Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Legislation; Crop Insurance-Harvest; Food Safety; Animal Agriculture; and SNAP (Food Stamps)
Climate Legislation
An update posted yesterday at CQPolitics reported that, “Partisan politics threaten to derail progress on a Senate climate change bill, even before the first committee markup.
“Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee say they will carry through on threats to boycott markups on the bill, which panel Chairwoman Barbara Boxer had wanted to begin Tuesday.
“The Republicans — led by Oklahoma’s James M. Inhofe, the Environment panel’s ranking GOP member and the Senate’s most vocal climate change skeptic — say they will not be present at the Tuesday session.”
The CQ article added that, “Because two members of the minority party must attend in order for a markup to proceed, Boxer has scheduled a ‘committee business meeting’ — an apparent procedural gambit designed to allow work without a GOP quorum.
“‘The committee Republicans should rethink their approach. As long as they refuse to come to work, they are not participating in one of the most important issues facing our generation,’ Boxer said in a statement Monday.”
The AP reported today that, “The Republicans warned in a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the environment committee chairman, that failure to accommodate GOP senators seeking further [economic] studies [of the proposed climate legislation] ‘would severely damage rather than help’ the chances of getting the bipartisan support needed to get a bill through the Senate.
“Boxer called the EPA cost study ‘unprecedented in scope’ and said it didn’t matter that it was largely based on an analysis of the House-passed climate bill because ‘our bill is 90 percent the same.’
“Boxer told reporters late Monday she wants to try to accommodate the Republicans, but insisted she will push ahead with plans to begin voting on amendments to the bill. But when those votes will start was unclear. Boxer said Tuesday would be limited to senators’ remarks, and said she will make officials from the EPA available so Republicans can quiz them about their cost study.”
Reuters writer Richard Cowan reported yesterday that, “The wrangling over when debate can start illustrated how difficult it will be to get any bill to the Senate floor and passed into law before year end, complicating President Barack Obama’s hopes that the United States will take a leading role in Copenhagen.
“Saying she was attempting to address Republican concerns, Boxer told reporters Tuesday’s work session would be suspended in the afternoon so experts from the Environmental Protection Agency could come before the committee to answer technical questions — from Democrats or Republicans — about the bill.”
The Reuters article noted that, “A committee Democratic aide, who asked not to be identified, cited Senate rules saying that Tuesday’s committee session could occur if at least 10 of the 19 members attend. Democrats control 12 of the seats.
“Republicans had hoped to stop the work session with a boycott by all seven of their members, citing a different committee rule stating at least two Republicans must be present for the panel to conduct business.”
Lisa Lerer reported last night at Politico.com that, “Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer tried to extend an olive branch to Republicans on climate change Monday evening, extending a deadline for them to offer amendments to her global warming legislation.
“But even as she made new advances, Boxer (D-Calif.) vowed to continue with her controversial mark-up, with or without GOP support.”
The article indicated that, “Boxer extended the deadline for amendments and invited a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency to answer questions about the bill in a special Tuesday afternoon session of the committee.
“‘We think this is going the extra mile for our friends on the other side and we really hope they will return to the table,’ she said.”
Darren Samuelsohn of ClimateWire reported yesterday at The New York Times Online that, “Full-blown partisan warfare is expected tomorrow when Democrats try to begin a markup of global warming legislation in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee despite plans by the panel’s seven Republicans to skip the meeting altogether.
“Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) plans to proceed under a rarely used interpretation of the committee’s rules that allows her to start and finish the markup so long as a majority of the panel’s members are present, rather than longstanding precedent requiring two minority members to be in attendance, according to sources on and off Capitol Hill.
“Boxer’s justification for the move is that Republicans are trying to stall on a climate bill that they have no intention of voting for anyway. And with a 12-7 majority favoring Democrats, she does not need their support to report the bill favorably.”
The article explained that, “Andrew Wheeler, a former EPW Committee Republican staff director, agreed that Boxer has the power to proceed with the markup absent Republicans’ participation, though he warned against the precedent she could create. ‘The loophole is she’s the one who decides the rules are being followed,’ he said. ‘There’s no appeal to any higher authority. There’s no committee Parliamentarian. … There’s no police.’
“Late Friday, Boxer released a new 959-page version (pdf) of the climate bill that will serve as the vehicle for the markup.”
Meanwhile, Philip Brasher reported yesterday at the Green Fields Blog (The Des Moines Register) that, “Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., is trying to round up Senate support for softening impact that the Senate’s climate bill would have on electric rates in the Midwest.
