Follow us on twitter
Site Feed
Podcast
Email Updates
Climate Issues; Animal Agriculture; and SNAP (Food Stamps)
Climate Issues: EPA Endangerment Finding
Jim Snyder reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “The Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that carbon dioxide represents a threat to human health starts a process that regulatory experts say will take years to resolve.
“Whether it becomes the ‘glorious mess’ that Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) predicted depends on factors like how much flexibility utilities and other emitters are given to meet the new standards and whether Congress eventually passes a cap-and-trade bill that would clear up some of the uncertainty surrounding the regulation.”
Mr. Snyder indicated that, “The decision was expected and allows the agency to move forward with efforts to reduce tailpipe emissions in a rule that’s to be finalized in March.
“The Obama administration has already reached a deal with automakers over emissions, so the real fight could come with the follow-on efforts to regulate carbon from stationary sources like utilities, manufacturers and oil refiners that also are covered by the Clean Air Act.”
(Note: For more general background on the EPA endangerment finding, including a specific overview of the deal with automakers, click on this audio excerpt (MP3-4:33) from yesterday’s Diane Rehm Show, which featured a lengthy discussion on the EPA’s decision.)
In addition, The Hill article pointed out that, “Even though the Supreme Court decision paved the way for Monday’s announcement, court challenges to the particulars may follow.
“‘Unfortunately with the Clean Air Act, litigation is almost inevitable, which could delay things for a couple of years,’ said Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), which represents for-profit utilities.”
With respect to litigation over the EPA’s endangerment finding, in a press briefing yesterday with reporters, Iowa GOP Senator Chuck Grassley stated that, “But I think you’re going to find most of the fight coming over the next couple of years within the judicial branch of government…[T]here’s going to be lawsuits filed against the constitutional authority, the statutory authority of the — of the EPA to do this.”
And earlier this week, a news release issued by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) stated that, “The Environmental Protection Agency today finalized its finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. CEI announced that it will file suit in federal court to overturn the endangerment finding on the grounds that EPA has ignored major scientific issues, including those raised recently in the Climategate fraud scandal.
“‘EPA is clinging for dear life to the notion that the global climate models are holding up,’ said Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel. ‘In reality, those models are about to sink under the growing weight of evidence that they are fabrications.’”
The CEI release added that, “‘The sensible solution,’ said [Marlo Lewis, CEI Senior Fellow], ‘would be for Congress to pass legislation, such as that proposed by Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee that would pre-empt the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.’”
Meanwhile, Robert Pore reported yesterday at the Grand Island Independent Online (Nebraska) that, “U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., and U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., both expressed concern this week over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declaring greenhouse gas emissions as dangerous pollutants.
“Smith said the EPA’s announcement that it will use the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions could force agricultural producers to make costly changes to reduce emissions — even if Congress does not pass cap-and-trade legislation.”
The article noted that, “‘Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry, and new federal mandates could stifle any growth we are experiencing,’ Smith said. ‘This is a dangerous shift in policy, which could result in a direct compliance tax on ag producers at a time when we can least afford it.’
“Smith is a co-sponsor of HR 391, legislation that would exempt certain gases, including methane, from EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act. In April, Smith sent a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., requesting a hearing on environmental burdens on rural America.”
Mr. Pore added in his article from yesterday that, “Johanns said the announcement moves the EPA one step closer to regulating greenhouse gases.
“‘This decision from EPA is bad for agriculture, bad for business and bad for anyone who flips on a light switch,’ Johanns said. ‘Congress needs to act to stop EPA from imposing devastating regulations on Americans. We should review all available legislative options to address this action by the EPA.’
“Johanns said climate change legislation before the Senate, the Obama-Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, does nothing to stop this EPA action.
“‘So, if the Senate bill were to pass, Americans would get a double dose of regulation, taxation and government manipulation,’ he said. ‘This administration seems to think there is no limit to the government’s reach into the everyday lives of Americans.’”
