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.
Showing posts with label Waxman-Markey bill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Waxman-Markey bill. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Cost Estimates for Climate Bill
Climate bill would bloat federal agencies
Billions seen in new costs
By Amanda DeBard
Originally published 04:45 a.m., August 17, 2009, updated 01:29 p.m., August 17, 2009
The House-passed climate change bill, if enacted, would expand the federal government so much that it would take billions of dollars and thousands of new employees to implement.
Now-obscure federal agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have to become mini-behemoths in order to handle their expanded responsibilities. Congress would have to appropriate billions of dollars for more bureaucrats, much of which is not reflected in the House bill.
"The problem is that there's a mismatch between the government's capacity and its mission," said Darrell M. West, vice president and director of governance studies at the left-leaning Brookings Institution.
One provision would almost overnight create the nation's largest commodity market in which polluters would buy and sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. These rights - called allowances - are at the heart of the measure, which seeks to slash the amount of greenhouse gases by forcing polluters to curb their emissions or pay for the right to pollute.
"It could be a $2 trillion market within five years," said Bart Chilton, commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the government's expansion would cost $8 billion over a 10-year period. For the bill to operate effectively, nearly 1,500 regulations and mandates would have to be approved for at least 21 federal agencies. The rule-making process alone would take years. Read More
Here is the only guarantee anyone can make about the climate change legislation, it is going to cost all of us a lot of money. There are no guarantees that we have global warming or that this legislation would help stop it if there was. With the CBO claiming that it would cost the government around $8 billion just implement the program and the billions, if not trillions, that consumers will spend, is it the best idea? Is it worth bankrupting our country over? If, as a country, we are going to spend trillions of dollars, I want to see more assurances on our return on investment.
Billions seen in new costs
By Amanda DeBard
Originally published 04:45 a.m., August 17, 2009, updated 01:29 p.m., August 17, 2009
The House-passed climate change bill, if enacted, would expand the federal government so much that it would take billions of dollars and thousands of new employees to implement.
Now-obscure federal agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would have to become mini-behemoths in order to handle their expanded responsibilities. Congress would have to appropriate billions of dollars for more bureaucrats, much of which is not reflected in the House bill.
"The problem is that there's a mismatch between the government's capacity and its mission," said Darrell M. West, vice president and director of governance studies at the left-leaning Brookings Institution.
One provision would almost overnight create the nation's largest commodity market in which polluters would buy and sell rights to emit carbon dioxide. These rights - called allowances - are at the heart of the measure, which seeks to slash the amount of greenhouse gases by forcing polluters to curb their emissions or pay for the right to pollute.
"It could be a $2 trillion market within five years," said Bart Chilton, commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the government's expansion would cost $8 billion over a 10-year period. For the bill to operate effectively, nearly 1,500 regulations and mandates would have to be approved for at least 21 federal agencies. The rule-making process alone would take years. Read More
Here is the only guarantee anyone can make about the climate change legislation, it is going to cost all of us a lot of money. There are no guarantees that we have global warming or that this legislation would help stop it if there was. With the CBO claiming that it would cost the government around $8 billion just implement the program and the billions, if not trillions, that consumers will spend, is it the best idea? Is it worth bankrupting our country over? If, as a country, we are going to spend trillions of dollars, I want to see more assurances on our return on investment.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Climate Change Bill Would Affect Everyone
Food Firms Fret Over Potential Impact of Climate Bill
Coalition, Including Agricultural Giants, Plans to Draw Attention to Concerns That Legislation Could Lead to Higher Food Prices
By LAUREN ETTER
Some of the nation's biggest food and agriculture companies are planning to release a flurry of studies in coming weeks that scrutinize the potential impact of climate-change legislation, warning that it could lead to higher food prices.
A group of agriculture giants including Cargill Inc., along with meat company Tyson Foods Inc. and food maker General Mills Inc., is concerned the companies might bear a disproportionate share of the costs of such legislation, according to a memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The group also is worried that a House bill passed in July doesn't provide sufficient incentives for food and agricultural companies to receive and generate carbon credits to offset their carbon emissions.
The meat industry is anxious that the legislation might put restrictions on the ability of livestock operations to generate carbon credits that could offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock and food companies emit greenhouse gases in a number of ways, including using trucks to transport food and slaughterhouses that run on natural gas.
But the big food and agriculture companies feel they came up short. In a letter sent last month to Sens. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat, and Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the coalition said the House bill "will increase food and feed prices and reduce the international competitiveness of our businesses."
