Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Legislation; Executive Branch and Farm Policy; Harvest Delays; Dairy and Animal Agriculture
Climate Legislation
Reuters writer Richard Cowan reported today that, “A Senate committee on Tuesday launches three long days of hearings on a Democratic climate bill in a bid to further convince an international summit in December that Washington is serious about tackling global warming.
“The Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee will kick off Tuesday’s hearing at 9:30 a.m. EDT with a panel of heavy-hitters from President Barack Obama’s Cabinet: the secretaries of energy, transportation and interior and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Joining them will be the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
“According to an EPA statement, the officials will focus on ‘creating a system of clean energy incentives’ while ‘confronting the threat of carbon pollution.’”
The article added that, “Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer hopes to finish reviewing the legislation and vote on it in coming weeks.
“If so, that could be the last major action by the Senate on climate change legislation this year, before countries from around the world meet in Copenhagen in December to try to chart new, tougher goals for reducing carbon emissions to head off worsening droughts, floods and melting polar ice.”
The AP reported today that, “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the leading sponsor of the Democrats’ climate bill, said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday and said it was urgent for the United States to show ‘some movement in the Senate’ on restricting greenhouse gases ahead of the upcoming talks in Copenhagen on international efforts to combat global warming.
“‘We’re just going to keep pressing on, we’re going to keep working. We’re going to do as much as we can,’ Kerry said after meeting with Reid. Kerry acknowledged that the Senate’s tight schedule and heavy focus on health care has made action on climate difficult.”
In an opinion piece published in yesterday’s New York Times, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon indicated that, “We cannot afford another period where the United States stands on the sidelines. An engaged United States can lead the world to seal a deal to combat climate change in Copenhagen. An indecisive or insufficiently engaged United States will cause unnecessary — and ultimately unaffordable — delay in concrete strategies and policies to beat this looming challenge.”
And the AP reported yesterday that, “Just six weeks before a key meeting on climate change, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday he’s hopeful the U.S. Senate will pass a significant bill to limit carbon emissions.
“With deep divisions in Congress on how to deal with climate change, a bill is not likely before the end of the year. However, Ban told a news conference he still thinks the U.S. can come up with an ambitious measure that will encourage other nations to act on carbon emissions.
“‘I’m very encouraged by the strong commitment by the Obama administration,’ he said.”
Despite the optimism articulated by the UN chief, a separate AP article from today reported that, “Just weeks before an international conference on climate change, the United Nations signaled it was scaling back expectations of reaching agreement on a new treaty to slow global warning.
“Janos Pasztor, director of the secretary-general’s Climate Change Support Team, said Monday ‘it’s hard to say how far the conference will be able to go’ because the U.S. Congress has not agreed on a climate bill, and industrialized nations have not agreed on targets to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions or funding to help developing countries limit their discharges.”
Today’s AP article explained that, “But with work still to be done on health care and deep divisions in Congress over how to deal with climate change, chances the Senate will pass a climate bill by the end of the year are slim.
“Ban said he plans to meet with Senate leaders to encourage passage of the climate bill.
“By doing so, the Senate ‘can have a huge political impact for other negotiators of other counties,’ Ban said. Many developing countries, such as China and India, ‘are ready to make some political compromises only if and only when the United States is ready to do that.’
“Pasztor said a U.S. climate bill is very important because without one, U.S. negotiators in Copenhagen can’t negotiate on targets for emissions reductions.”
In a related item, The Times (UK) reported over the weekend that, “President Obama will almost certainly not travel to the Copenhagen climate change summit in December and may instead use his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to set out US environmental goals, The Times has learnt.
“With healthcare reform clogging his domestic agenda and no prospect of a comprehensive climate treaty in Copenhagen, Mr Obama may disappoint campaigners and foreign leaders, including Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, who have urged him to attend to boost the hopes of a breakthrough.
“The White House would not comment on Mr Obama’s travel plans yesterday, but administration officials have said privately that ‘Oslo is plenty close’ — a reference to the Nobel ceremony that falls on December 10, two days into the Copenhagen meeting.”
Also with respect to the executive branch, Henry J. Pulizzi reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “The Obama administration is putting its green-power agenda back on center stage Tuesday as a Senate committee begins debating a bill to curb the greenhouse gases from fossil fuels.
“President Barack Obama is in Florida, where he is expected Tuesday to highlight the $3.4 billion in economic-stimulus funding devoted to modernizing the power grid so it can better handle wind turbines, solar power and other forms of renewable electricity generation. Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, is scheduled to be in Wilmington, Del., to herald a deal to retool a shuttered General Motors factory to produce plug-in hybrid cars.”
