Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Issues; Food Security; Animal Agriculture; Dairy Issues; and Harvest Delays
Senate Climate Hearing, Day One: General Background, Agricultural Concerns
DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Climate legislation could be in for a partisan battle on par with health-care reform.
“In opening statements before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Tuesday, Democrats stressed the urgency of reducing carbon emissions, [while] Republicans countered that a cap-and-trade bill will cause energy prices to soar and cost American jobs.
“The tit-for-tat between senators is expected to continue in hearings through Thursday as each side is armed with studies, statistics and reports backing their arguments regarding what could happen under government efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions.”
Mr. Clayton added that, “The committee is debating the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, co-authored by Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Kerry led off testimony Tuesday, emphasizing that climate change is a real threat and a policy that caps and reduces greenhouse-gas emissions could not only help reduce the threat, but create new economic opportunities.” (To listen to a FarmPolicy.com audio excerpt from Sen. Kerry’s opening remarks at yesterday’s hearing, just click here (MP3-3:47)).
Yesterday’s DTN article pointed out that, “Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said the bill disguises a tax as the cap-and-trade market. A major concern not being considered under the bill is the impact it will have on small businesses and farmers, he said.
“‘Cap and trade threatens farmers and livestock producers with higher costs — from fuel to run their machinery, to fertilizer, to drying costs to the costs of shipping their goods to market,’ Bond said.” (To listen to a FarmPolicy.com audio excerpt from Sen. Bond regarding agricultural concerns, just click here (MP3-1:53)).
“Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, asked Boxer who would run an agricultural offset program. Boxer said the president would decide which agency should run an agriculture offset program, but the bill also has a ‘placeholder’ for the Senate Agriculture Committee to add language. Boxer said she expects Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., to offer language on the agriculture offset program.”
Comments from Sen. Lincoln were included in yesterday’s Newsline update, a news radio product generated by the American Farm Bureau Federation. In part, Sen. Lincoln indicated that, “There’s a big role for agriculture to play here. I want to make sure that it’s a positive role and that we’re not seeing more in terms of costs than we are in terms of the positive role that we have to play. You can’t do climate change without agriculture and so I think making sure that they’re at the table and that agriculture gets what it needs in this process is going to be critical and we’ll work hard to make sure that happens.”
Noelle Straub and Allison Winter of Greenwire reported earlier this week at The New York Times Online that, “Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who serves on the Senate environment and agriculture committees, has said the agriculture and forestry language currently in the Kerry-Boxer bill could serve as a placeholder until she and other agriculture lawmakers have a chance to weigh in on the bill.”
In a news conference with reporters yesterday, Iowa GOP Senator Charles Grassley also voiced perspective into the climate debate, noting in part that, “Last night, I sent a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer and also Senator John Kerry about global warming legislation that was recently relied as a bill that they put in. As you have heard me say several times on this program, I’m opposed to the United States moving unilaterally on legislation outside a fair and equitable international agreement.
“However, if the Senate Democrat majority is determined to move forward on a unilateral climate change legislation, it should at least share the economic burden equitably across all states and regions of the country.”
Although Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is in the Philippines, he submitted a written statement as part of yesterday’s Senate climate hearing, which noted in part that, “While farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have a lot at stake if we fail to act, they also have much to gain if we address climate change quickly and wisely. I believe there are significant opportunities for landowners in a cap and trade program that can help revitalize rural America. Rural America has an unprecedented potential for economic development and job growth through new energy technologies. The anaerobic digesters and wind will provide landowners with new sources of revenue and wealth creation.
“A robust carbon offsets market will provide farmers, ranchers and forest landowners with the potential for new sources of income.”
Sec. Vilsack added that, “The creation of an offset market will create new opportunities for the agricultural sector. In particular, our analysis indicates that annual returns to farmers and ranchers range from about $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50, not accounting for the costs of implementing offset practices. In the short term, the economic benefits to agriculture from cap-and-trade legislation will likely outweigh the costs. In the long term, the economic benefits from offsets markets easily trump increased input costs from cap-and-trade legislation.”
Meanwhile, Juliet Eilperin reported in today’s Washington Post that, “The [the Environment and Public Works Committee’s] top Republican, Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), voiced widely held worries about adding to the economic problems of many workers. The fact that the measure includes provisions to soften the transition to a low-carbon economy, he said, ‘is an implicit acknowledgment that the bill will destroy jobs. . . . I’m sure the worker at a cement plant, when he loses his job, won’t find much consolation in green welfare programs.’
“Some Republicans highlighted CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf’s Oct. 14 testimony that the bill by Democratic Reps. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (Mass.), which the House passed over the summer, would cause ‘significant’ job losses in fossil-fuel industries and would slow U.S. economic growth for several decades, including between 0.25 and 0.75 percent by 2020. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said the policy reflected the administration’s tendency ‘to promise jobs for all, create some for a few and let the rest of us fend for ourselves.’ But Markey countered in an interview that the CBO factored in neither the cost of inaction nor the potential benefits of technological innovations that could rise once the government treated carbon as a pollutant and put a price on it.”
