Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Issues; Sec. Vilsack and Production Agriculture; Food Security; Biofuels; CRP; and Trade
Climate Issues: Domestic Concerns; International Expectations
Reuters writer Ayesha Rascoe reported yesterday that, “In the latest obstacle to proposed U.S. climate legislation, key lawmakers Thursday urged Senate Democrats to change distribution plans for carbon permits to offer more protection for coal-dependent utilities.
“The lawmakers said the allocation scheme in the current Senate bill does not apportion permits in an equitable manner and will result in higher electricity rates for consumers in regions that rely mostly on coal for power generation.”
The article noted that, “The 14 lawmakers who signed the letter mostly hail from heavy coal using states, including Senators Tom Harkin, of Iowa, Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota, and Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Senate Democrats are trying to craft a bill that could receive enough support to be approved by the chamber.
“‘We believe it is essential that we strive to formulate legislation that equitably distributes transition assistance across individuals, as well as states and regions and economic sectors,’ the Democratic Senators said in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.”
Philip Brasher reported yesterday at the Greenfields Blog (The Des Moines Register) that, “Here’s a new reason that getting a climate bill through the Senate isn’t going to be easy. Fourteen Senate Democrats, including Iowa’s Tom Harkin, are demanding changes in the way that emission permits are allocated to utilities. Mid-American Energy and other coal-based utilities in the Midwest claim their customers will be hit with huge rate increases because of the way the allowances would be distributed under a bill that passed the House earlier in the year and another that recently emerged from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
“Those bills would allocate half the credits according to utilities’ sales rather than their emissions. That formula is good for utilities that generate substantial portions of their electricity from nuclear energy or hydropower. In the letter, the senators say that the permits should be allocated solely on the basis of emissions. That would be the ‘appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse-gas-regulated economy,’ the senators say in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.”
Meanwhile, Juliet Eilperin reported in today’s Washington Post that, “Less than a month before negotiators will meet in Copenhagen with the lofty goal of crafting a deal to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is considering endorsing a limited short-term climate pact and deferring more ambitious action until next year.
“The scaled-back strategy is driven largely by the realities of domestic politics: The administration is hampered in making an international deal because Congress has not passed climate legislation. So any global pact would be postponed until next year when it would be constrained by whatever domestic climate legislation Congress enacts.
“Backing an interim agreement — which would fall far short of what many European and developing nations envisioned when President Obama took office — would be an attempt to keep the U.N.-sponsored talks from being viewed a failure, say administration and congressional officials.”
Today’s article explained that, “Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that he is still trying to provide negotiators with ‘a sign of political commitment on the part of the United States’ by issuing a draft in the next few weeks of the climate bill he is writing with Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). But while it might help the administration identify what the Senate backs in terms of a climate pact, Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) said the administration shouldn’t ‘over-promise’ in Copenhagen.
“‘The question of what our emissions targets and reductions timetable will be, I think it’s pretty hard for them to know what that will be, because we do not yet know what that will be,’ he said.
“Any deal coming out of Copenhagen that includes the meaningful participation of China and India could bolster the chances of passing a Senate bill, because these lawmakers do not want to ask Americans to sacrifice without assurances that economic competitors will do so as well. But an underwhelming outcome at the U.N. talks could sour senators on a broader agreement.”
Reuters writer Richard Cowan reported yesterday that, “World leaders are setting their sights on completing an international deal on combating global warming by the middle of next year, a U.N. official said on Thursday, now that there is broad agreement next month’s deadline will not be met in Copenhagen.”
Mr. Cowan added that, “Whether it is six or 12 more months of intensive work on a climate change deal depends largely on when next year the United States Senate can pass domestic legislation reducing the country’s carbon pollution from smokestacks.
“Democratic leaders in the Senate had hoped the full Senate would have passed a bill by December 7, when the Copenhagen summit is set to begin. But the effort has become bogged down, with U.S. lawmakers preoccupied with healthcare reform legislation and many also hesitant during economic hard times to pass a climate change bill that would raise energy prices.”
Bloomberg writer Ewa Krukowska reported yesterday that, “The United Nations climate summit next month may bring a ‘strong political declaration’ followed by another round of technical negotiations to forge a new global treaty, Poland said.”
The article stated that, “The chances of agreeing on a fully fledged treaty at the summit are shrinking, Poland’s Environment Minister Maciej Nowicki said today in an interview on Radio PiN.
“‘There’s huge pressure now for Copenhagen to end up with success, but after the summit we’ll have another conference in Mexico and then in South Africa,’ he said. ‘Even if we get only a strong political declaration in Copenhagen, and that’s an almost sure thing, we may work on technicals over the next year or two to prepare an accord that would be acceptable for all.’”
