Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Biofuels-Indirect Land Use; Executive Branch Farm Policy Perspectives; Budget; Climate Change; and H1N1
Biofuels- Indirect Land Use
Picking up on Friday’s update regarding the news that the Office of Management and Budget had concluded the review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule regarding the RFS-2 regulation and indirect land use, Friday’s Commodity News for Tomorrow report (CME Group, Dow Jones) explained that, “The White House has cleared the way for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to propose a federal standard for measuring greenhouse-gas emissions from biofuels.
“The Office of Management and Budget disclosed on Wednesday that it concluded its review, almost three months after the EPA first submitted the proposal. The ethanol industry has been awaiting the standard, which is mandated by a 2007 law that requires more biofuels be blended into the gasoline supply. The standard will affect future production, since new ethanol plants must produce increasingly cleaner fuels.”
In more detailed reporting on this development, the Associated Press reported yesterday that, “President Barack Obama’s commitment to take on climate change and put science over politics is about to be tested as his administration faces a politically sensitive question about the widespread use of ethanol: Does it help or hurt the fight against global warming?
“The Environmental Protection Agency is close to proposing ethanol standards. But two years ago, when Congress ordered a huge increase in ethanol use, lawmakers also told the agency to show that ethanol would produce less pollution linked to global warming than would gasoline.
“So how will the EPA define greenhouse gas emissions from ethanol production and use? Given the political clout of farm interests, will the science conflict with the politics?”
The AP article indicated that, “Environmentalists, citing various studies and scientific papers, say the agency must factor in more than just the direct, heat-trapping pollution from ethanol and its production. They also point to ‘indirect’ impacts on global warming from worldwide changes in land use, including climate-threatening deforestation, as land is cleared to plant corn or other ethanol crops.
“Ethanol manufacturers and agriculture interests contend the fallout from potential land use changes in the future, especially those outside the United States, have not been adequately proven or even quantified, and should not count when the EPA calculates ethanol’s climate impact.
“‘It defies common sense that EPA would publish a proposed rule-making with harmful conclusions for biofuels based on incomplete science and inaccurate assumptions,’ complained Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.”
Yesterday’s AP article added that, “Meeting the direct emissions would not be a problem. But if indirect emissions from expected land use changes are included, ethanol probably would fail the test.
“Nathaniel Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, said that wouldn’t mean the end of ethanol.
“Ethanol from existing production facilities is grandfathered and ‘there are ways to produce advanced ethanol’s that would comply with the greenhouse thresholds,’ even using land use climate impacts if the industry chose to adopt them, Greene said.
“But farm interests and their allies in Congress are pushing to get the EPA to at least postpone any consideration of the land-use impacts issue, arguing the science surrounding the issue is uncertain.”
In related news, on Tuesday Secretary Vilsack had a discussion with members of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters, in which a variety of issues were discussed– including biofuels and the issue of indirect land use.
A complete audio replay of this meeting was posted at AgWired.com; to listen to the clip from Secretary Vilsack regarding the EPA’s proposal and indirect land use, just click here (MP3-one minute)
Recall also that the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and Research will be holding a hearing on Wednesday, “To review the impact of the indirect land use and renewable biomass provisions in the renewable fuel standard.”
Executive Branch Farm Policy Perspectives
Philip Brasher reported on Friday at The Des Moines Register Online that, “In his first 100 days in office, Vilsack has surprised his early detractors, who feared he would be too close to agribusiness.
“In what is supposed to be a symbol of the Obama administration’s new priorities, Vilsack started an organic vegetable garden in front of the Agriculture Department near one of the more prominent spots for tourists in Washington, the subway stop that serves the Smithsonian museums.”
Mr. Brasher stated that, “Vilsack frequently makes references to ‘production agriculture,’ a term for the large-scale farming that is dominant in Iowa and that grows most of the nation’s food.
“He says that sector needs to increase production even more to feed a growing world population. Otherwise, ‘you’re going to be in major trouble, major trouble globally,’ he said.
“Still, some farm groups have been upset with some of Vilsack’s early moves, including his pitting of ‘high-income farmers’ against hungry kids with the proposal to eliminate some subsidies to farms with more than $500,000 in gross sales.
“The appointment of [Kathleen Merrigan, a university professor who helped create the national program for certifying organic food] as deputy secretary, the official who traditionally runs the USDA’s day-to-day operations, also raised concerns among some conventional farm interests, as well as the selection of the Environmental Defense Fund’s Robert Bonnie as a senior adviser on environmental and climate issues.”