The letter said Congress "must take extreme care to avoid adverse impacts on food security, prices, safety, and accessibility to necessary consumer products." The letter also criticized the House bill for failing to provide transitional assistance to "low-income households struggling with rising food prices." Read More
The concern over the impact of climate change legislation continues to grow. More companies and people are starting to see how much this could cost every single one of us. And what is the benefit? They are trying to force a solution, that might not work, on a problem that might not exist. I would encourage people to ask their Senators if the goal of this legislation is to stop the climate from changing and will it be considered a failure if it doesn’t. You might also remind them that the climate has been changing since the beginning of time.
Coalition, Including Agricultural Giants, Plans to Draw Attention to Concerns That Legislation Could Lead to Higher Food Prices
By LAUREN ETTER
Some of the nation's biggest food and agriculture companies are planning to release a flurry of studies in coming weeks that scrutinize the potential impact of climate-change legislation, warning that it could lead to higher food prices.
A group of agriculture giants including Cargill Inc., along with meat company Tyson Foods Inc. and food maker General Mills Inc., is concerned the companies might bear a disproportionate share of the costs of such legislation, according to a memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The group also is worried that a House bill passed in July doesn't provide sufficient incentives for food and agricultural companies to receive and generate carbon credits to offset their carbon emissions.
The meat industry is anxious that the legislation might put restrictions on the ability of livestock operations to generate carbon credits that could offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock and food companies emit greenhouse gases in a number of ways, including using trucks to transport food and slaughterhouses that run on natural gas.
But the big food and agriculture companies feel they came up short. In a letter sent last month to Sens. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat, and Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the coalition said the House bill "will increase food and feed prices and reduce the international competitiveness of our businesses."
The letter said Congress "must take extreme care to avoid adverse impacts on food security, prices, safety, and accessibility to necessary consumer products." The letter also criticized the House bill for failing to provide transitional assistance to "low-income households struggling with rising food prices." Read More
The concern over the impact of climate change legislation continues to grow. More companies and people are starting to see how much this could cost every single one of us. And what is the benefit? They are trying to force a solution, that might not work, on a problem that might not exist. I would encourage people to ask their Senators if the goal of this legislation is to stop the climate from changing and will it be considered a failure if it doesn’t. You might also remind them that the climate has been changing since the beginning of time.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
More Cap & Tax Discussion
Agriculture lobby blew it on cap and trade
Mark Hillman, guest editorial
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Once climate-change regulators strangle the economy and carbon-counters turn gas, oil and electricity into expensive luxuries, perhaps American farmers will recognize how “our friends” in Washington, D.C., sold us out in the name of political compromise.
Recently, Capitol Hill’s agriculture lobby had a choice: withhold support from the Waxman-Markey climate control bill or agree to a compromise that provides cover to rural district Democrats who support it.
Without those rural votes, Waxman-Markey was bound for the shredder. With those votes, it garnered just one more vote than the bare minimum needed for passage.
However, the economic illiteracy of agriculture lobby is embarrassing. Waxman-Markey’s threat to farmers and ranchers isn’t limited to the carbon emissions of trucks, tractors and flatulent livestock.
In March, a dozen ag lobbying organizations — including National Association of Wheat Growers and National Farmers Union — agreed on nine “Principles for Greenhouse Gas Legislation.”
Not one of those principles addressed fuel or energy costs. Yet Waxman-Markey will increase electricity rates by an estimated 90 percent and fuel prices by 58 percent, according to Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. The analysis projects cap-and-trade will reduce net farm income by 28 percent by 2012 and 94 percent by 2035, That’s in addition to $1,241 per year that cap-and-tax will add to the average household’s energy bill. Read More
It’s nearly treasonous that the House of Representatives would pass a bill that will affect every aspect of our society without even reading what it says. There are times to compromise and then there are times when we need to stand by our convictions and try preventing this ruinous bill from being passed. Nobody even knows what the goal of the bill is? Are we trying to stop climate change or global warming? Can either of them be stopped? Are people causing either to occur? Leave it to Congress to pass a bill that attempts to fix a problem that might not exist. Just because people like me are urging the Senate to vote no on this bill, doesn’t mean we aren’t at the table on this process.
Mark Hillman, guest editorial
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Once climate-change regulators strangle the economy and carbon-counters turn gas, oil and electricity into expensive luxuries, perhaps American farmers will recognize how “our friends” in Washington, D.C., sold us out in the name of political compromise.
Recently, Capitol Hill’s agriculture lobby had a choice: withhold support from the Waxman-Markey climate control bill or agree to a compromise that provides cover to rural district Democrats who support it.
