Farm Groups Wary of New Climate Change Bill
05/12/2010
by Gary Truitt
Hoosier Ag Today
Senators John Kerry (D, Massachusetts) and Joe Lieberman (I, Connecticut) unveiled climate-change legislation on Wednesday, although the bill‘s chances of success are uncertain. The bill would focus on addressing the largest carbon-emitting sectors of the economy: heavy industry, power plants, and transportation infrastructure. It would target a 17% reduction in U.S. carbon pollution by 2020 and over 80% by 2050. It would contain a cap-and-trade system that would levy a tax against the largest emitters. Initially, the rate would be set at $12 a ton, increasing at 3% above inflation annually thereafter. An initial ceiling of $25 per ton would also be included.
The new legislation got a stamp of approval from the National Farmers Union, who supported the House version of cap-and- trade, “NFU has long supported legislation that provides an opportunity for agriculture to play a positive role in addressing our climate and energy needs. The discussion draft announced today continues along that path,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. The National Corn Growers Association took a more cautious approach. “The National Corn Growers Association is reviewing the discussion draft of the American Power Act released today by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. We have provided input to the Senate over the past several months on provisions pertaining to the agriculture industry, and we will continue to offer feedback after we have a chance to review the text of this important piece of legislation,” said NCGA President Darrin Ihnen.
Tamara Thies, Chief Environmental Council for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association, says agriculture needs to beware of all efforts to regulate climate change, “All this regulation and expense is based on an alarmist environmental agenda and not on sound science.” She says, regardless of the specifics of the legislation, the science behind climate change is flawed, “The American people deserve better than decisions from this administration that are not based on science or truth, but rather are based on a radical, anti-business, anti-agriculture, alarmist agenda that lacks a credible scientific foundation.”
The American Farm Bureau Federation also expressed concerns about efforts to regulate climate change. AFBF President Bob Stallman released a statement that said, “As with other climate change bills, we have concerns about the economic impact on farmers and ranchers because of potentially higher fertilizer and energy costs. We do not want to see farmers driven out of business due to additional regulation and the potential for higher input costs. Agriculture also could be forced to shrink due to land moving out of production into trees to sequester carbon. We also believe it is imperative that any energy legislation must assure a greater supply of nuclear energy, renewable fuels, and natural gas for American consumers. Further, we note the absence of renewable electricity standards in the bill and will work toward their inclusion in the future.”
The Obama administration wants action on climate change, but other issues like immigration plus election year politics make many lawmakers uneasy about tacking such a controversial issue. In a prepared statement the President said, “This legislation will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that will create American jobs building the solar panels, wind blades, and the car batteries of the future. It will strengthen our national security by beginning to break our dependence on foreign oil. And it will protect our environment for our children and grandchildren.”
With most Republicans and many Democrats opposing climate change legislation, the White House may turn to the EPA to implement a cap-and-trade system. Thies says that would not be good for agriculture, “That would give the EPA authority to tell farmers they would have to get expensive permits in order to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide.” She added many producers would be forced to shut down food production. Link
Everyone is still sifting through the legislation trying to determine what it will do, but one thing is for certain, it will increase the cost of energy every year. Over half of the electricity used in this country comes from coal. The cost of that will increase every year until they are forced out of business and the millions of miners and other workers in that industry will be out of job. Along with that, it will make electricity less affordable for working families in this country. Unless you use a sail to propel your vehicle, the cost of driving will go up as well, even if you have an electric car. I don’t disagree that we need to be finding newer sources of energy but it is reckless to get rid of our most reliable and affordable sources when we have nothing to replace them with.
Showing posts with label cap and trade legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade legislation. Show all posts
Friday, May 14, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Senate Cap & Trade Bill
Source: Energy bill next week
By: Jeanne CummingsMay 5, 2010 07:19 PM EDT
Politico
In a high-stakes move, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are planning to forge ahead with or without Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and introduce an energy bill next week, according to sources familiar with the planning.
In addition to the uncertainty about Graham’s status on the bill, Kerry and Lieberman are gambling that the dramatic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will help, rather than hurt, momentum for the legislation.