Friday’s Register article also noted that, “[V]ilsack has made clear that he believes he has a mission to change the public perception of the USDA as an agency that mainly dispenses subsidies to large farms in his home state and elsewhere. He wants the USDA to be seen as an ‘every day, every way’ department that encourages different styles of farming and plays a more prominent role in improving nutrition and addressing climate change and other environmental issues.”
Also on Friday, DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported (link requires subscription) that, “Author Michael Pollan, a critic of production agricultural practices, clearly wasn’t thrilled when Tom Vilsack was named secretary of agriculture, but he sees Michelle Obama as a new champion for whole, fresh foods.
“In Pollan’s view, President Barack Obama and Vilsack bombed in their first attempts to cut farm-program payments, but the first lady has become a star in the local-food movement during the early part of the Obama administration.”
Mr. Clayton noted that, “In an interview with DTN Thursday, Pollan said Vilsack’s garden at USDA offices in D.C., the ‘Peoples’ Garden,’ was brilliant, but it was a garden planted at the White House that drew cheers nationally from supporters of the local food movement.”
Friday’s DTN article indicated that, “‘[Vilsack] was the governor of Iowa, but he’s not a farmer,’ Pollan said. ‘He’s not an agribusiness guy, and I think he is going to do what makes political sense for him and Obama. Now, as I understand it (Vilsack) has a mandate for reform. The president has asked him to concentrate on nutrition and the healthfulness of the food supply and has urged him to concentrate on climate change. So I think that Obama would like to see some changes to the food system. Whether he is willing to put a lot of political capital into it or not remains to be seen.’
“The first effort by the administration to shake up agriculture by trying to reduce direct payments to larger farm operations ‘was a disaster,’ Pollan said, ‘and not well thought-out at all.’ The proposal would have cut direct payments for producers making more than $500,000 in gross sales. Vilsack also said the choice came down to spending money on food for children or well-to-do farmers.
“‘Basically, they framed it as rich farmers vs. hungry children and I thought that was not smart,’ Pollan said.”
Meanwhile, Ken Anderson reported on Friday at Brownfield that, “A leading member of the House Agriculture Committee—Representative Jerry Moran of Kansas—is concerned with what he calls ‘troublesome trends’ in both Congress and the Obama administration.
“‘I would say probably the greatest concern I have, that’s coming our way in agriculture, is increasing environmental and other rules and regulations,’ Moran says, ‘that if we’re not careful will greatly diminish the opportunity for there to be a return upon the investment in agriculture.’
“Moran cites the recent EPA decision to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, as well as issues related to dust and pesticides.”
For more perspective on the EPA’s decision to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant, see this floor speech by Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), which was delivered on Friday.
A summary of the remarks made on Friday by Sen. Inhofe noted that, “Senator Inhofe calls the decision a ‘ticking time bomb’ that presents ‘policymakers with a false choice: Use an outdated, ill equipped and economically disastrous option under the Clean Air Act, or pick another bad option—cap-and-trade—that commits us to requirements for which affordable and reliable technology does not exist.’”
Budget
Janet Hook reported in Thursday’s Los Angeles Times that, “President Obama’s first budget, unveiled with great fanfare two months ago, started out like a plan that Robin Hood would love: He proposed taxing the wealthy to ease the burden on the middle class.
“But so far, Congress has not rushed to follow his lead.”
Last week’s LA Times article explained that, “And lawmakers did not endorse his proposal to curb tax deductions for the upper class to help pay for healthcare reform, but did keep in place billions of dollars in subsidies to agriculture.”
Joshua Hull reported yesterday at the Avalanche-Journal Online (Texas) that, “Farm program cutbacks proposed by the Obama administration didn’t make it into the preliminary budget passed by Congress last week, bringing a sigh of relief from farmers worried about another tough economic year.
“Producers were concerned earlier this year about the initial proposals, most of all a reduction of the direct payment safety net program for farmers with sales revenue of $500,000 or more.”
Mr. Hull added that, “Farmers may have dodged the cuts this time, but some believe it’s just a sign of things to come with the Obama administration’s time in office.
“Steve Verett, executive vice president of Plains Cotton Growers in Lubbock, said significant payment structure reforms in the current farm bill already affected many producers, and making further changes wouldn’t be fair.
“‘We’ve been facing this for the last few years, quite honestly, and I don’t see that going away,’ Verett said. ‘There is reform and our belief is we need to let this farm bill work under the current guidelines.’”