Without those rural votes, Waxman-Markey was bound for the shredder. With those votes, it garnered just one more vote than the bare minimum needed for passage.
However, the economic illiteracy of agriculture lobby is embarrassing. Waxman-Markey’s threat to farmers and ranchers isn’t limited to the carbon emissions of trucks, tractors and flatulent livestock.
In March, a dozen ag lobbying organizations — including National Association of Wheat Growers and National Farmers Union — agreed on nine “Principles for Greenhouse Gas Legislation.”
Not one of those principles addressed fuel or energy costs. Yet Waxman-Markey will increase electricity rates by an estimated 90 percent and fuel prices by 58 percent, according to Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. The analysis projects cap-and-trade will reduce net farm income by 28 percent by 2012 and 94 percent by 2035, That’s in addition to $1,241 per year that cap-and-tax will add to the average household’s energy bill. Read More
It’s nearly treasonous that the House of Representatives would pass a bill that will affect every aspect of our society without even reading what it says. There are times to compromise and then there are times when we need to stand by our convictions and try preventing this ruinous bill from being passed. Nobody even knows what the goal of the bill is? Are we trying to stop climate change or global warming? Can either of them be stopped? Are people causing either to occur? Leave it to Congress to pass a bill that attempts to fix a problem that might not exist. Just because people like me are urging the Senate to vote no on this bill, doesn’t mean we aren’t at the table on this process.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Can Ag Afford Cap & Trade?
Climate Bill Long-Term Impacts Should be Brought to Light
By Tracy Taylor Grondine
Mainstream media and critics have recently struck a nerve with not only farmers and ranchers, but many people who serve and benefit from agriculture’s productivity. In a push to pass climate change legislation, the agriculture industry has been painted as greedy and selfish. Some journalists have even reverted to grade-school antics of name-calling and insults.
But, there is a legitimate reason the American Farm Bureau Federation and several other agricultural organizations are opposed to the climate legislation, already passed in the House and now pending in the Senate. Long-term costs of the bill will be substantial not only to agriculture, but the overall economy and will certainly hurt American families.
Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill, also known as Waxman-Markey after its sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The energy cost increases generated by the bill will cut farm income by around 5 percent a year by 2020. This economic loss on top of what are already razor-thin margins that many farmers and ranchers are living on today will hurt the industry. But, the effect on agriculture will be more crippling at the back-end of the deal, around 2050. Read More
Tracy says it best when she states that the devil is in the details. The most unfortunate part is that it seems the members of the House didn’t even care enough to read the bill before they voted on it. This bill will cost everyone a lot of money, there is no debating that. The debate should be whether or not spending this money will solve a problem that we aren’t even sure exists. The debate should also be about whether we are willing to sacrifice our domestic food supply during this process.
By Tracy Taylor Grondine
Mainstream media and critics have recently struck a nerve with not only farmers and ranchers, but many people who serve and benefit from agriculture’s productivity. In a push to pass climate change legislation, the agriculture industry has been painted as greedy and selfish. Some journalists have even reverted to grade-school antics of name-calling and insults.
But, there is a legitimate reason the American Farm Bureau Federation and several other agricultural organizations are opposed to the climate legislation, already passed in the House and now pending in the Senate. Long-term costs of the bill will be substantial not only to agriculture, but the overall economy and will certainly hurt American families.
Most media outlets are only focused on the front-end effects of the climate bill, also known as Waxman-Markey after its sponsors Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.). The energy cost increases generated by the bill will cut farm income by around 5 percent a year by 2020. This economic loss on top of what are already razor-thin margins that many farmers and ranchers are living on today will hurt the industry. But, the effect on agriculture will be more crippling at the back-end of the deal, around 2050. Read More
Tracy says it best when she states that the devil is in the details. The most unfortunate part is that it seems the members of the House didn’t even care enough to read the bill before they voted on it. This bill will cost everyone a lot of money, there is no debating that. The debate should be whether or not spending this money will solve a problem that we aren’t even sure exists. The debate should also be about whether we are willing to sacrifice our domestic food supply during this process.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Congress Threatening Viability of Agriculture
Congress Moving on Two Threats to Agriculture
(6/19/2009)
Farm Futures Staff
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved Senate Bill 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act. The measure would expand the federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act by removing the word navigable from the definition of waters of the United States. The proposed change would give the federal government control over private lakes and even ditches.
Ranking Member of the Senate Environment Committee Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., says farmers could be hurt worst by this legislation.
"I can remember very well a few years ago when a friend of mine had standing water after a storm in one-forth of one acre," Inhofe said. "Because of that, they declared a wetland and took away the use of that farmer's 160 acres; that's how serious this thing is."