That’s not a sure thing. As described in interviews, the reform package includes provisions that allow an expansion of offshore drilling and generous revenue sharing for coastal states that allow it. Lindsey told POLITICO those provisions were essential to his support.
Since the explosion at the BP rig began pumping millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, a host of Democratic and Republican senators have expressed skepticism if not outright opposition to the idea of expanding offshore test wells.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) threatened to filibuster the legislation. "If offshore drilling off the coast of the continental United States is part of it, this legislation is not going anywhere,” he said.
According to sources familiar with the senators’ deliberations, Kerry and Lieberman have concluded that the crisis in the gulf – which is likely to get worse before it gets better – will focus the public’s attention on the nation’s dependency on oil and facilitate the debate about reforming the energy sector. Read More
It’s irresponsible for our leaders to make reactionary decisions about the future of energy in this country based on what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico. Certainly that accident has turned into a significant mess and I don’t think anyone would deny that. However, it’s just as reckless to abandon these sources of energy when we have nothing to replace it with. To date, we can’t put sunshine or wind into the tanks of our cars. Taxing current sources of energy when there aren’t viable replacements only hurt working families in this country. But that seems to be a common theme as of late. Elitists continue to advocate for more expensive food and more expensive energy. We need to look at different energy sources as we move into the future, but common sense needs a seat at the table in these discussions.
By: Jeanne CummingsMay 5, 2010 07:19 PM EDT
Politico
In a high-stakes move, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are planning to forge ahead with or without Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and introduce an energy bill next week, according to sources familiar with the planning.
In addition to the uncertainty about Graham’s status on the bill, Kerry and Lieberman are gambling that the dramatic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will help, rather than hurt, momentum for the legislation.
That’s not a sure thing. As described in interviews, the reform package includes provisions that allow an expansion of offshore drilling and generous revenue sharing for coastal states that allow it. Lindsey told POLITICO those provisions were essential to his support.
Since the explosion at the BP rig began pumping millions of gallons of oil into the gulf, a host of Democratic and Republican senators have expressed skepticism if not outright opposition to the idea of expanding offshore test wells.
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) threatened to filibuster the legislation. "If offshore drilling off the coast of the continental United States is part of it, this legislation is not going anywhere,” he said.
According to sources familiar with the senators’ deliberations, Kerry and Lieberman have concluded that the crisis in the gulf – which is likely to get worse before it gets better – will focus the public’s attention on the nation’s dependency on oil and facilitate the debate about reforming the energy sector. Read More
It’s irresponsible for our leaders to make reactionary decisions about the future of energy in this country based on what has happened in the Gulf of Mexico. Certainly that accident has turned into a significant mess and I don’t think anyone would deny that. However, it’s just as reckless to abandon these sources of energy when we have nothing to replace it with. To date, we can’t put sunshine or wind into the tanks of our cars. Taxing current sources of energy when there aren’t viable replacements only hurt working families in this country. But that seems to be a common theme as of late. Elitists continue to advocate for more expensive food and more expensive energy. We need to look at different energy sources as we move into the future, but common sense needs a seat at the table in these discussions.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Senate Prepares to Debate Cap & Tax
Cap and trade bill hurts Midwestern farmers
By U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, Special to The Kansas City Star
The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed through the House of Representatives with minimal consideration of its effects on agriculture.
In written and spoken testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, it appears cap and trade will increase food prices, decrease the amount of U.S. acreage under cultivation, decrease agricultural exports, decrease farm employment, transfer significant wealth from the U.S. to other countries, and may increase the net amount of carbon dioxide emitted worldwide.
Agricultural production relies heavily on carbon-based products, like fuel and fertilizer. For example, they account for 61 percent of sorghum and 49 percent of rice producers’ operating costs. Under cap and trade, the price of these inputs will increase significantly.
By capping and taxing carbon emissions, cap and trade is effectively a tax on energy, an $894 billion energy tax according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The left-of-center Brookings Institution estimates that petroleum prices will increase by 25% under Waxman-Markey.