A related news item from Friday released by the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) explained that, “The budget resolution is nonbinding, but provides a guide for Members and committees during the appropriations process. The first step in that process will be the Obama Administration’s submission to Congress of a detailed budget outline, expected next week.
“The final conference report did not include cuts to agricultural programs, and NAWG and almost 40 other agriculture groups wrote leaders of the House and Senate Budget Committees this week urging them to reject any attempts to find savings from the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.”
Climate Change
As was noted earlier in today’s update, on Tuesday, Secretary Vilsack had a discussion with members of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters, in which a variety of issues were discussed. In addition to issues regarding biofuels, climate change was also a topic that came up during the discussion.
A complete audio replay of this meeting was posted at AgWired.com, to listen to the clip from Secretary Vilsack regarding agriculture and climate change, click here (MP3-three minutes).
In part, Sec. Vilsack indicated that the climate change issue was, “A great opportunity for agriculture.”
Meanwhile, Ken Anderson reported on Thursday at Brownfield that, “Speaking to farm broadcasters in Washington Wednesday, Senate Ag Committee chair Tom Harkin said he’s still not sold on the cap and trade idea.
“‘I’m much more inclined to just say ‘let’s just have a straight carbon tax,’ Harkin says. ‘It’s simple, it’s straightforward, it’s understandable, it gets to the root of the problem.’
“Harkin thinks cap and trade could be difficult to regulate. But he adds, ‘if they do move in that direction—and there’s support for it—a number of us are going to make sure that agriculture has its rightful seat at that table and they can partake in selling credits for sequestration.’”
The Brownfield link included an audio clip from Sen. Harkin’s comments in which Sen. Harkin also indicated that, “In the end just let me say that this whole cap and trade, and this climate change legislation, I just don’t see how it gets on the docket this year. ..[I]t may happen next year, but I just don’t see it happening this year.”
In a related article on timing, Reuters news reported on Friday (article posted at DTN, link requires subscription) that, “The U.S. Congress will make enough progress on climate change legislation this year to boost prospects for success at December’s Copenhagen summit on cutting greenhouse gases, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid predicted on Friday.
“‘I think we’re going to have by the end of this year something that we can take to the … conference that will be held in Europe,’ the Senate’s top Democrat told a round-table discussion with reporters, lobbyists and industry officials.
“Leaders from around the world will meet at December’s summit in Copenhagen to write a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, which placed limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants blamed for climate change.”
However, Jim Snyder reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “Congressional Democrats headed into the weekend without an agreement on a climate change bill, raising doubts an accord will be found in time for a scheduled markup this week.
“There is broad support within the party on the bill’s overarching goal to cut carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent over the next four decades. But how you get from here to there has split the Energy and Commerce Energy and Environment Subcommittee, the first congressional panel that will review the bill.”
The Hill article stated that, “Three main issues have divided the group: One, how many emissions allowances should industries like electric utilities receive for free, versus how many should be sold at auction? Two, how quickly should polluters be required to reduce their emissions? And three, to what extent should power plants be forced to use renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to produce electricity?
“President Obama’s climate proposal, included in his budget blueprint, requires utilities and other industries to purchase all their credits. That would provide an immediate price signal that would quicken development of technologies to cut emissions.”
H1N1
The AP reported yesterday that, “Pigs on a farm in the Canadian province of Alberta have been infected with the new swine flu virus — apparently by a farm worker who recently visited Mexico — and are under quarantine, officials said Saturday. It is the first known case of pigs having the virus.”
Philip Rucker reported in today’s Washington Post that, “It was Day 7 of the great swine flu outbreak, and inside the eighth-floor conference room in a concrete hulk of an office building on Capitol Hill, the pork lobbyists were in crisis mode. The National Pork Producers Council, whose members were watching with dismay as hog prices fell, labored to reverse the public dialogue about the fast-spreading virus and to convince consumers that the ‘other white meat’ was still safe to eat.
“Pigs can be consumed, the lobbyists insisted; they can even be petted and hugged, or tickled until they squeal. But pork cannot be blamed for the pandemonium gripping the globe. The culprit, evidently, is H1N1, a strain of the flu virus. If only folks could remember that, the lobbyists said.
“For going on two weeks, the Washington professionals who represent the nation’s 67,000 pork producers have been in a mad dash to, as President Obama once said, put lipstick on this pig. Hundreds of people have been infected in more than a dozen countries, prompting the closure of scores of schools across the United States, including four in the Washington region.”
Keith Good