“At issue is the way that carbon emission permits would be allocated under the bill. Utilities such as MidAmerican Energy say that the cost of the emission allowances would force them to raise electric rates dramatically.
“The fear is that the emission allocation formula in the bill ‘will unfairly and disproportionately raise electricity costs in certain regions of the country,’ said Harkin spokesman Grant Gustafson.”
Christa Marshall of ClimateWire reported yesterday at The New York Times Online that, “When Columbia University sociologist Dana Fisher investigated how U.S. senators lined up on a 2008 climate bill, one factor outside of party affiliation topped all others in predicting their vote. The ‘no’ votes were more likely to come from coal states.
“Now, there is a Democratic U.S. president and a somewhat different bill on the table than the one that collapsed last year, but Fisher said the political dynamics are largely the same.
“‘Dealing with U.S. coal is going to the biggest thing they’re going to have to resolve,’ she said about U.S. senators currently working out the legislative details of a mandatory cap on greenhouse gases.”
John Lorinc reported yesterday at the Green Inc. Blog (The New York Times) that, “A new study from PointCarbon, a carbon market research firm, indicates that ExxonMobil would face an annual outlay of $5.9 billion to purchase carbon allowances under the terms of the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, while electricity giants like Exelon and Pacific Gas and Electric would emerge as financial winners, because they rely heavily on diversified, low-emission fleets that include nuclear reactors and hydro dams.
“The analysis, titled ‘Carbon Exposure’ and released Monday, examines the impact of a $15-per-ton carbon dioxide trading market on the nation’s largest oil and power companies, which together account for about 40 percent of the emissions in the American market.”
An update posted yesterday at the AgMag Blog (Environmental Working Group) stated that, “After a reading of the Senate bill’s agriculture offset provisions, however, Environmental Working Group’s Craig Cox warned that, ‘The Kerry-Boxer climate bill simply borrows the agriculture offset provisions in the House bill, and if those provisions remain in place, it opens a loophole big enough to let 67 of the dirtiest power plants off the hook for their emissions.’
“Cox, EWG’s Midwest vice-president, manages our office in Ames, Iowa, and co-authored an analysis of the House version. He found that polluters could take credit for meeting their required pollution reductions by paying farmers simply to keep on doing what they were already doing — and without putting any new conservation practices in place. This could allow the equivalent of over 67 of the dirtiest power plants to avoid any controls on greenhouse gas emissions while missing the opportunity to encourage farmers to do more to protect the climate and our food supply.
“Additionally, the Kerry-Boxer bill, like the House version, doesn’t do enough to guarantee that key conservation practices that generate credits for polluters will actually stay in place over the long-term. The so-called ‘permanence’ issue, a big concern for carbon conservation practices, raises the question:
“What good would it do to store carbon in the soil by reducing tillage if you can just go back to plowing again after 5-to-10 years?”
DTN’s Marcia Zarley Taylor reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Are farmers winners or losers in the race to curb carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions? Most agree that fertilizer and fuel costs will likely rise under new regulations, but will farm revenues more than erase those higher input costs, just as they did in 2007 and 2008?
“Economic studies have come to widely different conclusions on the U.S. House climate bill, known as the Waxman-Markey bill after its co-sponsors, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. Different conclusions even come from economists whose offices are just a few feet down the hall from one another at Texas A&M University.
“In one camp is Bruce McCarl, a feisty Texas A&M economist and one of a team of analysts who shared the 2007 Nobel Prize for climate-change work. As a co-author of a working paper now on a Duke University website, McCarl argues that without new and expanding markets for agricultural commodities, farm prices tend to fall over time.”
The DTN article added that, “Joe Outlaw, co-director of Texas A&M’s Agricultural and Food Policy Center, found much different results. Using an economic model normally used to track farm bills, Outlaw’s team concluded that 71 out of 98 farm simulations would have lower ending cash reserves by 2016 under the House climate bill compared to the study’s baseline. That study found only Midwest corn and soybean farmers and Plains wheat farmers would clearly benefit from the climate bill.
“However, Outlaw said forecasting the economic impacts of climate change is one of the most complex tasks economists can tackle. With so many variables and a 40-year horizon, changing just a few assumptions can skew results in either direction.
“While Outlaw cautions that there’s much uncertainty in both forecasts, he said he sees an important distinction. Farm incomes may be better off with climate legislation as McCarl contends, but most of the benefits don’t accrue to growers until carbon prices jump 20 or 30 years from now. Farmers have to survive higher costs in the interim, Outlaw said.”
A related item regarding the potential costs and benefits of climate legislation and agriculture was posted on Friday at the Delta Farm Press (DFP) Online.
