Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Legislation; Ag Economy; ACRE; Seed Co. Dispute; and Senate Hold Lifted on Nominee
Climate Legislation
Anna Palmer reported yesterday at Roll Call Online that, “With health care town halls continuing to dominate the August recess, energy and environmental interest groups are making an aggressive lobbying push to bring the climate change debate to the fore.
“The American Petroleum Institute, along with several other trade groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Association of Manufacturers, are launching a series of 19 ‘Energy Citizen’ rallies Tuesday.
“The first, taking place in Houston, will feature Houston Astros CEO Drayton McLane as the keynote speaker, according to API spokeswoman Cathy Landry.”
The article indicated that, “Still, ACCCE [American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity] Senior Vice President of Communications Joe Lucas acknowledges that grabbing the public’s attention is difficult while the health care debate is front and center at town halls across the country.
“‘Health care certainly has taken all the air out of the room,’ Lucas said. ‘We’re mindful that this is an issue that is going to be ongoing for a long time. We’re not going to force the issue.’”
An update posted yesterday at CQPolitics reported that, “Opponents of President Obama’s climate change legislation are taking some cues from the protesters who have fired up the health care debate at town halls nationwide.
“On Tuesday, a coalition of 15 business and conservative groups kicks off a series of rallies throughout the country to decry efforts to enact a ‘cap and trade’ bill aimed at slowing global warming and reducing fossil fuel dependence.
“The coalition, known as Energy Citizens, includes industry and interest groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, American Farm Bureau, and FreedomWorks, which has helped organize many of the town hall health care protests.”
The CQ article added that, “Many of the Energy Citizens rallies will take place in the home states of senators viewed as key swing votes on climate legislation — especially moderate Midwestern Democrats from coal, farm and manufacturing states who fear that their home industries could suffer under a system that would raise costs for coal, oil and gas use.
“Rallies are scheduled for New Mexico, Ohio, Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Alaska, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Michigan.”
With this background in mind, The Washington Post editorial board noted today that, “The rancorous debate over health reform has given voice to considerable uneasiness among Americans. Many are worried about how a new system will be paid for in an economy that has unraveled, and they are anxious about a kudzu-like expansion of an already unwieldy bureaucracy. Given the herculean effort it will take to get President Obama’s vision of reform through Congress, we’re not convinced that the Senate will have the stomach to tackle cap-and-trade legislation this fall. The growing agitation within the chamber over the creation of another complex system to buy, sell and trade pollution credits only adds to our doubts.
“The House barely passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a.k.a. Waxman-Markey) in June. The 1,400-page bill has a potpourri of measures ranging from new efficiency and renewable energy standards to a cap-and-trade provision that gives away 85 percent of the pollution allowances to various interests. The Senate is proving to be a much tougher sell. Last week, four Democratic senators — Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Kent Conrad (N.D.) and Byron L. Dorgan (N.D.) — called on the leadership to strip cap-and-trade completely from the bill that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to start stitching together next month. This comes days after 10 moderate Democratic senators from coal and manufacturing states sent a letter to President Obama warning that they would not go along with any cap-and-trade regime that didn’t ‘maintain a level playing field for American manufacturing.’
“Dropping cap-and-trade from the Senate bill is considered a non-starter by Mr. Reid and environmental advocates for two reasons. First, a long-stated goal of congressional leaders and the president himself is to have emissions-limiting legislation passed and signed into law in time for international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Second, there is no Plan B. The leadership has put all of its eggs in the cap-and-trade basket.”
The Post editorial concluded by noting that, “If Congress fails to pass cap-and-trade legislation, it will rapidly approach a fork in the road in addressing global warming. Members can sit back while unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency follow through on their moves toward regulating greenhouse gas emissions as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Or they can entertain a carbon-based tax designed to reduce emissions and give the money back to taxpayers in an equitable manner. A decision on which path to take is bearing down upon us. Not only are the global warming dangers facing the planet reaching the tipping point, but there will also be no climate agreement in Copenhagen without strong leadership in words and deeds from the United States. As the Senate forges ahead, nothing should be off the table.”
The New York Times editorial board also addressed the climate change issue in today’s paper, stating in part that, “One would think that by now most people would have figured out that climate change represents a grave threat to the planet. One would also have expected from Congress a plausible strategy for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that lie at the root of the problem.