This transfer of wealth overseas will be further exacerbated as cap and trade induces U.S. food production to move overseas. Read More
The Senate is planning to unveil their version of the cap and tax system that will affect all forms of carbon based resources. Everything that we currently depend on in our daily lives will increase in cost if the Senate version is anything like the House version. And what will we gain from this near trillion dollar tax? Chances are not much. Is the climate changing? Absolutely. The climate is always changing. When it stops changing is when we should really be worried because it would be the first time in the history of the planet. The reality is that there is plenty of disagreement on this issue and it’s ridiculous to throw that much money into a solution that might not work for a problem that might not exist.
By U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, Special to The Kansas City Star
The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill passed through the House of Representatives with minimal consideration of its effects on agriculture.
In written and spoken testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, it appears cap and trade will increase food prices, decrease the amount of U.S. acreage under cultivation, decrease agricultural exports, decrease farm employment, transfer significant wealth from the U.S. to other countries, and may increase the net amount of carbon dioxide emitted worldwide.
Agricultural production relies heavily on carbon-based products, like fuel and fertilizer. For example, they account for 61 percent of sorghum and 49 percent of rice producers’ operating costs. Under cap and trade, the price of these inputs will increase significantly.
By capping and taxing carbon emissions, cap and trade is effectively a tax on energy, an $894 billion energy tax according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The left-of-center Brookings Institution estimates that petroleum prices will increase by 25% under Waxman-Markey.
This transfer of wealth overseas will be further exacerbated as cap and trade induces U.S. food production to move overseas. Read More
The Senate is planning to unveil their version of the cap and tax system that will affect all forms of carbon based resources. Everything that we currently depend on in our daily lives will increase in cost if the Senate version is anything like the House version. And what will we gain from this near trillion dollar tax? Chances are not much. Is the climate changing? Absolutely. The climate is always changing. When it stops changing is when we should really be worried because it would be the first time in the history of the planet. The reality is that there is plenty of disagreement on this issue and it’s ridiculous to throw that much money into a solution that might not work for a problem that might not exist.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Virginia AG Takes On The EPA
Feb 16, 2010 8:41 pm US/Eastern
Top Va. Attorney Challenges EPA On Greenhouse Gas
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) ― Virginia's attorney general is challenging the federal government's conclusion that greenhouse gases are dangerous to people.
Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II said Tuesday he has asked the Environmental Protection to delay final consideration of that finding so "newly available information" can be reviewed.
Cuccinelli did not elaborate on that new information and did not immediately respond to an interview request from The Associated Press. He scheduled a news conference for Wednesday.
Cuccinelli also said he would seek a legal challenge of the EPA's finding, which would regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Virginia's actions are aimed at a December EPA "endangerment" finding about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, setting the stage for future rules restricting such emissions.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Bob McDonnell said Cuccinelli "is acting in the best interests of the citizens of Virginia."
"The current federal position could have a negative impact on job creation and economic development in the commonwealth and should be reconsidered," the spokeswoman, Stacey Johnson, wrote in an e-mail to the AP.
The Sierra Club criticized the challenge, calling it a waste of taxpayers' money.
"Cuccinelli is embarrassing the citizens of Virginia at the taxpayers' expense," said Glen Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the environmental group.
Virginia joined Texas in challenging the EPA, saying the agency's finding was based on flawed science.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants that the EPA could regulate if found to endanger public health. The Bush administration never acted on the court order. Link
Some of the recent hearings in Washington DC concerning climate change and cap and trade legislation have had to be rescheduled due to the blizzards that they have been experiencing. It’s been comical watching the people who believe in the global warming religion try to convince others that the record snowfall this year is actually a sign of global warming. The truth of the matter is that snowfall this time of year is a sign of winter.
Top Va. Attorney Challenges EPA On Greenhouse Gas
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) ― Virginia's attorney general is challenging the federal government's conclusion that greenhouse gases are dangerous to people.
Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II said Tuesday he has asked the Environmental Protection to delay final consideration of that finding so "newly available information" can be reviewed.