Climate Hearing, Day One: Democrat Concerns, EPA Issues
Siobhan Hughes and Ian Talley noted in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Supporters of the climate proposal can ill afford to lose any Democratic votes in the Senate, given stiff Republican opposition.”
However, Reuters writer Richard Cowan reported yesterday that, “The difficulty the U.S. Senate faces passing climate change legislation was evident on Tuesday when a powerful Democrat expressed serious concerns about the proposed pace for cutting carbon emissions and Republican opposition was on full display.
“The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held the first of three days of hearings on a Democratic plan to tackle global warming with a bill that would force U.S. utilities, factories and refineries to cut carbon dioxide pollution by 20 percent between 2012-2020.
“Moderate Democratic Senator Max Baucus, a member of the panel who also chairs the Senate Finance Committee, warned: ‘I have serious reservations (about) the depth of the … reduction target in the bill.’”
The Reuters article added that, “Baucus, who has been a central player in writing healthcare reforms this year, also made clear he wants climate change legislation to rescind any powers the federal Environmental Protection Agency might have to go around Congress and begin regulating carbon emissions from stationary sources.”
Darren Samuelsohn of Greenwire reported yesterday at The New York Times Online that, “The six-term senator [Baucus] also said he hoped to attach pre-emption language to the Senate climate bill, S. 1733 (pdf), that stops U.S. EPA from implementing a 2007 Supreme Court opinion that opens the door to new greenhouse gas emission standards on industry.
Edward Felker noted in today’s Washington Times that, “[EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson] said that while EPA was moving to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, she and Mr. Obama still backed legislation as the preferable approach.”
In her opening statement at yesterday’s hearing, Ms. Jackson indicated that, “Even as the President and the members of his Cabinet move forward under existing authority, we continue urging Congress to pass a new clean-energy law. Only new legislation can bring about the comprehensive and integrated changes that are needed to restore America’s economic health and keep the nation secure over the long term.”
Lisa Lerer reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “The Environmental Protection Agency is taking steps to regulate greenhouse gases, even though the issue remains far from settled in Congress, where a key Senate committee is debating a major climate change bill.
“In hearings before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee Tuesday, several moderate Democrats expressed concerns that the EPA is jumping the gun in mandating new curbs on greenhouse gas emissions across a slew of industries.
“‘There is a great deal to be gained by certainty so people can make plans,’ said Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter. ‘If the EPA continues to have flexibility we don’t know where we are.’”
Yesterday’s article added that, “Several Democrats said in Tuesday’s hearings that they would like to include language in the legislation that would stop the EPA form implementing a 2007 Supreme Court opinion that would mandate new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions for a slew of industries.”
Also with respect to the EPA, Chris Clayton noted yesterday at DTN’s Ag Policy Blog that, “One element that came out of Tuesday’s hearing with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing is the idea that the Environmental Protection Agency could use new legislation for the major greenhouse-gas emitting industries, yet want to preserve the authority of the Clean Air Act for other industries.
“Noting that the climate bill cap is not ‘economywide,’ EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson put forward the idea that, ‘There are important carbon-emission sources that can be addressed through Clean Air Act regulations.’
“That really opens a whole can of worms over the notion that even if an industry, such as agriculture, is exempted from climate legislation, could the EPA still bring the stick of the Clean Air Act against those businesses?”
In other EPA climate related developments, David Rogers reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “Big livestock interests and Great Lakes shippers won key regulatory concessions from Democrats Tuesday in a double blow to President Barack Obama’s climate change and clean air agenda.
“The Environmental Protection Agency would be effectively barred from mandating the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions generated by large-scale cattle, dairy and hog producers. In addition, 13 Great Lakes cargo steamships won a last-minute exemption from a proposed rule to require lower-sulfur fuel to reduce harmful emissions.
“In each case, the legislative riders will run only for the one-year life of a $32.24 billion natural resources bill that is otherwise very generous in funding the EPA, as well as parks and wildlife programs within the Interior Department. But the back-to-back regulatory fights show the strain on Democratic loyalties caused by the faltering economy.”
Climate Issues- President Obama
As the Senate hearings on climate legislation unfold, Christi Parsons reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that, “President Obama declared Tuesday that a ‘consensus is building’ around climate-change legislation and characterized opponents as preoccupied with the past instead of a ‘clean-energy future.’
“Standing on the edge of a large solar-power plant here [Arcadia, Fla.], Obama urged the Senate to pass a measure that caps carbon emissions and to set aside arguments that it would harm the economy and cost jobs.”
John M. Broder reported in today’s New York Times that, “The Obama administration and some Senate Democrats expressed fresh urgency on Tuesday about the need to address climate change and refashion the nation’s energy economy.
“But they faced determined opposition from Republicans, new concerns from some Democrats and reminders of the financial, technological and political hurdles in remaking the way the nation produces and consumes power.
