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.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Can Family Farms Survive Cap and Trade?
Commentary: Cap-and-trade deals final blow to family farms
By Rep. Peter Hoekstra
The "cap-and-trade" national energy tax bill passed by the U.S. House and now making its way through the Senate would impose nearly impossible burdens on agriculture and likely deliver a final death blow to the family farm.
Many Americans rightly fear the devastating effect cap-and-trade will have on our already foundering auto industry. They also understand the increased cost of generating electricity — a cost will be directly passed on to consumers.
Few, however, realize the destructive effect it will have on the family farms. Farming has never been a high-profit business, as those who grow our food can readily attest. They also would tell those of us who get our food at grocery stores that producing it consumes vast amounts of energy.
Energy consumption is essential to farming in so many ways. Vehicles fueled by gasoline and diesel till the soil, plant the seeds, spray essential fertilizers and pesticides, harvest the crops and transport them to processors.
Most fertilizer is made from natural gas and petroleum is an essential part of most pesticides. Many crops, such as commercial corn, which show up in so many of our prepared foods, must be dried using propane gas before being shipped to market.
Of course, none of this includes the high energy costs of processing, packaging and shipping the food to your super market or neighborhood grocery.
Agricultural products are commodities. Their prices are set by the worldwide market and do not automatically go up as farmers' "input" costs rise. In this case, market prices will be held down by imported food products that are not produced under the heavy burden of cap-and-trade.
Read More
While it may be somewhat unclear on the exact impact that cap and trade legislation will have on agriculture in this country, there is no doubt that it will change the way we do business. It’s going to cause prices to rise. It takes energy to do most everything and this is going to be an energy tax to make it plain and simple. And all of this will be done in an attempt to stop our climate from changing for the first time in the history of Earth. In my opinion, it seems a lofty goal to think that we can stop the climate from changing. It’s been doing it for billions of years but many people think that needs to stop. Good luck with that.
By Rep. Peter Hoekstra
The "cap-and-trade" national energy tax bill passed by the U.S. House and now making its way through the Senate would impose nearly impossible burdens on agriculture and likely deliver a final death blow to the family farm.
Many Americans rightly fear the devastating effect cap-and-trade will have on our already foundering auto industry. They also understand the increased cost of generating electricity — a cost will be directly passed on to consumers.
Few, however, realize the destructive effect it will have on the family farms. Farming has never been a high-profit business, as those who grow our food can readily attest. They also would tell those of us who get our food at grocery stores that producing it consumes vast amounts of energy.
Energy consumption is essential to farming in so many ways. Vehicles fueled by gasoline and diesel till the soil, plant the seeds, spray essential fertilizers and pesticides, harvest the crops and transport them to processors.
Most fertilizer is made from natural gas and petroleum is an essential part of most pesticides. Many crops, such as commercial corn, which show up in so many of our prepared foods, must be dried using propane gas before being shipped to market.
Of course, none of this includes the high energy costs of processing, packaging and shipping the food to your super market or neighborhood grocery.
Agricultural products are commodities. Their prices are set by the worldwide market and do not automatically go up as farmers' "input" costs rise. In this case, market prices will be held down by imported food products that are not produced under the heavy burden of cap-and-trade.
Read More
While it may be somewhat unclear on the exact impact that cap and trade legislation will have on agriculture in this country, there is no doubt that it will change the way we do business. It’s going to cause prices to rise. It takes energy to do most everything and this is going to be an energy tax to make it plain and simple. And all of this will be done in an attempt to stop our climate from changing for the first time in the history of Earth. In my opinion, it seems a lofty goal to think that we can stop the climate from changing. It’s been doing it for billions of years but many people think that needs to stop. Good luck with that.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Senate Ag Cmte Talks Global Warming
Senate Ag Committee Hearing on Global Warming
07/22/2009
Hoosier Ag Today
With the words - our American way of buying and consuming energy is not only unsustainable but dangerous to our future - Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin opened the ag committee hearing on legislation addressing the role of agriculture and forestry in global warming. Harkin focused on the importation of about 70 percent of the oil we use, much of that from nations that are unfriendly or politically unstable, and our extraction and use of coal which permanently alters landscapes and pollutes too many of our lakes and streams.
Panel member Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation asked the Senate Agriculture Committee to take an active and aggressive role in the climate change debate, but cautioned committee members that rushing to pass such sweeping legislation would be a fundamental mistake. Stallman encouraged members to analyze the issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. He also recommended that the committee improve climate change legislation so that it is as beneficial as possible for the agriculture industry.