Today’s Journal article pointed out that, “The White House’s focus on clean-energy projects and the jobs that could be created by them comes as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee starts debating the specifics of a proposal by Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) and Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) to cap greenhouse-gas emissions and allocate pollution credits to various industries under a system that allows companies to buy and sell such credits.
“The administration is sending the secretaries of the Energy, Interior and Transportation departments as well as Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff to testify in support of incentives to develop clean-energy systems.”
In other news involving the executive branch, J. Taylor Rushing reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) on Monday said President Barack Obama is promoting a climate-change bill that would ‘deliberately’ kill American jobs — a statement immediately dismissed by the bill’s chief promoter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).”
“Notably, Alexander said he accepts the science behind global-warming and the need for a climate-change bill, but emphasized the Republican approach is superior. As he has for several weeks, Alexander said the country should devote itself to building 100 more nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, converting half of the country’s autos to electricity in the next 20 years; increase offshore oil exploration and increase investments in energy research and development,” The Hill article said.
Yesterday’s article noted that, “Alexander laid the blame for the Kerry-Boxer bill at Obama’s feet, saying the legislation ‘deliberately kills jobs, and it deliberately makes Americans poor… Instead, we need two other words — presidential leadership.’
“In response, Boxer gave The Hill this statement: ‘We know clean energy is the ticket to keeping America competitive in the world and ensuring strong, stable economic growth here at home. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act is specifically designed to move us to a clean energy economy, create millions of jobs here in America, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and protect our children from pollution.’”
***
In more specific news regarding climate legislation and agriculture, DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “The discussion draft of a climate-change bill agriculture and forestry title being developed by Sen. Debbie Stabenow would order the U.S. agriculture secretary and the EPA administrator to establish a program to create credits for carbon emission reductions, and like the House-approved climate-change bill would make USDA the lead agency in key aspects of the program, according to a copy of the draft obtained by National Journal’s Congress Daily.
“In the draft, Stabenow, D-Mich., calls for the EPA administrator and the agriculture secretary to ‘establish a program to govern the creation of credits from emission reductions from uncapped domestic sources and sinks’ within one year of enactment of the bill. The draft also calls on EPA and USDA to jointly protect the integrity of the program, prioritize rulemaking for activities ‘that present the fewest technical challenges and greatest certainty of net atmospheric benefits’ and make sure that requirements between the two agencies are consistent.
“The draft calls for the EPA administrator, in consultation with the agriculture secretary, to establish a registry for use in recording approved credits. But it also says USDA will ‘administer as the lead agency’ the jobs of creating a list of eligible methodologies that can be used to reduce emissions, approving petitions and verifying emission reductions under practices going back to Jan. 1, 2001.”
Mr. Hagstrom indicated that, “Stabenow’s bill also says ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and use of biofuels, bioproducts and bioenergy are significantly lower than the emissions associated with the production and use of fossils.’ Environmentalists and their allies in Congress are certain to challenge that statement.
“Stabenow aides declined to comment on the draft other than to say that the senator was working on the draft and expects there to be more intense discussions over the coming weeks.”
Also with respect to agriculture, Tom Kenworthy noted in an update posted yesterday at the Center for American Progress Online that, “Just as they did in the weeks leading up to House passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, H.R. 2454, in June, big agricultural lobbyists are again trying to derail passing legislation to cut global warming pollution. This time their focus is the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009, S. 1733.
“The American Farm Bureau, which touts itself as the voice of agriculture, recently launched another effort to convince senators that legislation to reverse the growth of global warming pollution and set the nation on a low-carbon energy course will deal a devastating economic blow to farmers and consumers.”
Yesterday’s update indicated that, “Rather than engaging in a cheap hat trick, farmers and those purporting to advocate on their behalf should look at three key issues regarding energy and climate legislation: the cost of doing nothing, the modest cost of doing something, and the very real economic benefits the Senate and House legislation can bring to farmers and rural America.”
A recent update posted at the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) AgMag Blog linked to a point-by-point debate between the EWG and South Dakota Farm Bureau on climate and agricultural related issues- the discussion was posted at The Daily Republic (Mitchell, South Dakota) Online.
The Daily Republic update noted that, “Earlier this month, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released a report titled ‘Climate Change Will Cost Farmers Far More than a Climate Bill.’ Soon thereafter, Mike Held, administrative director of the South Dakota Farm Bureau, sent The Daily Republic a Farm Bureau response to some of the claims in the EWG report. The Daily Republic then gave EWG Midwest Vice President Craig Cox a chance to comment on the Farm Bureau’s responses. Following is the verbatim text from both sides.” (Note that the free site requires registration).
