Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Change; Biofuels; Budget Issues; and Animal Agriculture
Climate Change
Philip Brasher reported yesterday at The Des Moines Register Online that, “Plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions have been sold to farm groups as a potential cash cow for growers, but new government estimates suggest farmers would make a lot less money than previously believed.
“Citing changes in farm practices and energy policy, analysts at the Environmental Protection Agency have sharply lowered their estimates of the potential carbon credits for which farmers and landowners would likely qualify.
“That could make it more difficult than it already is for Democrats and the Obama administration to sell a climate bill to farm-state members of the House and Senate.”
Mr. Brasher noted that, “In an analysis of the bill’s impact, the Environmental Protection Agency said the billion-ton cap won’t be reached, and that there will be very few emission credits at all for agricultural practices.
“The EPA in 2005 had estimated that farm practices and forestry programs could reduce carbon emissions by nearly 700 million metric tons annually, with 25 percent of those savings coming from keeping crop residue in the soil through reduced tillage. That estimate assumed the credits would be worth about $15 a ton, which is in the range of what is projected.
“But in analyzing the House bill, the EPA estimated that the carbon credits from agriculture and forestry likely won’t exceed 300 million tons until after 2040. Even then, virtually all of those offsets would come from planting and preserving forests, not through agriculture.”
Yesterday’s Register article indicated that, “What happened? In part, the new estimates reflect the way agriculture has changed in recent years, said Bruce McCarl, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University who advises the agency on its analysis of carbon offsets.
“The 2005 estimates were based on an study of farm practices in the late 1990s.
“Since then, for example, farmers have reduced their tillage considerably in response to higher fuel prices, and that means much of the potential reduction in carbon emissions that the EPA forecast in 2005 has already been made. No-till farming can store as much as half a ton of carbon per acre in the soil, according to some estimates. ‘It’s really a different world,’ McCarl said.”
Meanwhile, on Friday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a cost estimate report for H.R. 2454- The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
In part, the CBO report stated that, “CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that over the 2010-2019 period enacting this legislation would:
“-Increase federal revenues by about $846 billion; and
“-Increase direct spending by about $821 billion.
“In total, those changes would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $24 billion over the 2010-2019 period.”
At page 12 of the CBO report, the authors noted that, “CBO estimates that the price of GHG allowances would rise from about $15 per mtCO2e of emissions in 2011 to about $26 per mtCO2e in 2019.”
With respect to additional legislative work on climate related issues, DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton pointed out at his blog over the weekend, that the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment will hold a hearing on Tuesday morning at 9:30 entitled, “Allowance Allocation Policies In Climate Legislation: Assisting Consumers, Investing In A Clean Energy Future, And Adapting To Climate Change.”
Mr. Clayton also indicated that, “The Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works will be holding a hearing at the same time [Tuesday] on ‘Scientific Integrity and Transparency Reforms at the Environmental Protection Agency.’ EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson will testify at that hearing.”
And on Thursday afternoon, the House Agriculture Committee will hold a hearing on the Waxman-Markey Energy Bill.
House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-Oklahoma) noted in a statement from Friday that, “I am pleased that Chairman Peterson has scheduled a hearing on the Waxman-Markey bill. The most important thing we can do for the agriculture community is take the time to allow the legislative process to work, especially when the consequences of our actions will have an enormous impact on our rural constituents. This hearing is the first step in that legislative process and will provide important information and insight for our committee as we prepare for a markup for this bill.”
Representative Lucas provided additional perspective on agriculture and climate change legislation in an opinion item that appeared late last week at The Hill Online.
In part, Rep. Lucas stated that, “From higher energy costs to lost jobs to higher food prices, cap-and-trade promises to cap our incomes, our livelihoods, and our standard of living, while it trades away American jobs and opportunities. For this reason, as this bill stands now, I cannot embrace it.
“I am not alone. So far, 34 agriculture groups including the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Farmers and Ranchers, National Corn Growers Association, National Chicken Council, and National Turkey Federation have sent letters to members of Congress encouraging them to oppose the Waxman-Markey bill. Meanwhile, no large farm groups have endorsed it.”
Rep. Lucas noted that, “Although the Waxman-Markey bill passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, eight other committees, including Agriculture, must consider the bill before it makes it to the House floor. This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation that this Congress will consider. It will have a monumental impact on our economy. We must take time to fully understand this impact because it will be far-reaching and felt for generations to come.”
