Agriculture chief disputes USDA climate bill study
By Jerry Hagstrom
CongressDaily December 18, 2009
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Friday took issue with a report his own agency has issued on the impact of the House-passed climate change bill, which concluded there will be a large-scale conversion of cropland to forestland.
The study, authored by USDA Chief Economist Joe Glauber, said the bill would help the agriculture sector overall. But it also said if the price of carbon allowances increases to $70 per ton of carbon dioxide by 2050, almost 60 million more acres of land would be converted to forest, 35 million acres of which would come from cropland.
That would be a 14 percent decline in cropland from the current level and take away 24 million acres from pasture -- an almost 9 percent decline.
The analysis was based on the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model by researchers at Texas A&M University, which EPA has used to study climate legislation.
Glauber's testimony on the study before a House Agriculture subcommittee Dec. 6 had led some farm leaders and Republicans to warn such a shift would lead to much higher food production and consumer food costs. Vilsack echoed those concerns Friday, saying that the scenario would be "disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country."
But Vilsack added that he took away from his talks with Glauber that the economist does not believe the increased forest forecast is "necessarily an accurate depiction of the impacts of climate legislation."
Vilsack said the model could be updated and noted that Glauber testified that careful design of an offsets program could avoid "unintended consequences." Link
When we are at a time when we need to be doubling food production, our society can’t afford to have government policies that will reduce available farm land. This will make it more difficult to keep affordable food available to families. Along with that, it will make it more difficult for farming families to stay in business. Land availability is an issue already in most areas. Remember, all of this is supposed to solve a problem that might not even exist. Is it worth more hungry people?
Showing posts with label climate change legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change legislation. Show all posts
Monday, December 21, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Climate Bill Getting Pushed Back
NOVEMBER 11, 2009, 10:35 A.M. ET
Climate Bill Likely on the Shelf For Rest of the Year
By IAN TALLEY
Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- Key Senate Democrats Tuesday said it is unlikely there will be any more major committee action on climate-change legislation this year, the strongest indication yet that a comprehensive bill to cut greenhouse-gas emissions won't be voted on until at least next year.
Although the Senate Environment Committee last week approved a version of the bill, the proposal will face strong revisions from moderate Democrats, particularly from senators on the Finance and Agriculture committees.
"It's common understanding that climate-change legislation will not be brought up on the Senate floor and pass the Senate this year," Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said on the sidelines of a caucus lunch.
Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said he planned to hold a number of hearings on climate legislation and eventually mark up a bill in his panel. "But I don't know that I can get a bill put together by this year, as important as climate-change legislation is," he said.
Mr. Baucus was the lone dissenting Democratic vote on the Environment Panel last week because he wanted weaker emission-reduction targets and stronger provisions to protect energy-intensive industries and encourage clean-coal technologies. Read More
With the absolute havoc that climate change legislation could bring about our country, it’s a little refreshing to see that some of our elected officials realize that this isn’t something that should be fast-tracked through Congress. It won’t do us any good to pass a bill that maybe cuts some emissions but causes many other problems. Food and energy are two big keys to our nation’s security. We have to make sure they are protected.
Climate Bill Likely on the Shelf For Rest of the Year
By IAN TALLEY
Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON -- Key Senate Democrats Tuesday said it is unlikely there will be any more major committee action on climate-change legislation this year, the strongest indication yet that a comprehensive bill to cut greenhouse-gas emissions won't be voted on until at least next year.
Although the Senate Environment Committee last week approved a version of the bill, the proposal will face strong revisions from moderate Democrats, particularly from senators on the Finance and Agriculture committees.
"It's common understanding that climate-change legislation will not be brought up on the Senate floor and pass the Senate this year," Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said on the sidelines of a caucus lunch.
Mr. Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said he planned to hold a number of hearings on climate legislation and eventually mark up a bill in his panel. "But I don't know that I can get a bill put together by this year, as important as climate-change legislation is," he said.