Executive Branch and Farm Policy
Marian Burros reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “When the Obama administration announced that it was nominating a former pesticide lobbyist to be the chief agricultural negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, it sparked more than the usual Internet chatter.
“‘Obama’s Chief Agricultural Negotiator Nominee Is a Pesticide Pusher;’ screamed one website. ‘Obama’s Ag Policy Is Giving Me Whiplash,’ lamented another. ‘Obama Backtreads,’ scolded a third.
“The nomination of Islam Siddiqui, vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, struck an off-key note among environmentalists — and not just because they think pesticides and chemicals are unsafe for humans and detrimental to the environment. Perhaps more important was the sense of betrayal. After all, it was Michelle Obama herself who had demanded a pesticide-free garden for the first family at the White House, suggesting — environmentalists thought — that the Obama administration was sympathetic to their cause.”
Yesterday’s article noted that, “Still, the environmental movement was taken aback by his appointment, seeing it as uncharacteristic from a White House that typically was in sync with its agenda. Beyond the White House garden, there is a new emphasis on sustainable agriculture at the Department of Agriculture, green activists say, and they hail the appointment of Kathleen Merrigan as deputy agriculture secretary. As a staffer on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Merrigan helped write the nation’s organic standards.”
Meanwhile, Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) offered different observations with respect to executive branch perspectives on farm policy in a recent interview with Stewart Doan, the Senior Editor at Agri-Pulse.
Mr. Doan’s interview with Sen. Roberts is part of the Agri-Pulse Open Mic series and the discussion covered a variety of issues. The entire interview is available here, while a brief excerpt regarding the administration’s farm policy perspective can be heard here (MP3-2:33).
Harvest Delays
Susanne Stahl and Katie Micik reported yesterday at DTN that, “Producers made more headway harvesting soybeans than they did corn last week, according to USDA’s weekly Crop Progress report. The percentage of soybeans harvested increased 14 percentage points to 44 percent complete, while corn harvest progressed 3 percentage points to 20 percent complete.
“The top five corn-producing states — Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska and Minnesota — are running anywhere from 32 percentage points to 63 percentage points behind the five-year average.”
Yesterday’s DTN article added that, “Soybean harvest is 31 percentage points behind last year’s pace and 36 percentage points behind the five-year average. The same states that are well behind pace with corn harvest are also having trouble getting soybeans out.”
More specific reporting on the slow harvest has also been noted for South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Alabama.
Gary Wulf reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Bad weather is leaving corn and soybeans, as well as other crops, molding in the fields.
“Planting delays for some crops, such as corn and soybeans, caused problems earlier in the season. Now rain, and freezing temperatures in some more northerly areas, are playing havoc with harvest season, pushing up prices.”
“Analysts said the pace of the corn harvest is the slowest since the Department of Agriculture started keeping records in 1985. For soybeans, the harvest also is slow.”
Dairy
The AP reported today that, “Growing demand in developing nations drove up milk prices when times were good, and dairy farmers expanded their herds. But the global recession hurt exports and left farmers with too much milk on their hands. Milk processors cut the price they were willing to pay farmers, in many cases below what it cost to produce milk.
“In the past year, hundreds of farmers have come to the same conclusion as the Slegers [Jake and Lori Slegers, Fresno, Calif.]: The only way to raise prices is to reduce the supply, and that means killing cows. In some cases, whole herds have been turned into hamburger. In others, farmers have kept their best producers and sent the rest to slaughter.”
The Senate Agriculture Committee will be holding a hearing this afternoon entitled, “Responding to Low Dairy Prices: Exploring Avenues for Federal Action.”
Animal Agriculture
Cliff Gauldin indicated yesterday at Feedstuffs Online that, “Voters in Ohio next month will cast ballots on a measure that would create a state board to oversee farm animal care. It remains to be seen if it will carry any weight with voters if or when they are asked to approve a ban on certain animal housing systems in the future.
“‘Issue 2 in Ohio is a big deal; I think a lot of people are waiting and watching to see how this further develops,’ said Dr. Glynn Tonsor, a Michigan State University economist whose research last year indicated widespread public support for a ban on sow gestation stalls and egg layer battery cages.
“Tonsor’s nationwide poll showed that 70% of respondents would vote in favor of a proposal similar to California’s Proposition 2 banning sow stalls and battery cages. Sixty-nine percent indicated support for ballot measures similar to those that have passed in Florida and Arizona that banned only gestation stalls.
“Michigan’s governor recently signed a bill into law mandating the phase-out of gestation stalls and battery cages. The new law is the result of negotiations between the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and several agriculture groups, including the state’s pork producer organization.”
Keith Good