Despite the scaled back expectations of what can be achieved at Copenhagen this year, Jim Snyder reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “Advocates of climate change legislation say President Barack Obama should attend the international summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month to show the United States is serious about addressing the issue.”
In an article from yesterday, Bloomberg writer Gaurav Singh provided an example of the strong feelings that often accompany the climate debate: The Bloomberg article quoted Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd as saying. “There is a group of people who deny the science, the reality of climate change. They are the enemies of us all.”
Climate Issues: Trade
C. Fred Bergsten and Lori Wallach penned an opinion piece that was published in today’s Washington Post titled, “Cooling the planet without chilling trade.”
In part, the unlikely duo indicated that, “There is a real danger that a collision between climate policy and trade agreements could derail two critical goals: controlling climate change and expanding trade.
“But this danger is avoidable.”
The authors explained that, “While the academic debates about the economics of this issue continue, the politics are clear. The two means of ‘leveling the carbon playing field’ in bills before Congress — imposing additional ‘border charges’ on carbon-intensive imports and subsidizing domestic producers — are being criticized by many U.S. trading partners as potential World Trade Organization violations. These criticisms could lead to WTO challenges that might undermine climate and trade agreements, or to retaliation that could escalate to trade wars, choking the global economy. Yet without some kind of border adjustment mechanisms, even if imposed after a fixed period, U.S. climate legislation is unlikely to pass.
“Meanwhile, many poor countries have signaled that they want more financial support for the ‘green technology’ transfers that would enable them to participate in a global climate accord, as well as greater access to these technologies. Implementing a treaty on global warming could require new trade rules in intellectual property, services, government procurement and product standards.”
The opinion piece stated that, “President Obama campaigned on a promise to redefine the U.S. trade agenda, but he has yet to do so. One path would be to launch an ‘Obama Round’ of talks that would include, as a centerpiece, addressing these potential commercial and climate trade-offs and updating the negotiating agenda. Earlier this year, the Peterson Institute recommended a new code of ‘best practices’ on greenhouse gas emission controls, including establishment of ‘policy space’ for countries to limit emissions without sacrificing the competitive position of their industries. The institute also recommended that countries adopt a time-limited ‘peace clause’ in which pursuit of new trade barriers would be suspended while the negotiations proceeded, and that a global climate accord be linked to a new global trade accord.
“Public Citizen issued a report last year that described the WTO trade pact provisions that needed to be renegotiated to help then-candidate Obama deliver on his campaign proposals regarding climate.
“Both warned that allowing the WTO adjudication process to handle trade disputes over climate matters is a recipe for discord and impasse.”
Climate Issues: Agriculture
In a guest opinion item posted yesterday at DTN (link requires subscription, the opinions expressed in the item are those of the author and are not necessarily those of DTN, its management or employees), Bart Ruth, a corn and soybean producer from Rising City, Nebraska and policy chair of the 25x’25 Alliance, stated that, “If there’s one thing I took away from the [climate bill] debate, it is this: as farmers, we need to quit arguing about whether climate change is real. The bottom line is that the scientific community and the government think it is, and they’re working on plans to increase our production of bioenergy feedstocks, limit carbon emissions and trap, or sequester, atmospheric carbon.
“We farmers have to start participating in the discussion about how agriculture can play a positive role in helping lawmakers – and society as a whole – achieve those objectives. We can insist on a seat at the table, and we must be willing to see where initiatives like clean energy, the renewable electricity standard and carbon sequestration could help us.
“A study released Wednesday by the University of Tennessee offers some good news on the subject. Agricultural economists at UT explored what the farm economy could look like under a variety of scenarios, from an EPA-driven regulatory approach to more liberal free markets for biofuel feedstocks and carbon credits.”
Sec. Vilsack and Production Agriculture
In a brief audio update posted on Wednesday at Agri-Pulse Online titled, “Sec. Vilsack: USDA is not ignoring production agriculture,” Stewart Doan provided insight into the executive branch perspective regarding commercial agriculture.
To listen to Stewart Doan’s brief audio report, just click here (MP3, about three minutes).
Food Security
The AP reported yesterday that, “A draft declaration for next week’s U.N. food summit would commit world leaders to a new hunger-fighting strategy by pledging to increase agricultural development aid to help the world’s 1 billion hungry people feed themselves.
“However, the draft obtained Thursday by The Associated Press does not include a 2025 deadline for eradicating hunger, a goal sought by the United Nations.”
Reuters news reported yesterday that, “A U.N. world food summit next week is not likely to make more than token headway in the fight against hunger, with leaders merely pledging to boost aid to poor countries but setting no targets or deadlines for action.
“With more than one billion people going hungry, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization had called the November 16-18 summit in Rome hoping to win a clear pledge by world leaders to spend $44 billion a year to help poor nations feed themselves.