Cuccinelli did not elaborate on that new information and did not immediately respond to an interview request from The Associated Press. He scheduled a news conference for Wednesday.
Cuccinelli also said he would seek a legal challenge of the EPA's finding, which would regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
Virginia's actions are aimed at a December EPA "endangerment" finding about carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, setting the stage for future rules restricting such emissions.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Bob McDonnell said Cuccinelli "is acting in the best interests of the citizens of Virginia."
"The current federal position could have a negative impact on job creation and economic development in the commonwealth and should be reconsidered," the spokeswoman, Stacey Johnson, wrote in an e-mail to the AP.
The Sierra Club criticized the challenge, calling it a waste of taxpayers' money.
"Cuccinelli is embarrassing the citizens of Virginia at the taxpayers' expense," said Glen Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the environmental group.
Virginia joined Texas in challenging the EPA, saying the agency's finding was based on flawed science.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2007 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are pollutants that the EPA could regulate if found to endanger public health. The Bush administration never acted on the court order. Link
Some of the recent hearings in Washington DC concerning climate change and cap and trade legislation have had to be rescheduled due to the blizzards that they have been experiencing. It’s been comical watching the people who believe in the global warming religion try to convince others that the record snowfall this year is actually a sign of global warming. The truth of the matter is that snowfall this time of year is a sign of winter.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Is The Planet Actually Cooling??
The global warming consensus cools
Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"What happened to global warming?" read the headline - on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and imminent as alarmists suggest.
Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."
At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.
Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.
EPA analyst Alan Carlin - an MIT-trained economist with a degree in physics - referred to "solar variability" and Easterbrook's work in a document that warned that politics had prompted the Environmental Protection Agency and countries to pay "too little attention to the science of global warming" as partisans ignored the lack of global warming over the past 10 years. At first the EPA buried the paper, then it permitted Carlin to post it on his personal Web site.
Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray. Read More
Any conversation about climate change that our elected officials are having should first focus on if the climate is really changing due to human activity and if it is, will this legislation reverse it. Before we spend trillions of dollars we should find out what our return on this investment will be.
Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
"What happened to global warming?" read the headline - on BBC News on Oct. 9, no less. Consider it a cataclysmic event: Mainstream news organizations have begun reporting on scientific research that suggests that global warming may not be caused by man and may not be as dire and imminent as alarmists suggest.
Indeed, as the BBC's climate correspondent Paul Hudson reported, the warmest year recorded globally "was not in 2008 or 2007, but 1998." It's true, he continued, "For the last 11 years, we have not observed any increase in global temperatures."
At a London conference later this month, Hudson reported, solar scientist Piers Corbyn will present evidence that solar-charged particles have a big impact on global temperatures.
Western Washington University geologist Don J. Easterbrook presented research last year that suggests that the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) caused warmer temperatures in the 1980s and 1990s. With Pacific sea surface temperatures cooling, Easterbrook expects 30 years of global cooling.
EPA analyst Alan Carlin - an MIT-trained economist with a degree in physics - referred to "solar variability" and Easterbrook's work in a document that warned that politics had prompted the Environmental Protection Agency and countries to pay "too little attention to the science of global warming" as partisans ignored the lack of global warming over the past 10 years. At first the EPA buried the paper, then it permitted Carlin to post it on his personal Web site.
Over the years, global warming alarmists have sought to stifle debate by arguing that there was no debate. They bullied dissenters and ex-communicated nonbelievers from their panels. In the name of science, disciples made it a virtue to not recognize the existence of scientists such as MIT's Richard Lindzen and Colorado State University's William Gray. Read More
Any conversation about climate change that our elected officials are having should first focus on if the climate is really changing due to human activity and if it is, will this legislation reverse it. Before we spend trillions of dollars we should find out what our return on this investment will be.
Don't Cap Our Future
November 2009
Don’t Cap Our Future
By: Bob Stallman
Farm Bureau recently kicked off a climate change grassroots campaign appropriately titled “Don’t Cap Our Future.” Farm Bureau members are getting out the word on Capitol Hill that cap-and-trade legislation would impose higher energy and food costs on consumers, raise fuel, fertilizer and energy costs for farmers and ranchers, and shrink the American agricultural sector, resulting in reduced U.S. food production.