As lawmakers focus on climate change legislation this week, attention has turned to what federal agency would be better suited to oversee a carbon trading system.
An audio item from USDA’s Daily Radio Newsline on Friday (“Some Ask What Agency Should Run a Carbon Credit Trading System”) addressed this issue and included remarks on the matter from Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. To listen to this one-minute audio report, just click here.
From a political perspective, climate change legislation was used by the GOP as a focal point as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) traveled to the Midwest recently.
Glenn Thrush reported today at Politico.com that, “The National Republican Congressional Committee prepped for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Saturday visit to Iowa by lobbing a round of robocalls into the state, designed to highlight the House’s climate legislation.
“The calls asked Democrats in Iowa’s congressional delegation to stop the California Democrat’s push for a ‘national energy tax,’ the GOP’s term for the climate change bill, which is opposed by a number of farm groups in the Midwest. The agenda for the speaker’s weekend trip included a private Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser in Des Moines — hosted by Democratic Reps. Leonard Boswell, whose district includes Iowa’s capital city; Dave Loebsack; and Bruce Braley — and a public, open-to-the-press event focusing on the stimulus, according to Democratic aides.”
And David M. Drucker reported on Saturday at Roll Call Online that, “Senate Republicans on Monday are set to intensify their campaign against President Barack Obama’s proposal to cap carbon emissions with a hearing promoting the use of nuclear power.
“Three Republicans — Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Jim Bunning (Ky.) — are slated to participate in the hearing, which was scheduled to coincide with renewed efforts by House Democrats to pass a cap-and-trade energy bill before the July Fourth recess.
“Even as Democrats continue work on energy legislation in the Senate, Republicans are hoping to poison the well for cap-and-trade policies long before a final bill has a chance to advance to the floor. Senate Republicans also hope their plan to limit greenhouse gasses by expanding the use of nuclear power will influence the energy debate in the House, possibly derailing the move by Democrats there to pass the cap-and-trade bill.”
Biofuels
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson penned an item that was posted late last week at The Hill Online, entitled, “Congress, EPA threaten biofuels.”
In part, Chairman Peterson stated that, “More than two decades ago, when I would talk about renewable fuels, people thought I was nuts. Now ethanol is blended into all American gasoline to help it burn cleaner, and renewable fuels provide an unparalleled opportunity to create new jobs, decrease pollution and revitalize rural America. Unfortunately, policy decisions made by Congress and the administration threaten the future viability of the renewable energy industry.
“In particular, two provisions in the expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) are troublesome, and the way the EPA has chosen to implement them will hinder the development of the next generation of biofuels, making it almost impossible to meet the goals laid out in the RFS.”
Chairman Peterson explained that, “The expanded RFS requires that all biofuels produced from facilities built after the enactment of the 2007 Energy Bill achieve a reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions. The calculations on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for some biofuels take into account speculative predictions about worldwide indirect land use — changes that may not even take place. The EPA calculates the lifecycle emissions of each fuel, relative to the gasoline or diesel fuel it would replace, and includes emissions from all stages of fuel production. But for some reason, biofuels are uniquely charged for emissions from indirect sources, while gasoline is not.”
The Op-Ed added that, “Another major problem with the expanded RFS is the restrictive definition of renewable biomass. The definition includes stipulations that agricultural land must be in production in order for the biomass grown on it to qualify for the RFS and would severely cut back the use of a feedstock available to make next generation biofuels. This would prevent areas like reclaimed mine sites and brownfield sites from being utilized to grow biomass. If we continue with this very limited definition, Congress would be shortchanging a huge part of the country before we even get started, and hamper our efforts to meet the goals Congress and the president have laid out.
“Last month, a bipartisan group of 28 members and I introduced a bill, H.R. 2409, that would finally fix the problems in the 2007 Energy Bill. H.R. 2409 would address the indirect land use provisions and the renewable biomass definition.
“During these tough economic times, we should be doing more to aid this industry and encourage development rather than taking steps that would undoubtedly remove the incentive to invest in the next generation of biofuels.”
Budget Issues
Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) also wrote an Op-Ed that was published last week at The Hill Online.