“That has not happened. The House has passed a climate bill that is not as strong as needed, but is a start. There are doubts about whether the Senate will pass any bill, given the reflexive opposition of most Republicans and unfounded fears among many Democrats that rising energy costs will cripple local industries.
“The problem, when it comes to motivating politicians, is that the dangers from global warming — drought, famine, rising seas — appear to be decades off. But the only way to prevent them is with sacrifices in the here and now: with smaller cars, bigger investments in new energy sources, higher electricity bills that will inevitably result once we put a price on carbon.”
The Times editorial added that, “Proponents of climate change legislation have now settled on a new strategy: warning that global warming poses a serious threat to national security. Climate- induced crises like drought, starvation, disease and mass migration, they argue, could unleash regional conflicts and draw in America’s armed forces, either to help keep the peace or to defend allies or supply routes.
“This is increasingly the accepted wisdom among the national security establishment. A 2007 report published by the CNA Corporation, a Pentagon-funded think tank, spoke ominously of climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’ that could lead to wide conflict over resources.
“This line of argument could also be pretty good politics — especially on Capitol Hill, where many politicians will do anything for the Pentagon. Both Senator John Kerry, an advocate of strong climate change legislation, and former Senator John Warner, a former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, say they have begun to stress the national security argument to senators who are still undecided about how they will vote on climate change legislation.”
From an international perspective on the climate issue, Reuters news reported earlier this week that, “Australia’s government said on Sunday it would split planned legislation to promote renewable energy from its controversial proposal for carbon trading, giving in to a key demand by the conservative opposition.
“‘We are safeguarding our Renewable Energy Target legislation, so it can come into effect even if the Liberal party continues to block the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme,’ Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard told Channel Nine.
“The emissions trading scheme was voted down on Thursday in the upper house Senate where the conservative Liberal-National coalition hold the largest block of votes. They joined with Greens and independents to oppose the legislation.”
The Reuters article explained that, “By contrast, the renewable energy legislation — targeting a 20 percent renewable energy target — has widespread support. The opposition has been calling for it to be treated separately.”
An update posted yesterday at the UN Climate Change Conference homepage indicated that, “The Australian government split a climate change bill that would cut greenhouse gases and force the use of renewable energy into two parts Sunday in an effort to break a deadlock in the Senate, which voted against the legislation this past week.
“While opposition parties support the bill’s plan for 20 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020, lawmakers had bickered over a plan to slash and tax carbon emissions. The opposition Liberal party had urged the government to split the bill so the renewable energy portion was not dependent on the carbon emissions scheme.
“Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said the renewable energy portion of the bill would now be voted on separately from the emissions trading scheme, which sets a national cap on carbon emissions and allows for the selling and trading of permits that allow large industries extra emissions.”
And on the issue of demonstrating “strong leadership” on climate change, an editorial posted on Sunday at The Wall Street Journal Online noted that, “The United Nations climate change confab is in December, and Australia’s ruling Labor Party is eager to show ‘leadership’ beforehand by passing a sweeping emissions trading scheme. Luckily, the Senate in Canberra is showing more common sense.
“In a show of unity Thursday, the opposition Liberal Party and its coalition partners voted en masse to reject Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s flagship proposal. Mr. Rudd and climate change minister Penny Wong want to cut carbon emissions by between 5 to 25%, depending on what is agreed at the U.N. meeting in Copenhagen. Their bill would force most of Australia’s biggest companies to adhere to emissions limits or buy pollution permits from Canberra or from other countries selling tradeable permits. Canberra would then redistribute the wealth as it saw fit.”
The Journal editorial added that, “The Rudd government is trying to push the bill through before the public can come to grips with the fine print. Banking on its majority in the lower house and Mr. Rudd’s personally high approval ratings, the Labor government didn’t negotiate at all with the Liberals before Thursday’s defeat. They are still trying to strong arm their opponents. Ms. Wong said after the vote ‘this government is not going to give up; we will be bringing this bill back before the end of the year.’ Mr. Rudd called the vote ‘the most appalling collapse in the authority of Liberal leadership’ he had ever seen.”
Meanwhile, Annie Jia of ClimateWire reported yesterday at The New York Times Online that, “Focusing on the deployment of clean technology could be a more realistic approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions than setting emissions targets for China and other developing countries, researchers at the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) say in a new report.”
***
In related news, Reuters writer Tom Doggett reported yesterday that, “The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Monday proposed increasing federal oversight of the Chicago Climate Exchange’s carbon futures contract.”
