Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Legislation; Biofuels; Chairman Lincoln; Food Security; Farm Bill; and Doha
Climate Legislation
Darren Samuelsohn of ClimateWire reported yesterday at The New York Times Online that, “The Senate climate debate shifts into a higher gear this week as advocates look beyond the partisan gridlock that engulfed the Environment and Public Works Committee and onto the broader quest of finding 60 votes for floor passage.
“Tomorrow, the Finance and Energy and Natural Resources committees dive into the issue with a pair of simultaneous hearings on climate policy. [Note: As of this morning, an update posted at the Energy and Natural Resources homepage indicates that today’s hearing has been postponed].
“On Finance, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) will study the job implications of global warming legislation with testimony from a major labor union, economists, and the nuclear power and electric utility industry. Baucus has said he may hold a markup this year on the trade provisions of a climate bill and address how to distribute greenhouse gas emission allowances among regulated industries.”
Mr. Samuelsohn indicated that, “Several influential senators also have welcomed the end of an EPW panel process reflective of the committee’s polarized membership, headed by [Sen. Barbara] Boxer [D-California] and ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.), an outspoken skeptic on the science of global warming.
“‘That frees up the Senate, frankly,’ said Baucus, the lone Democrat on the EPW Committee to vote against the bill. ‘It frees up all members of the Senate who are interested in climate change, including those on the committee.’
“Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) suggested last week that the climate debate enters a new and more deliberative phase that will be much different than the EPW panel, where Boxer pressed for rapid committee passage ahead of next month’s U.N. climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark.”
Yesterday’s ClimateWire article added that, “In the Finance Committee, Baucus provides perhaps the best window into the Senate’s chances of passing a climate bill. According to an E&E analysis (pdf) of the Senate, sponsors remain about 15 to 20 votes shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. And some of the key senators who sit on the Finance panel are either on the fence or close to it, including [Jeff] Bingaman [D, N.M.], Rockefeller, [Blanche] Lincoln [D-Ark.], and Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
“‘You can’t help but conclude that the Senate Finance Committee is purposely built to find a constructive center in the debate,’ an environmentalist tracking the climate debate said earlier this summer.
“Perhaps the most contentious issue facing Finance involves the distribution of what many analysts say will be hundreds of billions of dollars in emission allocations. Power plant CEOs, hunters and fishers, renewable energy companies, public transit officials, religious groups and foreign aid workers are but a few of the competing interests trying to get a share of the allowances that are necessary for compliance with the new environmental program.”
And, as climate change legislation moves through the Senate, Jim Snyder documented yesterday at The Hill Online that, “Energy and environmental interests are shoring up their lobbying teams.”
Climate Legislation: EPA Issues
The “Washington Insider” section of DTN noted in part yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., articulated this situation clearly last week. Concerning the issue of whether the administration would implement greenhouse gas emissions controls on its own if there is no legislation, Kerry told the press, ‘Well, EPA is poised to move. Everybody needs to understand that. I’m going to make this as clear as I can: I don’t think anybody is going to wind up [blocking] EPA, because there’s filibuster-proof capacity to prevent that from happening.’
“Kerry continued, ‘I’ll personally stand on the Senate floor, day and night, to prevent that from happening. Therefore, success in this is not defined by stopping a Senate bill. The reason is, EPA will then regulate without assistance to coal, without allocation of allowances that help companies to make the transition. And then you’re out there on your own. So the game in town, folks, is here. It’s in the Congress, where we have the ability to mitigate the transitional costs and to be reasonable in the process. That’s something people really need to focus on.’
“There are still many observers in and around the Capitol who do not believe that Kerry or the administration can do what he is threatening, and a number of those represent agricultural groups.”
In a related article, Rebecca Smith and Stephen Power reported yesterday at The Wall Street Journal Online that, “Utility executives are stepping up calls for legislation to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, fearing that if Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will establish rules that would be costlier and less effective.
“The executives’ desire for prompt action is colliding with Washington’s focus on other issues and growing reluctance to tamper with power-industry costs during a weak economy.”
The Journal article pointed out that, “Republicans have largely opposed a Senate bill as economically ruinous, and some have indicated that they won’t be pressured into voting for a bill, even if the EPA moves forward with regulations on power plants.