Inhofe says this measure will have a harder time on the Senate floor than it did in committee because of several coalitions that have been put together to block it and he thinks they will be successful.
As for the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that is of great concern to agriculture Inhofe noted that several people including House Ag Chair Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and Ranking Member Frank Lucas, R-Okla., are working to protect ag interests. Even so Inhofe say he believes Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will get the votes she needs to advance the bill out of the House.
"I can assure you that they will not have the votes in the Senate," Inhofe said. "Right now they only have 34 votes and they have to have 60 votes in the Senate to make it happen."
Pelosi earlier this month placed a deadline on committee action on the climate change legislation. That deadline is Friday. Link
Both of these bills could significantly impact how agriculture continues to function in this country. If we are forced to protect every mud puddle in every field and pasture, it will prove very difficult to comply. Along with that, the climate change legislation way make it too costly to operate as well. Our domestic food supply is what keeps this a sovereign nation. It needs protected. Let your elected officials know.
(6/19/2009)
Farm Futures Staff
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved Senate Bill 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act. The measure would expand the federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act by removing the word navigable from the definition of waters of the United States. The proposed change would give the federal government control over private lakes and even ditches.
Ranking Member of the Senate Environment Committee Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., says farmers could be hurt worst by this legislation.
"I can remember very well a few years ago when a friend of mine had standing water after a storm in one-forth of one acre," Inhofe said. "Because of that, they declared a wetland and took away the use of that farmer's 160 acres; that's how serious this thing is."
Inhofe says this measure will have a harder time on the Senate floor than it did in committee because of several coalitions that have been put together to block it and he thinks they will be successful.
As for the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that is of great concern to agriculture Inhofe noted that several people including House Ag Chair Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and Ranking Member Frank Lucas, R-Okla., are working to protect ag interests. Even so Inhofe say he believes Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will get the votes she needs to advance the bill out of the House.
"I can assure you that they will not have the votes in the Senate," Inhofe said. "Right now they only have 34 votes and they have to have 60 votes in the Senate to make it happen."
Pelosi earlier this month placed a deadline on committee action on the climate change legislation. That deadline is Friday. Link
Both of these bills could significantly impact how agriculture continues to function in this country. If we are forced to protect every mud puddle in every field and pasture, it will prove very difficult to comply. Along with that, the climate change legislation way make it too costly to operate as well. Our domestic food supply is what keeps this a sovereign nation. It needs protected. Let your elected officials know.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Climate Bill in House Ag Tomorrow
House Agriculture Panel to Examine Climate Change Legislation
USAgNet - 06/09/2009
The House Agriculture Committee announced that it will consider climate change legislation at a hearing on June 11. Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has been vocally skeptical of taking up the bill in part because of concerns about indirect land use issues in the revised renewable fuels standard. However, in recent days, he has made comments indicating he is open to efforts to ensure an appropriate agricultural piece is included in the final bill, and on Thursday, the Committee published responses to a climate change survey it issued in late March.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has reportedly told committee chairmen that they must complete mark-ups of the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the Energy and Commerce Committee last month by June 19. The bill has been referred to a total of eight committees, but the timeline makes it unlikely most will formally consider the legislation.
The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any monies raised from the bill's provisions, has said Members on his panel prefer to spend their limited time on health care reform. Link
Tomorrow the House Ag Committee will be tackling the climate change legislation. This bill could drastically affect how or if America’s farmers will produce food. The opportunity to have your voice heard is now. Let your representative know that you are concerned how agriculture will fare under this proposed cap and tax climate bill.
USAgNet - 06/09/2009
The House Agriculture Committee announced that it will consider climate change legislation at a hearing on June 11. Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has been vocally skeptical of taking up the bill in part because of concerns about indirect land use issues in the revised renewable fuels standard. However, in recent days, he has made comments indicating he is open to efforts to ensure an appropriate agricultural piece is included in the final bill, and on Thursday, the Committee published responses to a climate change survey it issued in late March.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has reportedly told committee chairmen that they must complete mark-ups of the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the Energy and Commerce Committee last month by June 19. The bill has been referred to a total of eight committees, but the timeline makes it unlikely most will formally consider the legislation.
The Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which would have jurisdiction over any monies raised from the bill's provisions, has said Members on his panel prefer to spend their limited time on health care reform. Link
Tomorrow the House Ag Committee will be tackling the climate change legislation. This bill could drastically affect how or if America’s farmers will produce food. The opportunity to have your voice heard is now. Let your representative know that you are concerned how agriculture will fare under this proposed cap and tax climate bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)