A separate Reuters news article from yesterday explained that, “The Chicago Climate Exchange’s carbon spot contract could become the second contract subject to the CFTC’s new authority. Last month, the agency boosted oversight of the natural gas contract on the ICE’s [IntercontinentalExchange Inc] natural gas contract after it determined that the contract played a significant role in price discovery.”
Ag Economy
DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “The National Pork Producers Council is asking USDA for immediate support to cope with the industry’s current economic crisis by buying up to $150 million in pork products between now and early October to ease supplies.
Mr. Clayton explained that, “Piggybacking on a request by nine governors earlier this month, NPPC on Monday asked USDA to spend $50 million immediately to buy pork products that could be used for USDA food-aid programs. The pork producers also want Congress to lift the cap on how much USDA can spend on commodities for certain food-aid programs, often called ‘Section 32 funds’ and use another $50 million to purchase pork. Once the federal government’s Fiscal 2010 budget begins on October 1, NPPC wants USDA to spend another $50 million for pork products for food assistance. Collectively, the industry wants $150 million purchased for aid programs.
“Last week, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said USDA likely would not be able to buy more pork products until the new fiscal year begins. USDA spent $117 million on pork products in Fiscal 2009, about double purchases for 2008.”
Gil Gullickson reported yesterday at Agriculture Online that, “Recent double-digit annual increases in farmland value may be slowing, according to Purdue University’s annual Indiana farmland survey.
“Values aren’t crashing, though, as top-notch farmland declined just 0.2% from last year. The survey, conducted each June, shows top-quality farmland with 182 bushel per acre yields dipped to $4,994 per acre in 2009 from its 2008 per acre value of $5,049.
“Slightly larger declines surfaced in average and poor quality farmland. Average farmland values with 150 bushel per acre corn yields declined 1.2%, from $4,240 to $4,188. Poor quality farmland with 118 bushel per acre corn yields declined 1.7%, from $3,408 to $3,351 per acre.”
ACRE
DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “About 66,000 farms had signed up for the new Average Crop Election Revenue program known as ACRE when the signup period ended Friday, but the total number of farms enrolled for the program will not be known until Sept. 30, a USDA spokesman said Monday.
“The final number is expected to be higher, the spokesman said. The 66,000 farms that have signed up for the alternative to the traditional commodity program are a tiny fraction of the nation’s farms compared with the 1.3 million farms in traditional farm programs, but a huge increase from the 946 that had signed up by June.”
Seed Co. Dispute
Chuck Neubauer reported in today’s Washington Times that, “The chairman of agribusiness giant Monsanto demanded Monday that his counterpart at DuPont – his firm’s leading competitor in the seed business – appoint a special committee to investigate what he said was a pattern of covert attacks on Monsanto’s business practices by DuPont.
“Hugh Grant, chairman of Monsanto Co., accused DuPont of using third parties to attack Monsanto, activities which he said ‘were misleading to the public and a serious breach of business ethics far beyond honest competitor behavior.’
“He made the request for an investigation by a committee of DuPont’s independent directors in a letter to Charles O. Holliday Jr., chairman of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
“He accused DuPont of being ‘dishonest, disingenuous and downright deceitful.’”
Senate Hold Lifted on Nominee
Rod Smith reported late last week at FeedStuffs Online that, “A second hold on the nomination of Cass Sunstein as director of the office of information and regulatory affairs in the White House Office of Management & Budget has been lifted, clearing the way for the nomination to be approved in the U.S. Senate.
“The hold was lifted by Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) after he met with Sunstein and received assurances that Sunstein will not pursue an animal rights agenda in the office, which approves, rejects or returns for modification all proposed rulemaking by federal agencies.
“In a letter to Cornyn, Sunstein said he would not use his position ‘to promote animal standing in civil litigation (as) such standing would indeed be an intolerable burden on farmers, ranchers and hunters.’”
Recall that back in June, Alexander Bolton reported at The Hill Online that, “Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has blocked President Obama’s candidate for regulation czar, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, because Sunstein has argued that animals should have the right to sue humans in court.”
However, in an interview on the AgriTalk Radio Program with Mike Adams back on July 16, Sen. Chambliss indicated that he had lifted his hold on Professor Sunstein’s nomination.
To listen to this segment of the July 16 AgriTalk program, just click here (MP3-4:34).
Keith Good