Sen. Johanns was a guest on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, where the former Secretary of Agriculture elaborated on his perspective on the EPA’s decision. To listen to a portion of this part of the discussion from yesterday’s AgriTalk program, just click here (MP3-4:26).
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) also expressed concern with the EPA’s decision yesterday. According to a House Committee on Agriculture GOP press release, Rep. Goodlatte stated that, “Regulating the carbon dioxide that we exhale like it is sulphuric acid is not the way to address climate change issues…EPA is supposed to do what Congress wants, not what the EPA wants. And, Congress should not act out of fear that the EPA will take some sort of excessive regulatory action.”
Nonetheless, Wall Street Journal writer Stephen Power reported yesterday at the Environmental Capital Blog that, “Here’s an interesting factoid that didn’t get widely reported in yesterday’s announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare: Of the 380,000 public comments the agency received in response to its proposed finding, more than 70 percent were supportive of the EPA’s move, and less than 30 percent were opposed, according to the agency.”
Climate Issues: Cap and Trade Legislation
Ben Geman reported yesterday at The Hill Online that, “Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said after meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday that Reid and President Barack Obama support bringing a sweeping climate bill to the Senate floor next year after financial regulatory reform.
“The roughly half-hour-long meeting with Reid and several other members is among the strategy sessions occurring as the Copenhagen climate talks get under way. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton hosted a meeting with several lawmakers Tuesday morning to discuss the international talks and legislation.”
The Hill article stated that, “Reid met in his office Tuesday afternoon with Kerry — who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee and is a chief architect of the Senate climate plan — and chairmen of other committees with jurisdiction over climate and energy policy.
“The meeting included Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
“While Kerry and other advocates had hoped to move a bill this year following House passage of a climate and energy package in June, Kerry said he’s comfortable with the order of Senate action.”
In related news on cap and trade legislation, Agri-Pulse Senior Editor Stewart Doan interviewed Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS), the ranking member of the House Ag Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, this week on the Agri-Pulse Open Mic program.
A summary of the interview with Rep. Moran, which is available at the Agri-Pulse homepage, stated that, “A vocal opponent of the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, Moran says he’s convinced USDA does not understand the negative consequences of cap-and-trade legislation on farmers and other rural Americans.”
To listen to a related excerpt from Mr. Doan’s Agri-Pulse interview with Rep. Moran, just click here (MP3-about one minute).
A Daily Radio News item from USDA indicated yesterday that, “Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is predicting that the meetings in Copenhagen will yield some progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and stemming the tide of global climate change.”
Climate Issues: Copenhagen
Lisa Lerer reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “A top United Nations climate official says the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to declare greenhouse gases a danger to public health will give Barack Obama more room to negotiate here.
“‘It’s a very good signal indeed,’ said Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the Convention on Climate Change. ‘It makes it easier for the president of the United States to commit to something.’”
In a related article from today, Politico’s Lisa Lerer reported that, “Quamrul Islam Chowdhury, a U.N. climate conference delegate from Bangladesh, says ‘the world expects a lot from President [Barack] Obama’ and that he ‘should make sure he does not disappoint the world.’
“But it will be almost impossible for Obama not to disappoint the world when he arrives here next week — in large part because the world keeps ratcheting up the expectations on him.”
The article noted that, “When Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that it was declaring global warming a danger to human health, the administration might have hoped it was merely providing a catalyst — a sense of U.S. commitment — on the first day of two weeks of talks here.
“But leaders from the United Nations and the European Union insist that the EPA endangerment finding is something bigger — proof positive that Obama must have another rabbit to pull from his hat.”
Meanwhile, John M. Broder reported in today’s New York Times that, “If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.
“So what is all this going to cost?
“The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades. It is a significant sum but a relatively small fraction of the world’s total economic output. In energy infrastructure alone, the transformational ambitions that delegates to the United Nations climate change conference are expected to set in the coming days will cost more than $10 trillion in additional investment from 2010 to 2030, according to a new estimate from the International Energy Agency.