The DFP item noted that, “In early October, the Environmental Working Group released a study titled ‘Crying Wolf’ that focused on what a cap and trade system would mean for farmers’ energy costs.”
“Almost immediately, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee, claimed ‘in an attempt to sideline 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 … cap and trade bills.’”
“The following day, in an interview with Delta Farm Press, [Craig Cox, EWG Midwest vice-president and co-author of the report] claimed Chambliss has it wrong, climate change does need to be addressed and farmers will be better off under new legislation.” Friday’s DFP item contained some lengthy excerpts from this interview.
From an international perspective, the AP reported today that, “German Chancellor Angela Merkel was making the case Tuesday for a global deal on climate change to a skeptical audience: members of Congress,” while James Kanter reported yesterday at the Green Inc. Blog (The New York Times) that, “Climate campaigners say negotiations under way this week in Barcelona represent a last-ditch effort to save the planet.”
Crop Insurance-Harvest
An announcement released yesterday by the USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) stated in part that, “Extremely wet harvest conditions are occurring in many areas causing delayed harvest of sugar beets, potatoes, cotton, corn, and soybeans. In some cases, the moisture content is so high the crop cannot be physically harvested with normal harvest equipment.
“The most important action you can do is to contact your crop insurance agent to report a loss, indicating your harvest is delayed because of adverse weather, which is an insured cause of loss. You must then continue to carry out normal and customary harvesting practices, if possible.
“Your crop insurance policy will cover loss of quality (as specified in the crop provisions), reduced yields and revenue losses if revenue coverage was chosen. The cost of drying the harvested crop is not covered.
“If you are unable to harvest by the calendar date for the End of the Insurance Period (EOIP) due to extreme wet or snowy conditions, you may request additional time to harvest beyond the calendar date for the EOIP, from your crop insurance company.”
With respect to the late harvest this year, University of Illinois Agricultural Economist Darrel Good indicated yesterday (“Harvest to Accelerate”) that, “The late planted and late maturing corn and soybean crops of 2009 have also experienced one of the slowest harvest rates in modern history. As of October 25, the USDA reported only 20 percent of the corn crop and 44 percent of the soybean crop had been harvested.”
After additional analysis, yesterday’s report noted that, “The USDA’s November 10 Crop Production report will provide an important benchmark for judging the yield impacts of poor harvest conditions. The impact of a poor quality crop will be revealed over a longer period of time. Typically, the impact of corn quality on livestock feeding rates could be evaluated based on the December 1 inventory of corn, with higher feeding rates associated with poor quality. With more than the normal amount of the crop likely to be unharvested by December 1, the estimate of December 1 stocks may be less reliable than in a more normal year. The March 1 inventory estimate, then, becomes more important.
“For soybeans, the wet growing season in many areas along with higher moisture levels at harvest, may affect the relative meal and oil content of the crop. The industry will have information on relative yields immediately, but the monthly Census Bureau estimates of soybean crush and product yield will reveal the overall impact.
“The impacts of late harvest and poor quality crops on production and use are often over estimated. It appears that may have been the case this year, with prices of both corn and soybeans dropping sharply with the forecast of more favorable harvest conditions. However, this year’s growing and harvest season weather conditions are outside the experience of modern history. More time will be required to fully evaluate the impacts.”
Food Safety
Gardiner Harris reported in today’s New York Times that, “Two people, one from New Hampshire and another from upstate New York, have died after eating ground beef that may be responsible for an E. coli outbreak linked to illness in more than two dozen people.
“The suspect beef was produced by a company in western New York State, Fairbank Farms, which issued a voluntary recall Saturday for 545,699 pounds of ground beef products. Animal Agriculture.”
Animal Agriculture
Philip Brasher reported yesterday at Green Fields Blog (The Des Moines Register) that, “The livestock industry and animal-welfare activists will be watching a constitutional measure that Ohio voters will see on ballots Tuesday. Issue 2 would set up a 13-member board with strong to farm representation to set standards for livestock care. The panel would include three farmers, two representatives of farm organizations and a private veterinarian, while there would be two consumer representatives and one member from a county humane society. The state agriculture commissioner would chair the board.
“The Animal Agriculture Alliance describes the measure ‘a proactive strategy designed to prevent out-of-state activist groups from dictating how food is produced in Ohio.’”
“The Humane Society of the United States opposes the measure, calling it a ‘power grab’ by ‘Big Ag.’”
SNAP (Food Stamps)
The AP reported yesterday that, “Nearly half of all U.S. children and 90 percent of black youngsters will be on food stamps at some point during childhood, and fallout from the current recession could push those numbers even higher, researchers say.”
Keith Good