“‘The actions the EPA has taken and its plans to regulate greenhouse gases are a serious concern,’ said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.). ‘However, EPA’s actions should not scare Congress into passing bad legislation.’
“An EPA spokeswoman said Friday, ‘We agree that we need Congress to step in and enact comprehensive and integrated energy reform as quickly as possible.’”
Reuters writer Tom Doggett flushed out more details on this issue in an article from yesterday, where he reported that, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has sent its final proposal on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to human health and welfare to the White House for review, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.
“The EPA’s final finding, if it follows the agency’s earlier assessment and is approved by the Office of Management and Budget, would allow the EPA to issue rules later to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, even if Congress fails to pass legislation to cut U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases that contribute to global warming.”
Yesterday’s Reuters article also noted that, “Along with its final endangerment finding, the EPA also sent to OMB the agency’s final finding on whether cars and trucks ‘cause or contribute to that pollution,’ Jackson said.
“Such a finding would allow the federal government to regulate tailpipe emissions by increasing vehicle mileage requirement.”
Stephen Power reported yesterday at the Environmental Capital Blog (The Wall Street Journal) that, “Congress might be a long way from passing legislation to fight climate change, but the Obama administration appears one step closer to creating its own regime for controlling greenhouse gases. On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it sent the White House Office of Management and Budget its proposed finding that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare.”
“Environmental groups, naturally, are thrilled with the EPA’s move, hoping it will boost the Obama administration’s efforts to forge a global agreement to curb emissions when representatives of more than 190 countries gather next month in Copenhagen, Denmark for a United Nations conference,” Mr Power noted.
In a separate article from yesterday, Reuters writer Tom Doggett reported that, “While the United States is still far away from implementing a final climate change plan, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Monday that America can show up at international global warming talks next month proud of what is has accomplished so far.
“‘My belief is that there is no one who can look at what we’re doing and not think that the United States is engaged here,’ EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters in an interview.”
Meanwhile, John M. Broder and Leslie Kaufman reported in today’s New York Times that, “The Environmental Protection Agency has directed two of its lawyers to makes changes to a YouTube video they posted that is critical of the Obama administration’s climate change policy.
“The agency, citing federal policies, told the two lawyers, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, who are married and based in San Francisco, that they could mention their E.P.A. affiliation only once; must remove language specifying Mr. Zabel’s expertise and their years of employment with the agency; and must remove an image of the agency’s office in San Francisco.”
The Times article added that, “They have been told that if they do not edit the video to comply with the policy, they could face disciplinary action.
“The video, titled ‘The Huge Mistake,’ was produced and posted in September. But the agency did not issue its warning until The Washington Post published a widely cited opinion article by the couple on Oct. 31 that raised concerns, echoing those in the video, about cap-and-trade legislation that the Obama administration supports.”
***
From an international perspective, Barney Jopson reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “China has expressed its solidarity with Africa as a ‘victim’ of climate change and called on the west to join Beijing in helping the world’s poorest continent adapt to the consequences of more extreme weather.
“Speaking at a China-Africa summit in Egypt on Monday, Chen Deming, China’s minister of commerce, said: ‘China as well as African countries are victims of global warming but we are not the culprits or the cause of global warming today.’
“But Mr Chen called on the west to join China in helping Africa to limit its own emissions – a tiny proportion of the global total – and to adapt to the impact of climate change, which is threatening to increase food shortages, disease and displace millions of people from their homes,” the FT article said.
The AP reported yesterday that, “President Barack Obama said Monday that he’d be willing to attend an international climate summit in Copenhagen next month if it appears a deal is in the offing and his presence there would help clinch it;” and, a separate AP article from yesterday stated that, “Confident that governments will reach a climate change deal next month, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is heading to Washington Tuesday to ensure that the United States is on board.”
Biofuels
Reuters news reported yesterday that, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may not meet a December 1 deadline to decide whether to approve an industry request to boost the amount of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Reuters on Monday.
“Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers petitioned the EPA last March to allow gasoline to contain up to 15 percent ethanol by volume, known as E15. U.S. gasoline is now approved to contain up to 10 percent of ethanol, which in the United States is made mostly from corn.”