Mr. Baucus was the lone dissenting Democratic vote on the Environment Panel last week because he wanted weaker emission-reduction targets and stronger provisions to protect energy-intensive industries and encourage clean-coal technologies. Read More
With the absolute havoc that climate change legislation could bring about our country, it’s a little refreshing to see that some of our elected officials realize that this isn’t something that should be fast-tracked through Congress. It won’t do us any good to pass a bill that maybe cuts some emissions but causes many other problems. Food and energy are two big keys to our nation’s security. We have to make sure they are protected.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
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.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Climate Bill Threatens Food Supply
Tuesday, Oct. 13, 2009
Winkles: Climate bill threatens food supply
By DAVID WINKLES - Guest Columnist
The Waxman-Markey climate bill offers a lot of enticing incentives for farmers in South Carolina and elsewhere, but I would encourage farmers to take more than a quick study of the American Clean Energy and Security Act to see the detrimental effects the bill can have on farmers and consumers.
Darlington farmer David White argued in a recent column ("Farmers need climate bill," Sept. 24) that farming and forestry play a positive role in reducing greenhouse gas reduction. I agree. He wrote of the positive impacts of enhancing "the role of our lands in lowering the carbon footprint of our nation's industrial sector." I agree.
But farmers must be careful not to sell out their future farming rights as called for in the Waxman-Markey bill. Under the bill, as much as 17 percent of U.S. agricultural land currently used for food production will be idled and planted in trees. 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 to those farmers who work to put food on American's tables. This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store by potentially causing food costs to rise by as much as $33 billion annually by 2020 and $51 billion annually by 2030. Read More
We’ve seen a lot of articles that have really focused on the rise in input costs for farming and ranching if the climate legislation were to pass, but this does a nice job of showing the impact on people that like to eat everyday. This bill would encourage landowners to take their property out of food production and plant it long term into timber. With the absolute need to grow more food in this world, this bill would do just the opposite of what’s needed. The increased cost of food will no doubt make agriculture’s job of feeding people much more difficult. I don’t think any bill, regardless of what it may accomplish, is worth causing more hungry people.
Winkles: Climate bill threatens food supply
By DAVID WINKLES - Guest Columnist
The Waxman-Markey climate bill offers a lot of enticing incentives for farmers in South Carolina and elsewhere, but I would encourage farmers to take more than a quick study of the American Clean Energy and Security Act to see the detrimental effects the bill can have on farmers and consumers.
Darlington farmer David White argued in a recent column ("Farmers need climate bill," Sept. 24) that farming and forestry play a positive role in reducing greenhouse gas reduction. I agree. He wrote of the positive impacts of enhancing "the role of our lands in lowering the carbon footprint of our nation's industrial sector." I agree.
But farmers must be careful not to sell out their future farming rights as called for in the Waxman-Markey bill. Under the bill, as much as 17 percent of U.S. agricultural land currently used for food production will be idled and planted in trees. 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 to those farmers who work to put food on American's tables. This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store by potentially causing food costs to rise by as much as $33 billion annually by 2020 and $51 billion annually by 2030. Read More
We’ve seen a lot of articles that have really focused on the rise in input costs for farming and ranching if the climate legislation were to pass, but this does a nice job of showing the impact on people that like to eat everyday. This bill would encourage landowners to take their property out of food production and plant it long term into timber. With the absolute need to grow more food in this world, this bill would do just the opposite of what’s needed. The increased cost of food will no doubt make agriculture’s job of feeding people much more difficult. I don’t think any bill, regardless of what it may accomplish, is worth causing more hungry people.
120 Ag Groups Oppose Waxman-Markey
120 Agriculture Groups Oppose Waxman-Markey
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment & Climate News > November 2009
Publication date: 11/01/2009
A large coalition of agricultural groups has come forward to oppose the Waxman-Markey bill restricting carbon dioxide emissions.
In a July 14 opening statement at Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) noted he had received “letters sent by 120 agricultural groups opposing the Waxman-Markey bill.”
Among the groups are the American Farm Bureau, Pork Producers Council, USA Rice Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, Council of Farmer Cooperatives, American Meat Institute, National Association of Wheat Growers, and North American Millers Association.
Long-Term Costs Much Higher
Tracy Taylor Grondine, director of media relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, strongly disagrees with Waxman-Markey supporters who cite a Congressional Budget Office report asserting the bill would cost the average U.S. household merely $175 per year in the year 2020.
“Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill,” Grondine explained. “In 2020, carbon reductions will only be starting and the industry will be receiving significant carbon credit giveaways. But by 2050, the 17 percent cut in agriculture emissions from 2005 levels is estimated to rise to 82 percent, and there will be no more credit giveaways. So, by 2050 that 5 percent hit will grow to something more like a 15 percent reduction in farm income.” Read More
Even though there are some that insist that climate change legislation will not affect our ability to grow food, the numbers just aren’t there to support it. Because of that, there are over 120 different agriculture groups that are opposing this bill. It’s hard to get that many groups to agree that the sky is blue, so it should be obvious to everyone that this is a bad bill for agriculture and a bad bill for the United States.
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment & Climate News > November 2009
Publication date: 11/01/2009
A large coalition of agricultural groups has come forward to oppose the Waxman-Markey bill restricting carbon dioxide emissions.
In a July 14 opening statement at Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearings, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) noted he had received “letters sent by 120 agricultural groups opposing the Waxman-Markey bill.”
Among the groups are the American Farm Bureau, Pork Producers Council, USA Rice Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, Council of Farmer Cooperatives, American Meat Institute, National Association of Wheat Growers, and North American Millers Association.
Long-Term Costs Much Higher
Tracy Taylor Grondine, director of media relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, strongly disagrees with Waxman-Markey supporters who cite a Congressional Budget Office report asserting the bill would cost the average U.S. household merely $175 per year in the year 2020.
“Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill,” Grondine explained. “In 2020, carbon reductions will only be starting and the industry will be receiving significant carbon credit giveaways. But by 2050, the 17 percent cut in agriculture emissions from 2005 levels is estimated to rise to 82 percent, and there will be no more credit giveaways. So, by 2050 that 5 percent hit will grow to something more like a 15 percent reduction in farm income.” Read More
Even though there are some that insist that climate change legislation will not affect our ability to grow food, the numbers just aren’t there to support it. Because of that, there are over 120 different agriculture groups that are opposing this bill. It’s hard to get that many groups to agree that the sky is blue, so it should be obvious to everyone that this is a bad bill for agriculture and a bad bill for the United States.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
New Senate Ag Cmte Chair
Likely Agriculture Committee Chair Lincoln Will Be Tougher Sell on Climate Legislation
By Kate Sheppard 9/9/09 9:50 AM
With Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) apparently assuming the chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, moderate Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln is set to take over as chair of the Agriculture Committee.
The shift would have the most significant impact on the Senate’s pending climate legislation, as the Ag Committee is expected to shape the offset and agricultural provisions. While Harkin has been supportive of Senate action on climate legislation, Lincoln has been less than enthusiastic.
Lincoln has called for a delay on climate legislation until 2010, arguing that it would be too difficult for the Senate to move both health care and a climate and energy bill this year. “The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Lincoln said last month. Though the Senate could move energy legislation, she said, “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.” Read More
With so many issues involving agriculture and the ability to produce food being debated in Congress, it’s vital that farmers and ranchers stay informed. Sen. Lincoln appears to be our new Senate Ag Committee Chair. It’s encouraging to hear that she realizes that there are serious problems with the climate change legislation being proposed. As always, the involvement of all of us will be needed to make sure agriculture and our country isn’t harmed by this bill.
By Kate Sheppard 9/9/09 9:50 AM
With Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) apparently assuming the chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, moderate Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln is set to take over as chair of the Agriculture Committee.
The shift would have the most significant impact on the Senate’s pending climate legislation, as the Ag Committee is expected to shape the offset and agricultural provisions. While Harkin has been supportive of Senate action on climate legislation, Lincoln has been less than enthusiastic.
Lincoln has called for a delay on climate legislation until 2010, arguing that it would be too difficult for the Senate to move both health care and a climate and energy bill this year. “The problem of doing both of them together is that it becomes too big of a lift,” Lincoln said last month. Though the Senate could move energy legislation, she said, “I see the cap-and-trade being a real problem.” Read More
With so many issues involving agriculture and the ability to produce food being debated in Congress, it’s vital that farmers and ranchers stay informed. Sen. Lincoln appears to be our new Senate Ag Committee Chair. It’s encouraging to hear that she realizes that there are serious problems with the climate change legislation being proposed. As always, the involvement of all of us will be needed to make sure agriculture and our country isn’t harmed by this bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)