Chambliss Wants More Hearings
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has asked committee chairman Tom Harkin to consider holding more hearings to better understand the climate change issue and its effects on agriculture, forestry and rural America. He also recommended careful review of the role of the Commodity futures Trading Commission under a cap and trade program.
During his opening statement, Senator Chambliss outlined several concerns he has with the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act and - the tremendous costs associated with its provisions. Chambliss said the cap and trade program will undoubtedly raise production costs for farmers and ranchers. USDA and Texas A&M University are conducting economic analyses of the Waxman-Markey and Boxer bills, with special attention to the effects at the farm gate level and to consumers. Chambliss says - what we have seen of preliminary study results is that no farm will escape the effect of this bill. Read More
The intent of this bill is pretty simple. The federal government wants to tell you how and when you will use energy and at what price. All in the name of what? Not a single natural disaster we have experienced in the past several years was some odd, never before seen event. Tree ring records paint a picture that we have actually been experiencing a very mild weather pattern lately. In our area it appears that we have finally emerged from seven years of extreme drought, but the tree rings show us that it wasn’t uncommon to have 20-30 year periods of drought. The fact is that climate change always has been and always will be occurring on this planet. There are certainly things we can do better, but to suggest that we can tax our way into changing the climate is insane.
07/22/2009
Hoosier Ag Today
With the words - our American way of buying and consuming energy is not only unsustainable but dangerous to our future - Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin opened the ag committee hearing on legislation addressing the role of agriculture and forestry in global warming. Harkin focused on the importation of about 70 percent of the oil we use, much of that from nations that are unfriendly or politically unstable, and our extraction and use of coal which permanently alters landscapes and pollutes too many of our lakes and streams.
Panel member Bob Stallman, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation asked the Senate Agriculture Committee to take an active and aggressive role in the climate change debate, but cautioned committee members that rushing to pass such sweeping legislation would be a fundamental mistake. Stallman encouraged members to analyze the issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. He also recommended that the committee improve climate change legislation so that it is as beneficial as possible for the agriculture industry.
Chambliss Wants More Hearings
Senator Saxby Chambliss, Ranking Republican Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has asked committee chairman Tom Harkin to consider holding more hearings to better understand the climate change issue and its effects on agriculture, forestry and rural America. He also recommended careful review of the role of the Commodity futures Trading Commission under a cap and trade program.
During his opening statement, Senator Chambliss outlined several concerns he has with the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act and - the tremendous costs associated with its provisions. Chambliss said the cap and trade program will undoubtedly raise production costs for farmers and ranchers. USDA and Texas A&M University are conducting economic analyses of the Waxman-Markey and Boxer bills, with special attention to the effects at the farm gate level and to consumers. Chambliss says - what we have seen of preliminary study results is that no farm will escape the effect of this bill. Read More
The intent of this bill is pretty simple. The federal government wants to tell you how and when you will use energy and at what price. All in the name of what? Not a single natural disaster we have experienced in the past several years was some odd, never before seen event. Tree ring records paint a picture that we have actually been experiencing a very mild weather pattern lately. In our area it appears that we have finally emerged from seven years of extreme drought, but the tree rings show us that it wasn’t uncommon to have 20-30 year periods of drought. The fact is that climate change always has been and always will be occurring on this planet. There are certainly things we can do better, but to suggest that we can tax our way into changing the climate is insane.
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.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
More Climate Bill Speculation
Differing views on climate bill's future
Dan Looker
Successful Farming magazine Business Editor
6/30/2009, 1:11 PM CDT
Expensive fuel and fertilizer, or the salvation of the biofuels industry?
In a nutshell, that's how two different agricultural leaders view a climate bill that heads to the U.S. Senate after narrow passage in the House of Representatives last week.
A lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation thinks the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
"We don't anticipate that it will pass the Senate this year," Farm Bureau lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher told Agriculture Online.
The Senate will soon begin to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, as well as continue to work on health care reform. With an already full agenda, and opposition from rural areas, Thatcher thinks a vote on climate change legislation is unlikely this year.
Farm Bureau applauds the efforts by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson to get USDA, not the EPA, to run the trading of carbon credits that farmers might sell to industries that emit greenhouse gases. But the group still opposes climate change legislation, viewing its costs as higher than potential benefits.
Farm Bureau doesn't believe a carbon credit trading program would provide enough income to counter expected higher costs for fuel and fertilizer, even if the Senate makes improvements in the bill.
"It's hard for me to believe they could change it enough in the Senate to make agriculture a winner," Thatcher said. Read More
The cap and trade bill came in a package that exceeded 1000 pages. Even though this has the potential to drastically affect, it seems that not a single Representative that voted for it could claim that they had read the entire bill. Our entire society depends on a reliable source of energy and our elected officials can’t take the time to even read about what they are voting on? Now that the Senate will be taking up this matter, you may want to suggest that they at least read it before they cast their vote.