The article stated that, “But the head of the EPA said the agency may have to work past the December 1 deadline because it is still reviewing test results on how the higher blend rate would affect engines ‘across the board,’ — including cars, trucks, snow mobiles, motor boats and lawnmowers.”
Chairman Lincoln
Jessica Brady reported today at Roll Call Online that, “As the new chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) seems to be playing it safe.
“Lincoln took over the panel in September, and since then, she’s made just a handful of hires and kept the agenda fairly light. And it doesn’t appear that the two-term Senator, who faces a potentially tough re-election battle next year, is rushing to step into controversy. Instead of taking on issues like climate change and market reform — both of which fall under her panel’s jurisdiction — Lincoln is making her first major order of business the reauthorization of a popular child nutrition program. Last week, she announced a Nov. 17 hearing on the issue, a pet cause for her predecessor, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).”
Ms. Brady indicated that, “Republicans on the panel expect Lincoln, a moderate, to be more inclusive than Harkin, an outspoken liberal not known for brokering deals. Whereas Harkin used his Agriculture post to focus almost exclusively on his pet causes such as nutrition programs and eco-friendly farming, most expect Lincoln to focus on those bread-and-butter issues that directly affect farmers and rural communities.
“‘There’s been tremendous attention on other areas, which is important, but you’ve got to go back to the basics, which are farmers and ranchers,’ said Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Production, Income Protection and Price Support.
“Republican Policy Committee Chairman John Thune (S.D.) also predicted that Lincoln will likely be ‘more sympathetic’ to Republicans when climate change legislation moves to the top of the panel’s agenda, while Roberts said he hopes the new chairman asserts herself and the committee’s influence over the hot-button issue.”
The Roll Call article added that, “‘I’d urge her to hold hearings on climate change and claim joint jurisdiction,’ Roberts said. The issue ‘is crucial, if not chaotic, for agriculture.’
“But instead of delving into climate change, Lincoln, already bracing for a tough vote on health care reform this year, is instead making her first major order of business the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization.
“Asked about how she plans to address climate change in her committee, Lincoln would only say that she will ‘be a strong voice for agriculture and rural communities in the climate change debate.’”
Today’s article stated that, “Lincoln so far has named just two top committee staffers: Courtney Rowe as communications director and Robert Holifield, her former adviser on agriculture issues who also did her rural outreach on the Democratic Steering Committee, as staff director. Holifield also formerly worked as the deputy chief of staff for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, experience that could come in handy if and when the Agriculture panel takes up market reform. In the meantime, Holifield has been tasked with ramping up policy staff specializing in trade and environmental issues.
“‘Certainly Sen. Lincoln has the right and the responsibility to put her people in charge at the Agriculture Committee,’ Harkin said.”
Food Security
Reuters writer Daniel Flynn reported yesterday that, “Poor nations battered by record food prices last year need international help to raise agricultural output given conditions are still ripe for another food crisis, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation’s chief said.
“In an interview ahead of a global summit on food security in Rome next week, FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf said more aid was needed to curb the rising number of hungry people in the world, which topped 1 billion for the first time this year.”
Javier Blas reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “Hunger and food security used to be the staple talking points of agriculture and development officials. But the food crisis of 2007-08 has elevated the issue to the highest level of government.
“‘Massive hunger poses a threat to the stability of governments, societies and borders,’ Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, said recently. ‘Food security is not just about food. But it is all about security – economic security, environmental security, even national security.’”
The FT article added that, “The move to involve the ‘whole of the government’, as officials describe it, signals how food security has become a global political preoccupation as the number of chronically hungry people tops 1bn [related graph] and agricultural commodity prices soar.
“Policymakers are concerned that high food prices will steadily increase the number of those chronically hungry, triggering political instability in developing countries or forced migration towards rich nations.”
Yesterday’s FT article indicated that, “The US is particularly sensitive to the link between food security and national and international stability, say diplomats and food aid officials. Washington has become the main force behind global plans to improve food security, following the launch in L’Aquila of the Group of Eight’s food security initiative this summer. This aims to deploy about $20bn (€13.5bn, £12bn) over three years for long-term farming investment.
