Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Legislation; EPA; Dairy- Pork Issues; and the Farm Bill
Climate Legislation
Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (R- Georgia) issued a statement yesterday regarding a report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) on climate change legislation that is pending before Congress. The EWG report was released on Wednesday.
A Dow Jones news article from yesterday discussed the EWG report and stated that, “Legislation being considered by Congress to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. would make farming more expensive, but the costs pale in comparison to allowing climate change to go unchecked, according to a new study released Wednesday by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.
“‘Climate change will cost farmers far more in lower yields and greater expense to protect their crops than the climate bill,’ said Craig Cox, an EWG vice president and co-author of the study.”
In part, Sen. Chambliss noted in his statement that, “The Environmental Working Group is once again showing America’s farmers and ranchers they are no friend. In their attempt to sideline the legitimate concerns of U.S. agriculture, data from three economic reports are melded together to manufacture a result they want the public to hear. As it turns out, if their agenda is realized it will ultimately make the United States more reliant on imported food and fiber. They are hoping to deceive farmers, ranchers and consumers that U.S. agriculture will not be harmed by the Waxman-Markey and Boxer cap and trade bills.
“The EWG uses flawed data from the Environmental Protection Agency to calculate the impact on energy prices. In contrast, according to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the price for natural gas and electricity will be 2 to 3 times higher. Furthermore, the EWG does not explain that the vast majority of benefits from an offset program will go to afforestation efforts.”
Sen. Chambliss added that, “As the farm economy changes, the only famers that manage to survive may realize higher prices for their products, but we must consider those who will be forced out of business. Further, dismal predictions of droughts and floods that may occur in 2050 are not persuasive. If there is anyone in the United States who understands the vagaries of the weather it is our farmers and ranchers. It would greatly help the debate on climate change legislation if the proponents of cap and trade were honest about the effects of their proposed solution.”
In an update posted yesterday at The Hill’s Congress Blog, Rick Krause, of the American Farm Bureau, indicated that, “The ‘Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,’ introduced by Sens. Kerry and Boxer, will cost American farmers and consumers without providing any corresponding benefits.”
Nonetheless, as Darren Samuelsohn of ClimateWire reported yesterday at The New York Times Online, “Key Senate Democrats signaled yesterday they are willing to negotiate with Republicans on nuclear power and expanded domestic oil and gas development if it helps in nailing down the 60 votes necessary for floor passage on a comprehensive global warming and energy bill.”
The article explained that, “Several moderate Senate Republicans, including John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said they are in talks with Kerry and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on the nuclear language, as well as other key issues.
“‘A guy like Senator Kerry is looking for coalitions,’ Graham said. ‘If you had a bill that would allow for responsible offshore drilling, a robust nuclear power title, I think you could get some Republican votes for a cap-and-trade system.’”
And in other perspectives on the Senate climate bill, Dow Jones writer Siobhan Hughes reported yesterday that, “U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, on Wednesday insisted that climate legislation include tariffs on imports from countries that fail to adopt global warming policies, ratcheting up the rhetoric as Senate Democratic leaders seek to line up support within their caucus.
“Speaking to reporters, Brown said that the ‘votes aren’t there’ unless climate legislation ensures that ‘countries that aren’t subscribing to climate-change legislation and law don’t get an advantage on everybody else.’ Ohio and other manufacturing states control a significant number of votes in the U.S. Senate.”
Meanwhile, Jessica Brady reported yesterday at Roll Call that, “One week after Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) unveiled sweeping climate change legislation to little fanfare, the Environment and Public Works Committee that she leads is still working out a date to hold hearings and mark up the measure.
“‘The committee is looking to schedule a hearing as soon as possible,’ a Democratic committee aide said Wednesday, adding that the panel is waiting for additional information from the Environmental Protection Agency on the measure’s economic effect.
“The panel was expected to hold hearings on the legislation, co-authored by Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), next week, which now appears unlikely.”
From an international perspective, Reuters news reported yesterday that, “The United States came under pressure to show leadership in U.N. climate talks on Wednesday with Mexico saying its neighbor is a stumbling block in efforts to try to craft a tough global climate agreement by December.
“The United States has been criticized by developing countries and green groups in talks in the Thai capital for not being able to put a tough emissions reduction target for 2020 on the table, instead focusing on a 2050 target.”
John Fortier reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “The December climate meeting poses a different problem for [President Barack Obama]: Europeans will see him as everything that President George W. Bush was not and expect him to hew to a European line on climate. But there is a yawning chasm between European expectations for Obama on climate change and what he can actually deliver.
“Europeans were right to take note of the change that the last election brought. Both John McCain and Barack Obama campaigned in favor of doing something about climate change. And Obama was the more ambitious of the two. Combine that with large new Democratic majorities, and Europeans rightly see a best-case scenario for America moving in their direction.