“In a Senate hearing on a new climate change and energy bill and in coordinated appearances by President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the administration promoted measures to cap greenhouse gas emissions and support new means of fueling homes and vehicles with far less carbon dioxide intensity. Mr. Obama appeared at a solar energy installation in Florida and Mr. Biden at an auto plant in Delaware that will produce electric vehicles, talking about the potential of alternative energy to create jobs.”
Food Security
Verlyn Klinkenborg indicated in an editorial published in today’s New York Times that, “According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, feeding humanity in 2050 — when the world’s population is expected to be 9.1 billion — will require a 70 percent increase in global food production, partly because of population growth but also because of rising incomes.
“The organization hopes that this increase can be brought about by greater productivity on current agricultural acreage and by greening parts of the world that aren’t now arable. It is also ‘cautiously optimistic’ that, even with climate change, there will be enough land and probably enough water to do so. It’s important to look at this projection in light of another United Nations goal — preserving biodiversity — and ask whether the two are compatible.”
The opinion piece indicated that, “In 2003, 123 nations committed themselves to ‘a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss’ by 2010. According to scientists at a recent United Nations-sponsored biodiversity conference, that target will not be met. Biodiversity loss keeps accelerating, and extinctions are occurring at a rate that’s 100 times what it was before humans dominated the earth. Species are going out like candles in the dark.
“The ‘cautiously optimistic’ authors of the United Nations food report believe that humanity will somehow be able to produce more food while still honoring the value of other species by protecting their habitat. And it’s true that this is not a zero-sum game. A 70 percent increase in food production doesn’t necessarily mean a 70 percent reduction in habitat.”
And today’s Times item added that, “But the Food and Agriculture Organization also warns that agricultural acreage will have to grow by some 297 million acres, a little less than three times the size of California. Add to this the ongoing rate of habitat destruction — including deforestation, often for fuel but usually for producing more food — and other threats like the growing production of biofuels, and it is hard to argue that there isn’t a profound conflict between what our species will need to survive by 2050 and the needs of nearly every other species on this planet.
“The question isn’t whether we can feed 9.1 billion people in 2050 — they must be fed — or whether we can find the energy they will surely need. The question is whether we can find a way to make food and energy production sustainable in the broadest possible sense — and whether we can act on the principle that our interest includes that of every other species on the planet.”
Animal Agriculture
The AP reported today that, “Ohio voters will decide next week whether to create a board overseeing livestock care in a move that could give farmers in rural America a blueprint for battling animal rights groups intent on outlawing cramped cages for chickens and hogs.
“Agriculture industry leaders pushed the issue onto the state ballot, hoping to thwart an attempt by animal rights activists who were threatening to force farmers to change how they house livestock.
“Voters in California, Florida and Arizona already have approved measures that require more space for confined farm animals. Lawmakers in Colorado, Maine, Michigan and Oregon have adopted similar rules.”
The article noted that, “Too many people think of farm animals like the family pet, said Toby Moore, a spokesman for the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council in Stone Mountain, Ga.
“‘They’ve had talking farm animals in the movies for years,’ he said. ‘People truly don’t understand agriculture. They just see cages as inhumane and cruel.’
“Until now, farmers have been caught off guard by the push to eliminate cages and other practices.”
Dairy Issues
Joe Markman reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that, “With dairy prices off nearly 40% from last year’s peak, farmers, industry advocates and milk processors filled a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing room Tuesday to discuss lasting solutions to their crisis.”
The article stated that, “The hearing was co-chaired by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) [related news release] and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).
“‘There are not many businesses where people do backbreaking labor seven days a week and come out financially worse for their trouble,’ Gillibrand said.
“Much of the talk about solutions centered on exports to developing countries.”
“Farmers say the milk pricing system needs to be overhauled, something the senators agreed would be looked into when the next farm bill, scheduled for 2012, comes up,” the article noted.
Harvest Delays
DTN Executive Editor Marcia Zarley Taylor noted yesterday at The Minding Ag’s Business Blog that, “With all the news reports of crop quality issues in 2009, you’d think phones would be ringing off the wall at crop insurance agencies. Mississippi might be a special case, but agents I’ve interviewed in Iowa, Indiana and Alabama the last few days feel more like the old Maytag repairman: lonely.
“Crop insurance agent Steve Tate of Huntsville, Ala., says his clients in Ala., Tenn. and Ga., have been spared the deluges Mississippi farmers experienced, but because Group 5 and 6 beans haven’t matured normally, only 20 percent of the soybean crop has been harvested to date in his area. Moisture isn’t a problem but he expects some kernel and quality adjustment damage claims. He pegs damage to the soybean crop at about 20 percent–enough to meet the threshold for a production adjustment on yields–but thinks growers can harvest every acre.
“‘Nobody’s called me yet looking for an adjuster, but I expect to be popular for all the wrong reasons the longer weather delays harvest here,’ he says.”
Yesterday’s update added that, “Quality adjustments should help his customers. The Risk Management Agency discounts ‘net’ bushels of soybeans when kernel damage exceeds 8 percent. So a 10-11 percent damage reduces production 5.9 percent. After 35 percent damage, RMA considers what the crop would bring in cash markets, Tate adds.”
Keith Good