Sen. Chambliss focused on budget issues (“Obama’s budget is bitter harvest”), and he noted that, “Nearly a year ago, Congress passed a new farm bill by overwhelming margins — legislation that was three years in the making. Anyone that participated in the farm bill debate last year knows that it was not an easy undertaking. The farm bill adhered to fiscal responsibility and achieved what few pieces of legislation did last Congress: It did not add to the federal deficit.
“The farm bill was fully paid for and complied with pay-as-you-go rules. Because we exercised financial discipline, funded critical programs and addressed urgent needs, we were able to override not one, but two presidential vetoes. As one of the coauthors of this historic legislation, I take great pride in the final product we crafted with deference to making certain every dollar allocated was being spent with the taxpayers in mind. We wrote a farm bill that strengthens our nation’s food security, protects the livelihood of our producers and provides investments in nutrition assistance programs, conservation and renewable energy.”
Sen. Chambliss indicated that, “Last month, President Obama officially released his first budget proposal detailing his fiscal 2010 budget request, and predictably, he called for additional cuts to key agriculture programs. Many of the proposals coming from the new administration regarding the Department of Agriculture budget and the yet-to-be-implemented farm bill have been troubling. Of particular concern were items pertaining to our current farm safety net. Despite several calls by my colleagues and me for the president to abandon some of those proposals, the budget still included the same ill-advised cuts to the farm safety net. To add insult to injury, these cuts were proposed without any serious corresponding proposal to trim the bloated federal budget and reduce our national debt.”
Sen. Chambliss added that, “When we reauthorized the farm bill, we paid for it. When we wrote the farm bill, we wrote a bill not only for all of agriculture, but also for all of America. We think it is neither right nor appropriate to pit a small farmer against a large farmer, a dairy farm against an almond farm, a Southerner against a Midwesterner, and most important of all, children against farmers.”
Meanwhile, a letter from Thursday to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies on Appropriations, which was signed by over 40 agricultural groups and posted at the National Cotton Council Online, stated that, “Our organizations worked diligently with Congress and the Administration to support a new, more effective farm policy, which complied with budget and international trade obligations. Congress responded by passing a farm bill that addresses the stability of our production base, makes major reforms in payment eligibility provisions, provides for risk management, stimulates development of renewable fuels, protects our important natural resources, and enhances nutrition and food assistance programs.
“Earlier this year, our organizations urged the Budget Committees not to include specific reconciliation instructions in the final budget resolution which would require modifications to the new farm law. We expressed our strong opposition to the more than $16 billion in cuts to the farm safety net proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget. These included another new revenue test for program eligibility, a cap on marketing loan program benefits, significant modifications to the crop insurance program, changes to highly effective conservation programs, the termination of certain storage credits and a reduction in export promotion programs.
“We believe amendments to the farm law change the rules in midstream before the act can even be fully implemented and ignores the fact that producers and lenders alike have to make long-term business decisions based upon the commitments made by Congress in the five-year farm bill. The current economic situation is difficult, not just for farm and ranch families and their lenders but for the U.S. economy, which has relied upon and greatly benefitted from a strong U.S. agriculture sector over the past fourteen months.”
The letter added that, “We remain deeply concerned that any change in the fundamental policies and balance of resources in the 2008 farm law will undermine its effectiveness. Therefore, we respectfully urge you not to make any modifications to the carefully balanced commodity, payment eligibility, nutrition, conservation, risk management, renewable energy, trade, rural development and research provisions of the 2008 farm law.”
Animal Agriculture
Philip Brasher reported last week at the Green Fields Blog (The Des Moines Register) that, “The twenty- and thirty-somethings who run the legislative branch of government – men and women otherwise known as congressional aides – are being greeted this month with ads attacking the livestock industry’s use of antibiotics.
“The ads, which are placed in the two Metro stations nearest the U.S. Capitol include messages such as ‘Who’s hogging our antibiotics?’ and ‘Drug dependent’ superimposed over photos of hogs. The ads also will be in Metro subway cars this month.
“The ads are the work of the Pew Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming, and they’re designed to win support for legislation that would phase out the non-therapeutic use in livestock of antibiotics that are important to human health. The campaign reflects concerns in the medical and scientific community that overusing antibiotics both on farms and in human use is leading to bacterial resistance to the drugs. I saw Pew interns handing out flyers to commuters outside the Capitol South Metro station this morning.”
Mr. Brasher added that, “Here is the National Pork Producers Council’s take on this issue.”
Keith Good