Dan Looker
Successful Farming magazine Business Editor
6/30/2009, 1:11 PM CDT
Expensive fuel and fertilizer, or the salvation of the biofuels industry?
In a nutshell, that's how two different agricultural leaders view a climate bill that heads to the U.S. Senate after narrow passage in the House of Representatives last week.
A lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation thinks the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.
"We don't anticipate that it will pass the Senate this year," Farm Bureau lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher told Agriculture Online.
The Senate will soon begin to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, as well as continue to work on health care reform. With an already full agenda, and opposition from rural areas, Thatcher thinks a vote on climate change legislation is unlikely this year.
Farm Bureau applauds the efforts by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson to get USDA, not the EPA, to run the trading of carbon credits that farmers might sell to industries that emit greenhouse gases. But the group still opposes climate change legislation, viewing its costs as higher than potential benefits.
Farm Bureau doesn't believe a carbon credit trading program would provide enough income to counter expected higher costs for fuel and fertilizer, even if the Senate makes improvements in the bill.
"It's hard for me to believe they could change it enough in the Senate to make agriculture a winner," Thatcher said. Read More
The cap and trade bill came in a package that exceeded 1000 pages. Even though this has the potential to drastically affect, it seems that not a single Representative that voted for it could claim that they had read the entire bill. Our entire society depends on a reliable source of energy and our elected officials can’t take the time to even read about what they are voting on? Now that the Senate will be taking up this matter, you may want to suggest that they at least read it before they cast their vote.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Peterson Fighting Climate Bill
'Tough' Negotiator Peterson Rocks Climate Debate
By ALLISON WINTER, Greenwire
Published: June 17, 2009
Rep. Collin Peterson, the outspoken House Agriculture Committee chairman who has emerged as a key figure in the climate debate, is used to rocking the house.
He has done so, guitar in hand, at night clubs, the Grand Ole Opry and Farm Aid as the leader of rock-country bands. And with gavel in hand, he has often rocked the boat in Congress, frequently going against his party on key votes and fighting for fiscal restraint as a founding member of the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats.
Now the 10-term congressman from western Minnesota -- described as "tough," "stubborn," "smart," and "skillful" by his colleagues, a "champion" by farm groups and a "bully" by those on opposing sides -- is shaking up the climate debate.
Peterson is the de facto spokesman for the dozens of farm groups that have come out in opposition to the sweeping proposal for cap-and-trade legislation, one of the key agenda items for Democrats this year. He is working with House leadership and one of the bill's authors to try to find a way to address concerns with the attempt to curb greenhouse gases, which he thinks is not "practical" for farmers or the ethanol industry. Read More
Regardless of your politics, we should all be able to agree that agriculture shouldn’t suffer under the idealistic climate change bill that’s moving through Congress. With common sense at a premium in Congress, it seems as though Rep. Peterson has stepped up to the plate. He has stalled the progress of this bill until it’s workable for agriculture. The best option would be to kill the bill completely, but if that doesn’t happen, our food supply can’t be compromised. Between this and the Clean Water Act that is being reworked, all of agriculture could be regulated out of business. If you have never called your elected officials in Washington, today is the day you need to start. If you don’t make your voice heard, no one is going to care to hear it after the fact.
By ALLISON WINTER, Greenwire
Published: June 17, 2009
Rep. Collin Peterson, the outspoken House Agriculture Committee chairman who has emerged as a key figure in the climate debate, is used to rocking the house.
He has done so, guitar in hand, at night clubs, the Grand Ole Opry and Farm Aid as the leader of rock-country bands. And with gavel in hand, he has often rocked the boat in Congress, frequently going against his party on key votes and fighting for fiscal restraint as a founding member of the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats.
Now the 10-term congressman from western Minnesota -- described as "tough," "stubborn," "smart," and "skillful" by his colleagues, a "champion" by farm groups and a "bully" by those on opposing sides -- is shaking up the climate debate.
Peterson is the de facto spokesman for the dozens of farm groups that have come out in opposition to the sweeping proposal for cap-and-trade legislation, one of the key agenda items for Democrats this year. He is working with House leadership and one of the bill's authors to try to find a way to address concerns with the attempt to curb greenhouse gases, which he thinks is not "practical" for farmers or the ethanol industry. Read More
Regardless of your politics, we should all be able to agree that agriculture shouldn’t suffer under the idealistic climate change bill that’s moving through Congress. With common sense at a premium in Congress, it seems as though Rep. Peterson has stepped up to the plate. He has stalled the progress of this bill until it’s workable for agriculture. The best option would be to kill the bill completely, but if that doesn’t happen, our food supply can’t be compromised. Between this and the Clean Water Act that is being reworked, all of agriculture could be regulated out of business. If you have never called your elected officials in Washington, today is the day you need to start. If you don’t make your voice heard, no one is going to care to hear it after the fact.