The consequences of climate legislation far outweigh the benefits and aren’t worth capping America’s future.
Paying the Piper
Under the cap-and-trade legislation in the House and Senate, American families will pay higher energy costs. According to the Department of Energy, energy costs could grow by $1,870 per household. Combined with higher costs for food, the additional yearly hit on families would total about $2,300 per household. Said another way, the cap-and-trade law would impose costs of up to $200 billion a year on American taxpayers.
At the farm gate, as much as 17 percent of U.S. agricultural land currently used for food production will be idled and planted in trees under the House bill. That is because the vast majority of incentive payments will go to people who choose to grow and maintain trees for greenhouse gas reduction, rather than farmers who work to put food on American’s tables. This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store. Food costs could rise by up to an average of $33 billion annually in 2020 and up to $51 billion annually by 2030 as a result of this legislation. Read More
The American Farm Bureau has launched this innovative idea to help drive home the message that any type of cap and trade system will be very detrimental to farmers and ranchers and their ability to grow our food. The real cap from this legislation will be the one put on our ability to continue the amazingly successful American agriculture story. In a land that we have always promoted as having limitless possibilities, we don’t need laws that can cap our success.
Don’t Cap Our Future
By: Bob Stallman
Farm Bureau recently kicked off a climate change grassroots campaign appropriately titled “Don’t Cap Our Future.” Farm Bureau members are getting out the word on Capitol Hill that cap-and-trade legislation would impose higher energy and food costs on consumers, raise fuel, fertilizer and energy costs for farmers and ranchers, and shrink the American agricultural sector, resulting in reduced U.S. food production.
The consequences of climate legislation far outweigh the benefits and aren’t worth capping America’s future.
Paying the Piper
Under the cap-and-trade legislation in the House and Senate, American families will pay higher energy costs. According to the Department of Energy, energy costs could grow by $1,870 per household. Combined with higher costs for food, the additional yearly hit on families would total about $2,300 per household. Said another way, the cap-and-trade law would impose costs of up to $200 billion a year on American taxpayers.
At the farm gate, as much as 17 percent of U.S. agricultural land currently used for food production will be idled and planted in trees under the House bill. That is because the vast majority of incentive payments will go to people who choose to grow and maintain trees for greenhouse gas reduction, rather than farmers who work to put food on American’s tables. This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store. Food costs could rise by up to an average of $33 billion annually in 2020 and up to $51 billion annually by 2030 as a result of this legislation. Read More
The American Farm Bureau has launched this innovative idea to help drive home the message that any type of cap and trade system will be very detrimental to farmers and ranchers and their ability to grow our food. The real cap from this legislation will be the one put on our ability to continue the amazingly successful American agriculture story. In a land that we have always promoted as having limitless possibilities, we don’t need laws that can cap our success.
Cap & Trade Would Cap Economy
Cap-and-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A House-passed bill that targets climate change through a cap-and-trade system of pollution credits would slow the nation's economic growth slightly over the next few decades and would create "significant" job losses from fossil fuel industries as the country shifts to renewable energy, the head of the Congressional Budget Office told a Senate energy panel Wednesday.
CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf emphasized that his estimates contained significant uncertainties and "do not include any benefits from averting climate change," but his message nevertheless contrasted sharply with those of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders, who have suggested that a cap on carbon emissions would help revive the U.S. economy.
Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the cap-and-trade provisions of the House bill -- in which emitters of greenhouse gases would be able to buy and sell pollution credits -- would cut the nation's gross domestic product by 0.25 to 0.75 percent in 2020 compared with "what it would otherwise have been," and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050. Read More
Beyond the scope of agriculture, cap and trade will cost our country jobs and money. It will make it more difficult for families to afford the basic necessities of food and shelter with heat and electricity. Is that the type of future we want to leave for our kids? Our forefathers worked too hard to grow this country and make it continually better for the next generation to go backwards in time.