“But despite all of that evidence, what Europeans don’t appreciate is that the U.S. is much less concerned with climate change than Europe is. European governments left and right are deeply supportive of addressing climate change, including the conservative government of host nation Denmark. In polls, Europeans often respond that climate change is the third- or fourth-most-pressing problem. A recent Gallup survey found that only 1 percent of Americans view the environment as their top concern.”
On the issue of executive branch regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, Kate Galbraith reported yesterday at the Green Inc. Blog (The New York Times) that, “Even if the Environmental Protection Agency goes forward with its rules – proposed last week – for regulating the greenhouse gas emissions of large polluters, that will not be the end of the story for affected businesses.
“An article by the Martin Law Group, an environmental law firm in the Northwest, notes that at least 18 states have adopted greenhouse gas reporting rules of their own. And federal rules do not obviate state rules.
“The authors, Alyssa Moir and Svend Brandt-Erichsen, report: ‘E.P.A.’s reporting rule does not preempt states from requiring their own G.H.G. emission reporting. Indeed, neither the House nor Senate versions of comprehensive climate change legislation preempt states from adopting their own enforcement of G.H.G. emissions.’”
Also on the climate issue, Margot Roosevelt reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that, “U.S. companies could save tens of billions of dollars by investing in efforts to combat deforestation in developing nations instead of cleaning up their own domestic carbon dioxide emissions, according to a report released Wednesday.
“The report, compiled by a high-powered bipartisan group, backs the use of ‘forest offsets’ in the global effort to curb pollution that is heating up the atmosphere. It was released in advance of the upcoming Senate debate on climate legislation and an international meeting on the issue set for December in Copenhagen.”
The LA Times article noted that, “The burning of tropical forests and their conversion to cattle farms and soybean fields is responsible for about 17% of the emissions that are causing global warming — more than all the world’s cars, trucks, trains and planes combined — scientists say.
“‘It is one of the few major sources of emissions that can be addressed cost-effectively now,’ said the report from the Commission on Climate and Tropical Forests, co-chaired by former Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and John Podesta, chief of staff under President Clinton and now head of the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank.
“The panel’s researchers estimate that if American companies invest about $60 billion between 2012 and 2020 to preserve rain forests in such countries as Brazil and Indonesia, they could achieve the same amount of global emissions cuts while avoiding the expense of about $110 billion on remedies in the United States.”
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Philip Brasher reported yesterday at The Des Moines Register Online that, “The Environmental Protection Agency is taking another look at the possible health effects of atrazine, an herbicide widely used on Iowa’s corn crops.
“The EPA, under the Bush administration, decided to allow the continued use of the chemical after finishing a study in 2003 of the herbicide’s possible link to cancer.
“Agency officials said Wednesday that they would have a panel of scientists look into additional studies that have been done since then.
“The review ‘will be based on transparency and sound science, including independent scientific peer review, and will help determine whether a change in EPA’s regulatory position on this pesticide is appropriate,’ said Steve Owens, assistant administrator of the EPA’s pesticide office.”
Dairy
The “Washington Insider” section of DTN indicated yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “During one of his stops this week on the Obama administration’s tour of rural America, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the press he believes the U.S. dairy industry must restructure itself to better protect against the swings in market prices that have become more common in recent years. However, the secretary reportedly offered no concrete examples of what he meant by ‘restructuring.’
“Vilsack did say he would have department economists take a closer look at current federal price support and marketing programs to see if changes can be made to help stabilize prices. The goal, he said, would be to provide ‘greater stability,’ presumably for both dairy producers and consumers.
“In the past, the federal government went about trying to assure ‘price stability’ through some type of dairy supply management program. Given the evolving structure of today’s U.S. dairy industry –– with smaller eastern farms focusing more on the fluid milk market and larger western farms producing more for the dairy products market –– the secretary and his staff will need to be super-creative to find a way to provide dairy price stability without harming one segment or the other. And, they will need to lay out just what they mean by ‘restructuring.’”
The AP reported yesterday that, “Nutrition, food stamp and dairy aid programs were among the winners as the House on Wednesday approved a $121 billion agriculture spending bill for the 2010 budget year.
“Reflecting the growing number of people scrambling to get by in tough economic times, the bill provides $58.2 billion for the food stamp program, a jump of $4.3 billion from last year.”
The AP article added that, “Lawmakers from dairy-producing states succeeded in getting $350 million in aid for milk farmers struggling to cope with falling market prices. That includes $60 million to cover the federal purchase of surplus cheese and other dairy products. The purchased products would go to food banks and other nutrition programs.
“The dairy aid proposal was welcomed by lawmakers from the Midwest and Northeast where dairy operations are smaller, but drew claims of unfairness from lawmakers in California, home to much larger dairy farms.
“Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., after meeting with Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Wednesday, said she was encouraged that the Agriculture Department ‘is committed to ensuring that these emergency funds are distributed to our dairy producers in a way that is regionally equitable.’