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.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Ag Needs Rewarded In Cap & Trade System
Give agriculture a shot at carbon credits: spokeswoman
Mon Jun 1, 2009 3:14pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. agriculture should be allowed, as part of a climate-change bill being drafted in the U.S. House, to earn money for carbon offsets, a spokeswoman for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Monday.
At present, the bill is silent on a role for farms and forests in controlling emissions of greenhouse gases. Under House rules, the Agriculture Committee and seven other committees now have a chance to modify the bill.
Vilsack believes agriculture and forestry should be included in an offsets program and the Agriculture Department should play a role in overseeing any such program, spokeswoman Chris Mather said in an email.
Since taking office in January, Vilsack has pointed to the potential income for farmers and ranchers from a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases.
At a town hall meeting last week in McAfee, Kentucky, Vilsack said it would be easier for USDA, with an office in most rural counties, than the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee rural work on carbon capture, according to the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues.
Link
Cap and trade legislation will drastically affect agriculture one way or the other. With the good practices that American agriculture employs, they deserve the ability to be compensated. If our politicians are going to punish those making carbon, they it needs to reward those that sequester it. The best thing for this country would be to forget this system all together, but we maybe too far removed from common sense to hope for that anymore.
Mon Jun 1, 2009 3:14pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. agriculture should be allowed, as part of a climate-change bill being drafted in the U.S. House, to earn money for carbon offsets, a spokeswoman for Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said on Monday.
At present, the bill is silent on a role for farms and forests in controlling emissions of greenhouse gases. Under House rules, the Agriculture Committee and seven other committees now have a chance to modify the bill.
Vilsack believes agriculture and forestry should be included in an offsets program and the Agriculture Department should play a role in overseeing any such program, spokeswoman Chris Mather said in an email.
Since taking office in January, Vilsack has pointed to the potential income for farmers and ranchers from a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases.
At a town hall meeting last week in McAfee, Kentucky, Vilsack said it would be easier for USDA, with an office in most rural counties, than the Environmental Protection Agency to oversee rural work on carbon capture, according to the Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues.
Link
Cap and trade legislation will drastically affect agriculture one way or the other. With the good practices that American agriculture employs, they deserve the ability to be compensated. If our politicians are going to punish those making carbon, they it needs to reward those that sequester it. The best thing for this country would be to forget this system all together, but we maybe too far removed from common sense to hope for that anymore.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Cap & Trade Debated in House
Cap-and-Trade Debate Drags On in House Energy Committee
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
After lawmakers consumed all of Monday afternoon with opening statements, debate over a bill that would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions finally got underway in a House committee yesterday.
But it has not gotten far.
The Energy and Commerce Committee spent its first eight hours yesterday considering six amendments to the mammoth bill, which would create a "cap-and-trade" system that forces polluters to amass credits equal to their emissions.
That leaves a lot of work to do, if the committee is to meet Chairman Henry A. Waxman's goal of passing the bill out of the committee by the end of the week. Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), the ranking Republican, said his side could submit as many as 400 amendments.
In general, Democrats have praised the bill as a long-overdue solution to the problem of climate change. Republicans said that it would add both cost and complications to electricity, gasoline and other sources of fossil-fuel energy. One Republican said the bill would lead to a "permanent recession." Read More
There is a good chance that this will cost American consumers millions, if not billions of dollars. There is a good chance that it will stifle American production and cost American jobs. There is a good chance that this plan could severely restrict American agriculture’s ability to feed ourselves. And there is a good chance that climate change isn’t man made and all of this will be for nothing. Congress owes the American public an honest debate about climate change before they spend more of our grandkids’ money on another problem that may or may not exist.
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
After lawmakers consumed all of Monday afternoon with opening statements, debate over a bill that would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions finally got underway in a House committee yesterday.
But it has not gotten far.
The Energy and Commerce Committee spent its first eight hours yesterday considering six amendments to the mammoth bill, which would create a "cap-and-trade" system that forces polluters to amass credits equal to their emissions.
That leaves a lot of work to do, if the committee is to meet Chairman Henry A. Waxman's goal of passing the bill out of the committee by the end of the week. Rep. Joe Barton (Tex.), the ranking Republican, said his side could submit as many as 400 amendments.