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 15, 2009
A House-passed bill that targets climate change through a cap-and-trade system of pollution credits would slow the nation's economic growth slightly over the next few decades and would create "significant" job losses from fossil fuel industries as the country shifts to renewable energy, the head of the Congressional Budget Office told a Senate energy panel Wednesday.
CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf emphasized that his estimates contained significant uncertainties and "do not include any benefits from averting climate change," but his message nevertheless contrasted sharply with those of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders, who have suggested that a cap on carbon emissions would help revive the U.S. economy.
Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the cap-and-trade provisions of the House bill -- in which emitters of greenhouse gases would be able to buy and sell pollution credits -- would cut the nation's gross domestic product by 0.25 to 0.75 percent in 2020 compared with "what it would otherwise have been," and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050. Read More
Beyond the scope of agriculture, cap and trade will cost our country jobs and money. It will make it more difficult for families to afford the basic necessities of food and shelter with heat and electricity. Is that the type of future we want to leave for our kids? Our forefathers worked too hard to grow this country and make it continually better for the next generation to go backwards in time.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Hopi Tribe Tells Sierra Club To Take A Hike
Hopi Tribal Council Bans Environmental Groups
Navajo-Hopi Observer, News Report, Staff reports,
Posted: Sep 30, 2009
KYKOTSMOVI, Ariz. - The Hopi Tribe has a message for the Sierra Club and other environmental groups: Keep out!
That is the response of the Hopi Tribal Council on Monday to what it says has been continuous concerted attacks from local and national environmental groups "bent on advancing their interests and agenda at the expense of the Hopi Tribe and its sovereign interest."
The council wants the Sierra Club and other environmental groups and on-reservation organizations affiliated with these groups to know they are not welcome on the Hopi Reservation, declaring them persona non grata - no longer favored or welcome.
By a resolution approved 12-0, the council said environmentalists have deprived the tribe "of markets for its coal resources" and coal revenues needed to sustain governmental services, provide jobs for tribal members and safeguard Hopi culture and tradition.
In 2005, environmental groups played a significant role in the shutdown of the Mohave Generating Station, which the Hopi Council contends "deprived the Hopi Tribe of many millions of dollars of annual operating revenues," according to the resolution.
Revenue losses from the Mohave power plant range from an estimated $6.5 million to $8.5 million annually.
The council feels that the economic viability of the Navajo Generating Station - the tribe's only remaining coal customer - is also being threatened, and that environmentalists' actions could lead to "total economic collapse of the tribe."
The Navajo Generating Station provides about $11 million a year in revenue for the tribe.
"The Mohave closure did little more than balance the politically expedient needs of these environmental organizations on the already impoverished backs of the Hopi and Navajo people ... without providing any reasonable means of replacing the tribal revenues lost to the closure," the resolution states. Read More
Consider this an example of what will happen on a national scale if the Sierra Club is successful in passing cap and tax legislation through Congress. It will take away our ability as a nation to utilize these abundant natural resources and leave us with only “blue-sky” replacement options. The Sierra Club should start supporting responsible energy policies that guarantee we have affordable energy available to replace what they are trying to shut down. Their current efforts to take us back to the stone age are a far cry from that.
Navajo-Hopi Observer, News Report, Staff reports,
Posted: Sep 30, 2009
KYKOTSMOVI, Ariz. - The Hopi Tribe has a message for the Sierra Club and other environmental groups: Keep out!
That is the response of the Hopi Tribal Council on Monday to what it says has been continuous concerted attacks from local and national environmental groups "bent on advancing their interests and agenda at the expense of the Hopi Tribe and its sovereign interest."
The council wants the Sierra Club and other environmental groups and on-reservation organizations affiliated with these groups to know they are not welcome on the Hopi Reservation, declaring them persona non grata - no longer favored or welcome.
By a resolution approved 12-0, the council said environmentalists have deprived the tribe "of markets for its coal resources" and coal revenues needed to sustain governmental services, provide jobs for tribal members and safeguard Hopi culture and tradition.