“But a final draft declaration seen by Reuters includes only a general commitment to pump more money into agricultural development, and makes no mention of a proposal to eliminate hunger by 2025.”
Biofuels
A news release issued yesterday by Growth Energy indicated that, “Speaking to the press meeting at today’s convention of the National Association of Farm Broadcasters, Growth Energy CEO Tom Buis answered questions about news reports on a pending decision from EPA on the Growth Energy Green Jobs Waiver to increase the blend wall to E15:
“‘All the data has been provided in the Growth Energy Green Jobs Waiver to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and raise the blend wall to 15 percent. There has not been a formal decision yet by EPA, but they have until December 1 to make a decision. And we anticipate the EPA will make its decision by the statutory Dec. 1 deadline.
“‘Moving to E15 makes sense for the environment, the economy and for our national security. The data we submitted on the Green Jobs Waiver proves there is no impact on engine performance or durability that would prevent the EPA from deciding in favor of E15.’”
An update posted yesterday at the National Corn Growers Association Online yesterday stated that, “A noted university professor’s attempt to set the record straight with Science magazine when it comes to carbon emissions and biofuels was summarily rejected without explanation by the magazine, even though it clearly points to major flaws in the previously published work.
“Dr. Bruce Dale, a professor of chemical engineering at Michigan State University, took environmental lawyer Tim Searchinger to task for a paper he and others wrote that significantly exaggerated the carbon impacts of corn and biofuel production. Dale noted that the carbon use in biofuels is part of a cycle that does not increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.”
Conservation Reserve Program
A news release issued earlier this week by the Alliance for Agricultural Growth and Competitiveness (AAGC) stated in part that, “More than 100 organizations and companies have urged Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to modify rules governing the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to provide increased flexibility for producers to remove non-highly environmentally sensitive land prior to contract expiration when crop supply disruptions and growing market demand warrant.
“In a statement to Vilsack submitted by the Alliance for Agricultural Growth and Competitiveness (AAGC), 105 national and state agricultural trade associations and private-sector firms said there is a pressing need to change rigid CRP rules that currently make it economically prohibitive for enrolled U.S. producers to respond to market conditions. This year’s weather-delayed corn and soybean harvest, which is expected to reduce projected yields and crop quality, is yet another example of why more CRP flexibility is needed. Under current rules, producers wishing to bring CRP land into production prior to contract expiration are required to repay 100 percent of the CRP rental payments received over the life of their contracts, plus interest and liquidated damages.”
The release added that, “The AAGC called on USDA to create a new, more flexible long-term framework for the CRP under which the most environmentally sensitive lands would continue to be ineligible for early contract termination. But the groups said USDA should lift restrictions on producing crops on other, less-environmentally sensitive CRP lands to give producers the option to respond to periods of low supplies, as well as growing and shifting demand “in an intensely competitive global environment.” The groups urged USDA to continuously monitor supply/demand relationships and stocks-to-use ratios for major grains and oilseeds.
“The AAGC statement was submitted in response to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) request for comments as it prepares a new environmental impact assessment on the CRP and considers potential changes in its operation under the 2008 farm law. AAGC is a consortium of national and state organizations, as well as private-sector companies, representing a broad cross-section of meat, livestock and poultry production; agricultural input; grain marketing, handling and processing; feed manufacturing; and exporting interests.”
Trade
Robert Pore reported earlier this week at the Grand Island Independent Online (Nebraska) that, “U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., has joined a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers urging President Obama to move forward on a free trade agreement with South Korea.
“Smith and 43 other Republican House members, along with 44 Democratic House members, want Obama to bring the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement before Congress for consideration. Obama will travel to East Asia later this week, stopping in Japan, China, Singapore and South Korea. While in Korea, the president is scheduled to meet with Republic of Korea President Lee Myung-bak.
“Smith, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, traveled to South Korea last year to discuss trade issues with government officials. South Korea signed a trade deal with the European Union in October.”
The article added that, “‘This is the most economically beneficial trade agreement the United States has negotiated in 15 years,’ Smith said.”
“[Rep. Smith] said U.S. agriculture exports continue to be one of the bright spots for our country’s economy. And with continued decline of the value of the U.S. dollar, those exports are expected to continue to increase.”
Don Lee and David Pierson reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that, “On the eve of his first Pacific trip since entering the White House, President Obama signaled Thursday that he would press Asian leaders to open up their markets and boost purchases of U.S. goods instead of relentlessly focusing on exporting more and more to American consumers.
“In remarks made before leaving Washington on the seven-day, four-nation trip, the president suggested that Asia must do more to ‘rebalance’ the global economy by accepting more U.S. imports, increasing its own domestic consumption and relying less on Americans as buyers of last resort.”
Keith Good