“The concern, says Kitty Smith, a senior economist at the US Department of Agriculture, is that the 2007-08 surge in food prices was ‘symptomatic’ of what lies ahead. A straw poll among business executives, policymakers and agronomists at a recent conference held at the FAO found that 85 per cent feared further spikes in food commodities prices, and a third doubted the world could feed itself by 2050.”
In a separate FT article yesterday, Javier Blas reported that, “The drive towards self-sufficiency in response to last year’s food crisis will fail, a top executive at Cargill has warned, adding that the idea that countries ‘can be self-sufficient in every single food is a nonsense’”.
The article stated that, “The so-called ‘farmland grabs’ gained notoriety after an attempt by South Korea’s Daewoo Logistics to secure a huge chunk of farmland in Madagascar, which contributed to the collapse of the African country’s government.
“Paul Conway, senior vice-president at Cargill, said: ‘Promoting a free and open trading system whereby countries can produce what they are best able … and surpluses can be traded across international boundaries is the right way to go.
“‘Not all countries can single-handedly be self-sufficient in all food commodities,’ he added, also dismissing attempts to outsource agriculture production overseas.”
Farm Bill
Reuters news reported yesterday (article posted at DTN, link requires subscription) that, “The government should relax the rules for withdrawing land from the Conservation Reserve when U.S. grain stockpiles dwindle, a coalition of processors, shippers and livestock producers said on Monday.
“In a letter to the Agriculture Department, the Alliance for Agricultural Growth and Competitiveness said highly erodible land should stay in the reserve, but USDA should provide ‘flexibility’ to return tillable land to production ‘when market forces signal a need for more farm output.’”
Chris Clayton reported yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog that, “USDA officials sent two key proposed rules last week to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
“One involves the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payment program, or SURE. Or for those of us nauseated by federal acronyms, the permanent disaster program from the 2008 farm bill. Congress created the $3.8 billion Agricultural Disaster Relief Trust Fund in the farm bill after constant battles over ad hoc disaster spending in Congress that sometimes would take more than two years after a disaster declaration before funding would be authorized and farmers paid for the losses.
“SURE should be in place, but it’s not quite completed yet. The program would pay up to a $100,000 crop disaster payment to eligible producers. If you remember, a couple of the caveats for SURE include required crop insurance coverage for all revenue crops on the farm. It also requires a whole-farm income loss.”
Mr. Clayton added that, “On a different front, the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration has sent OMB a rule on changes to the Packers and Stockyards Act regarding poultry contracts. The GIPSA rule would address cancellation of poultry contracts regarding ‘whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract constitutes a violation of the Act; and if a live poultry dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for a poultry grower or a swine production contract grower to remedy a breach of contract that could lead to termination of the poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract.’”
Doha
Dow Jones writer Gerald Jeffris reported yesterday that, “Brazil’s government Monday published a list of 222 U.S. products that may be subject to tariff increases as a result of a World Trade Organization ruling earlier this year condemning U.S. subsidies to its cotton industry.
“The government said the list would be made available for public consultation until Nov. 30 before it begins a final decision-making process on retaliations. According to the government announcement published in its federal register, items on the list could be subject to tariff increases of up to 100 percentage points.
“In addition to cotton and other agricultural and textile products, the list includes other goods such as motor vehicle products, electronics, cosmetics, medical equipment and pharmaceutical products.”
Bartholomew Sullivan reported in today’s Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN) that, “Brazil said Monday it plans to retaliate against American importers of acetaminophen, textiles and bar-code readers, among other things, as it formulates its World Trade Organization-authorized sanctions in a trade dispute over U.S. cotton subsidies.
“The Memphis-based National Cotton Council released a statement Monday afternoon saying current cotton subsidies were not a factor in the amount Brazil can seek, since the formula was determined in 2005. Council chairman Mark Lange noted that U.S. cotton production has ‘declined dramatically’ since 2005.
“But Oxfam America, a vocal critic of American cotton subsidies for years, noted that the long, drawn-out WTO case has finally reached the point where penalties are imminent.”
Keith Good