In general, Democrats have praised the bill as a long-overdue solution to the problem of climate change. Republicans said that it would add both cost and complications to electricity, gasoline and other sources of fossil-fuel energy. One Republican said the bill would lead to a "permanent recession." Read More
There is a good chance that this will cost American consumers millions, if not billions of dollars. There is a good chance that it will stifle American production and cost American jobs. There is a good chance that this plan could severely restrict American agriculture’s ability to feed ourselves. And there is a good chance that climate change isn’t man made and all of this will be for nothing. Congress owes the American public an honest debate about climate change before they spend more of our grandkids’ money on another problem that may or may not exist.
Cap & Trade Will Cost Rural Americans
Frankly Speaking
By Rep. Frank Lucas
Cap & Trade = Higher Costs for Rural America
This week, members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are expected to consider The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass) introduced the bill. A major component of this legislation is cap and trade.
As a lifelong rancher, as a student of Agriculture economics, and as the Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I have very serious concerns about cap and trade and its impact on rural economies.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a national energy tax, and the effects will be far-reaching to businesses, consumers, and even more so to rural America. We are looking at the most amazing tax increase of all times. If you like being cool in the summer, you’re going to be affected. If you like being warm in the winter, you’re going to be affected. If you want to go anywhere, you’re going to be affected. This is going to affect all of us. Chairman Waxman understands that the best way to force you to change your business habits, to change your lifestyle, is to tax you to the point where you have to change your lifestyle. Read More
Here is an interesting article by Rep Frank Lucas about how cap and trade could affect rural versus urban residents. This is a bill that could drastically change how we live in this country. It deserves some very serious and careful consideration.
By Rep. Frank Lucas
Cap & Trade = Higher Costs for Rural America
This week, members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce are expected to consider The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass) introduced the bill. A major component of this legislation is cap and trade.
As a lifelong rancher, as a student of Agriculture economics, and as the Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee, I have very serious concerns about cap and trade and its impact on rural economies.
Cap and trade is nothing more than a national energy tax, and the effects will be far-reaching to businesses, consumers, and even more so to rural America. We are looking at the most amazing tax increase of all times. If you like being cool in the summer, you’re going to be affected. If you like being warm in the winter, you’re going to be affected. If you want to go anywhere, you’re going to be affected. This is going to affect all of us. Chairman Waxman understands that the best way to force you to change your business habits, to change your lifestyle, is to tax you to the point where you have to change your lifestyle. Read More
Here is an interesting article by Rep Frank Lucas about how cap and trade could affect rural versus urban residents. This is a bill that could drastically change how we live in this country. It deserves some very serious and careful consideration.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Warming or Cooling?
Scientists urge caution on global warming
By: Erika Lovley
Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.
So far, members of Congress have not been keen to publicly back the global cooling theory. But both senators from Oklahoma, Republicans Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, have often expressed doubts about how much of a role man-made emissions play.
“We want the debate to be about science, not fear and hypocrisy. We hope next year’s wave of new politics means a return to science,” said Coburn aide John Hart. “It’s the old kind of politics that doesn’t consider any dissenting opinions.”
“We’re worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit,” D’Aleo said. Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics. We’re environmentalists and conservationists at heart, but we don’t think that carbon is responsible for hurricanes.” Read More
There is a growing body of science that suggests the earth has been cooling for the past decade. The data is showing solar flares and our oceans have more to do with fluctuating temperatures than carbon does. Any cap and trade system that is implemented is only going to be paid by consumers through higher prices for everything. With no hard evidence to prove that carbon is the main culprit for anything, our society needs to proceed with caution before instituting any policies.
By: Erika Lovley
Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.
While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January.
So far, members of Congress have not been keen to publicly back the global cooling theory. But both senators from Oklahoma, Republicans Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, have often expressed doubts about how much of a role man-made emissions play.
“We want the debate to be about science, not fear and hypocrisy. We hope next year’s wave of new politics means a return to science,” said Coburn aide John Hart. “It’s the old kind of politics that doesn’t consider any dissenting opinions.”
“We’re worried that people are too focused on carbon dioxide as the culprit,” D’Aleo said. Recent warming has stopped since 1998, and we want to stop draconian measures that will hurt already spiraling downward economics. We’re environmentalists and conservationists at heart, but we don’t think that carbon is responsible for hurricanes.” Read More
There is a growing body of science that suggests the earth has been cooling for the past decade. The data is showing solar flares and our oceans have more to do with fluctuating temperatures than carbon does. Any cap and trade system that is implemented is only going to be paid by consumers through higher prices for everything. With no hard evidence to prove that carbon is the main culprit for anything, our society needs to proceed with caution before instituting any policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)