In 2005, environmental groups played a significant role in the shutdown of the Mohave Generating Station, which the Hopi Council contends "deprived the Hopi Tribe of many millions of dollars of annual operating revenues," according to the resolution.
Revenue losses from the Mohave power plant range from an estimated $6.5 million to $8.5 million annually.
The council feels that the economic viability of the Navajo Generating Station - the tribe's only remaining coal customer - is also being threatened, and that environmentalists' actions could lead to "total economic collapse of the tribe."
The Navajo Generating Station provides about $11 million a year in revenue for the tribe.
"The Mohave closure did little more than balance the politically expedient needs of these environmental organizations on the already impoverished backs of the Hopi and Navajo people ... without providing any reasonable means of replacing the tribal revenues lost to the closure," the resolution states. Read More
Consider this an example of what will happen on a national scale if the Sierra Club is successful in passing cap and tax legislation through Congress. It will take away our ability as a nation to utilize these abundant natural resources and leave us with only “blue-sky” replacement options. The Sierra Club should start supporting responsible energy policies that guarantee we have affordable energy available to replace what they are trying to shut down. Their current efforts to take us back to the stone age are a far cry from that.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
EPA May Bypass Congress
EPA could create U.S. CO2 cap-and-trade: Sierra
Tue Sep 8, 2009 6:45pm EDT
By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would step in and regulate carbon dioxide emissions by creating a cap-and-trade system or take other measures if Congress fails, but is likely to wait for 2010 elections, the head of the Sierra Club said on Tuesday.
The possibility of an end-run around Congress makes the prospect of U.S. carbon emission regulation likely despite current legislative debate, although President Barack Obama would prefer Congress lead the way, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope told the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco.
"I would guess that between now and the (2010) midterms, you will see two things happen. One, EPA will begin actively regulating all of the other kinds of problems with coal fired power plants," Pope said, naming mercury emissions, particulate matter and mountaintop removal mining as examples.
"They will begin to create a context in which all the clunkers (coal plants) are going to get retired anyway. And they will lay the ground work for establishing carbon emissions standards for all large sources of carbon dioxide," he said. Read More
There is a very simple solution to all of the problems surrounding climate change legislation and that is for Congress to pass a one sentence bill that states carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. That would make this whole thing disappear and it would be in line with the original intent of the Clean Air Act. Even the original writers of that legislation said that they never intended for carbon dioxide to be regulated. Regardless of all that, it appears that the EPA will try to go around Congress and decide for themselves how to do this if the current legislation doesn’t go anywhere in the Senate. It’s obvious that people do not want cap and trade because if they did the free market system would already be meeting that demand.
Tue Sep 8, 2009 6:45pm EDT
By Peter Henderson
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would step in and regulate carbon dioxide emissions by creating a cap-and-trade system or take other measures if Congress fails, but is likely to wait for 2010 elections, the head of the Sierra Club said on Tuesday.
The possibility of an end-run around Congress makes the prospect of U.S. carbon emission regulation likely despite current legislative debate, although President Barack Obama would prefer Congress lead the way, Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope told the Reuters Global Climate and Alternative Energy Summit in San Francisco.
"I would guess that between now and the (2010) midterms, you will see two things happen. One, EPA will begin actively regulating all of the other kinds of problems with coal fired power plants," Pope said, naming mercury emissions, particulate matter and mountaintop removal mining as examples.
"They will begin to create a context in which all the clunkers (coal plants) are going to get retired anyway. And they will lay the ground work for establishing carbon emissions standards for all large sources of carbon dioxide," he said. Read More
There is a very simple solution to all of the problems surrounding climate change legislation and that is for Congress to pass a one sentence bill that states carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. That would make this whole thing disappear and it would be in line with the original intent of the Clean Air Act. Even the original writers of that legislation said that they never intended for carbon dioxide to be regulated. Regardless of all that, it appears that the EPA will try to go around Congress and decide for themselves how to do this if the current legislation doesn’t go anywhere in the Senate. It’s obvious that people do not want cap and trade because if they did the free market system would already be meeting that demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)