“As scary as that number sounds, the agency said that the costs would ramp up relatively slowly and be largely offset by economic benefits in new jobs, improved lives, more secure energy supplies and a reduced danger of climate catastrophe. Most of the investment will come from private rather than public funds, the agency contends.”
An update posted yesterday at the National Journal’s Copenhagen Insider’s Blog reported that, “A draft climate change agreement leaked to the media today in Copenhagen gives ‘more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change agreements,’ The Guardian (UK) is reporting.
“Politico reports: ‘The draft includes the controversial goals of having global emissions peak by 2020, with the long-term goal of cutting them in half by 2050 — a target that’s strongly opposed by China, India and other developing nations because it would require those nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Poor nations argue that developed countries should make most of the cuts because they have caused significantly more of global warming pollution.’”
As domestic and international debate on climate issues continues, Blaine Harden reported in today’s Washington Post that, “Australians are on the front lines in experiencing the life-altering consequences of climate change, which is the subject of global scrutiny this week at the international climate summit in Copenhagen. Brush fires killed 173 people earlier this year during the most severe heat wave in the history of southeast Australia. Rising temperatures and declining rainfall are, with increasing frequency, transforming the Outback into a crematorium for kangaroos, livestock and farm towns.
“In coming decades, the government predicts water shortages, rising seas and catastrophic storms. Climate scientists say a subtropical ridge of high pressure — fortified by a buildup of greenhouse gases — seems to be elbowing rain clouds away from southern Australia and the Murray basin.
“As in the United States, partisan politics and vested interests have paralyzed some of this country’s response to climate change. Australia is the world’s largest coal exporter, and its dependence on cheap coal-fired electricity gives it the world’s highest per-capita carbon emissions. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s push to slash those emissions with a carbon trading plan was killed last week in the legislature for the second time in less than six months. The embarrassing defeat will leave Rudd, a prominent player in global environmental politics, empty-handed at the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen.”
The Post article added that, “Politicians in Canberra, the capital, continue to disagree about the utility of carbon trading in mitigating global warming. But there is no serious disputing that southern Australia must prepare for a much hotter and drier future; the government forecasts that rainfall will decline 22 to 71 percent by 2100.
“What all this means for 2 million Australians who live on farms and in towns along the Murray is that communities must die, families must move and a hugely overbuilt irrigation system will have to shrink, experts said.
“The government is ready and willing to make the exodus happen, with $3.1 billion in the bank to buy out irrigators and $5.8 billion to upgrade infrastructure. New laws have stripped farmers of guaranteed access to water from the Murray, while creating a market for buying and selling water allocations. As a result, the cost of water has soared and waste of water has sharply declined.”
Climate Issues: Opinion
Former Governor and 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin penned an Op-Ed regarding climate issues and Copenhagen that was published in today’s Washington Post. New York Times Columnist Thomas L. Friedman also addressed climate related issues in today’s paper.
Animal Agriculture
Ken Anderson reported earlier this week at Brownfield that, “A bill introduced in the House of Representatives would require the FDA to withdraw the sub-therapeutic use of seven classes of antibiotics in food animals.
“The bill was introduced by Representative Louise Slaughter of New York. She claims that giving antibiotics to animals for sub-therapeutic purposes had led to an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria in humans. However, Iowa Representative Steve King, who represents the largest pork producing congressional district in the U.S., says disease prevention is necessary to prevent potentially debilitating illnesses from affecting livestock.
“A coalition of 20 livestock organizations is opposing the bill, which they say will cause increased animal disease and death.”
SNAP (Food Stamps)
Bloomberg writer Alan Bjerga reported yesterday that, “A record 37.2 million people, or about one out of every eight Americans, received food stamps in September, as the recession drove a surging jobless rate, according to a government report.
“Recipients of the subsidy for retail-food purchases climbed 18 percent from a year earlier, according to a statement posted today on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Web site. Participation has set records for 10 straight months.”
Keith Good