“Boxer’s office said she maintained a ‘hold’ on the spending bill, a legislative move that makes bringing the bill to the Senate floor more difficult, while she clarifies the intent of the measure.”
The article noted too that, “The House also agreed to a Senate proposal to lift a ban on poultry products imported from China conditioned on inspectors certifying that the products meet U.S. safety standards.”
Bob Meyer reported today at Brownfield that, “Prolonged low milk prices have once again prompted discussion about the possibility of some type of supply management program in the United States. And that discussion usually includes Canada and their quota system. Rick McRonald with the Canadian Livestock Genetics Association says all-in-all they like their system but it does have some flaws [link includes audio interview.]”
Pork
An article posted yesterday at the Minneapolis Star Tribune Online reported that, “Four members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation are seeking emergency federal help for the state’s pork industry.
“Reps. Tim Walz, Collin Peterson, Jim Oberstar and John Kline joined 60 other members of Congress from pork-producing districts in sending a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, asking for the aid.
“In the letter, the members of Congress asked Villsack to spend $100 million to purchase pork for federal food programs. They also are asking him to push to open export markets for pork, particularly in China.”
A news release issued yesterday by the National Pork Producers Council stated that, “Members of the U.S. Senate and House have urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to lend assistance to U.S. pork producers to help them out of a 2-year-old economic crisis. The National Pork Producers Council applauded the congressional request.
“In separate letters sent to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, 24 senators and 63 representatives asked that USDA take the following actions to provide ‘much-needed emergency relief’ to the U.S. pork industry:
“-Purchase $100 million of pork with funds from the Section 32 program, which uses customs receipts to buy non-price-supported commodities for federal food-assistance programs.
“-Collaborate with other federal agencies to help address swine disease surveillance on farms, related diagnostic and vaccine development and swine industry support.
“-Work with the U.S. Trade Representative to open export markets to U.S. pork, particularly China, which continues to impose non-science-based restrictions on U.S. pork since the outbreak of H1N1.”
Farm Bill
A news release issued yesterday by the House Agriculture Committee stated that, “Today, the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research held a hearing to review implementation of the conservation title of the 2008 Farm Bill. Congressman Tim Holden of Pennsylvania chaired today’s hearing, which included testimony from two USDA officials charged with implementing those programs.”
The opening statements of the two witnesses at yesterday’s hearing, Dave White, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Jonathan Coppess, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, are available here.
Reuters news reported yesterday (article posted at DTN, link requires subscription) that, “U.S. farmers may be allowed to enroll land in the Conservation Reserve Program as early as next summer after an environmental study is completed, a top Agriculture Department official said on Wednesday.
“Jonathan Coppess, head of the Farm Service Agency, told lawmakers USDA must first complete a study to determine the environmental impact and benefits of proposed changes to the Conservation Reserve Program.”
Also with respect to the CRP, USDA indicated yesterday that, “Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced that USDA will distribute approximately $1.7 billion in Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) rental payments to participants across the country in fiscal year 2010…Producers holding about 758,000 contracts on 424,000 farms will receive an average of $51.52 per acre. The number of contracts is higher than the number of farms because producers may have multiple contracts on a single farm. The payments allow producers to earn an average of $4,104 per farm enrolled in the program.”
In addition, NRCS indicated in a news release yesterday that, “Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Chief Dave White today announced that NRCS has received 21,300 applications to participate in the new Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). These applications cover an estimated 33 million acres, nationwide.
“‘NRCS has received enough applications to carry out conservation activities on more than twice the number of acres Congress authorized for CSP this year,’ White said. ‘This incredible response shows that conservation-minded producers and landowners want to attain higher levels of conservation stewardship.’”
And a separate USDA news item from yesterday stated that, “Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced that enrollment for the 2010 Direct and Counter-cyclical Program (DCP) and the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) program has begun and will continue through June 1, 2010. USDA urges producers to make use of the eDCP automated website to sign up, or producers can visit any USDA Service Center to complete their 2010 DCP or ACRE contract.
“The electronic service saves producers’ time, reduces paperwork and speeds up contract processing at USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices. It is available to all producers who are eligible to participate in the DCP and ACRE Programs and can be accessed at www.fsa.usda.gov/dcp. To access the service, producers must have an active USDA eAuthentication Level 2 account, which requires filling out an online registration form at www.eauth.egov.usda.gov followed by a visit to the local USDA Service Center for identity verification.”
***
In other Farm Bill related news, Lisa Hymas reported yesterday at Grist Online (“Pollan shoots down organic myths at Grist event”) that, “For now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is letting Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and other Big Ag–oriented reps run the show on food and ag policy. The recent farm-bill fight was a loss, but during the debate the sustainable food movement started to get its message heard in D.C. and rattle some of the vested interests. The next fight on Capitol Hill will be over the school lunch program reauthorization, [celebrated food and ag author Michael Pollan] said.”
Keith Good
