committees and commissions set up in DC will be under enormous pressure to advance radical environmental policies given the promises made during the campaign, and from the looks of things there well may be an open door policy for groups promoting those ideas. In an interview with Field and Stream in September, Obama said that he would probably appoint a sportsman or sportswoman to be the Secretary of Interior, as well as creating a “sportsmen’s committee” that advises Interior and other agencies. While that may not seem onerous on the surface, a recreational/environmental alliance pushing Interior or the EPA could mean disaster for the commercial industry. A report in the Huffington Post, November 5, that Obama is considering Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for head of the EPA. Kennedy is an environmental lawyer and considered by many to be on the far left of environmental policy. Not only did Obama win, but larger pro-environment majorities were elected in both houses of Congress. Rep. Nick J. Rahall, D-W. Va., is hopeful about what the House Committee on Natural Resources can accomplish after Barack Obama becomes president. Last week, the House Democratic Caucus re-elected Rahall to be chairman of its Natural Resources Committee. Rahall said the federal government must make stronger efforts to protect the nation's waters and endangered species. Calling oceans "crucial to life on earth," Rahall fears they are increasingly threatened by habitat destruction, overfishing, the spread of invasive and predatory species of animals and plants, climate change and pollution - domestically and internationally. Rahall plans to press for new legislation to improve how fisheries are managed and to protect "special places in the marine environment as the inheritance of future generations." Rahall said the Natural Resources Committee would immediately improve the ways endangered species programs are supervised by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. As I said, it may be a rocky road. The commercial industry should make every attempt to open up a dialogue with the new administration and give it the benefit of the doubt with respect to its plans for the industry. The industry also needs to be keenly aware of what direction the administration is heading, and appointments in key agencies will tell a lot. Hopefully, the working men and women in the commercial seafood industry will have a place at the table based on the new president’s pronouncements that the “middle-class” deserves a break. The best break we could hope for is a management environment free from advocacy driven policies and an industry freed from the bondage of unnecessary and burdensome regulations; an industry allowed to feed the American consumer as it has in the past and one in which a person can once again make a living and support his family. Hopefully that’s not too much to ask.