FarmPolicy.com

Climate Issues; Biofuels; Food Security; and Crop Insurance

Climate Issues: U.S. Officials at Copenhagen- EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

Washington Post writer Juliet Eilperin, who reported yesterday at the paper’s Post Carbon Blog from the UN conference on climate change in Copenhagen, indicated that, “The United States has been ‘fighting to make up for lost time’ in the fight against global warming since President Obama took office, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson said Wednesday.

“In the Obama administration’s keynote speech at the U.N.-sponsored climate talks here [transcript], Jackson said more progress has been made in the last 11 months than what ‘happened in the last eight years prior’ under former president George W. Bush.”

Ms. Eilperin indicated that, “But Jackson’s biggest applause line came when we said she was ‘proud’ of the EPA’s declaration Monday that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. ‘That is a decision that has been a long time coming,’ she said to a packed crowd in the U.S. Pavillion.”

Yesterday’s update added that, “Jackson said she has emphasized in her meetings that while the Obama administration will push Congress to enact legislation next year curbing greenhouse gas emissions, it will move ahead with plans to both finalize greenhouse gas rules for vehicles in March, and then curb the carbon output from large emitters like coal-fired power plants.

“‘We will continue to think about how the Clean Air Act applies,’ she said.”

Jim Tankersley reported yesterday at the Greenspace Blog (Los Angeles Times) that, “Even before Jackson takes the spotlight, her announcement already appears to have bought the Obama administration some goodwill from delegates assembled here (along with barbs from congressional Republicans and critics who say a recent British e-mail scandal undermines the scientific evidence of global warming).

“Most tangibly, sources report that Jackson received a standing ovation last night at a closed-door administration briefing for environmentalists and other nonprofit groups on the status of the climate talks so far.

“A source said it was the first time in recent memory that those groups had given such applause to a U.S. bargaining team at a climate conference.”

Keith Johnson, writing yesterday at the Environmental Capital Blog (The Wall Street Journal) also reported on Administrator Jackson’s activities at Copenhagen and noted that, “She got a rousing welcome just two days after the EPA finalized its ruling on greenhouse-gas emissions, a preview perhaps of the reception awaiting President Obama when he visits Copenhagen near the end of the summit. She also stressed that the U.N. summit was not the ‘impetus’ for her agency’s big ruling, but a fortuitous coincidence.”

Mr. Johnson pointed out that, “Interestingly, the United Nations climate guru sees the choice for the U.S. in starker terms—painting the EPA ruling as a big stick to get the Senate fence-sitters off their perch. Greenwire reports Yvo de Boer: ‘If I were a businessman, I would say, ‘Please, please, please do a deal in Copenhagen, and please, please, please make it market-based.’ Because if we fail to get a market-based deal here, and if the U.S. Senate fails to pass cap-and-trade legislation, then the EPA will be obliged to regulate. And every businessman knows that taxes and regulations tend to be a lot more expensive and lot less efficient than market-based approaches.’

“Or the EPA could provide those market-based approaches itself. Michael Livermore at the NYU Law School notes over at [The New Republic’s] The Vine that the EPA has the authority to create its own cap-and-trade plan under the Clean Air Act. (Even under legislation, the EPA would have to run the thing anyway.)”

The Associated Press reported yesterday that, “The U.S. intends to make ‘reasonable efforts’ and also ‘meaningful, common-sense steps’ to cut emissions, Jackson said, without giving specifics.

“U.S. business groups have strongly argued against tackling global warming through the Clean Air Act, saying it is less flexible and more costly than the cap-and-trade legislation being considered by Congress. Any regulations from the EPA are certain to spawn lawsuits and a lengthy legal fights.”

Meanwhile, The Washington Post editorial board provided a perspective in today’s paper regarding the EPA endangerment finding and noted that, “Monday’s announcement was most encouraging for two reasons. First, it lends plausibility to the preliminary emissions-reduction commitment that President Obama announced before the Copenhagen climate conference, a figure that the Senate has not endorsed. Second, it pressures lawmakers to offer a better alternative to EPA regulation alone. In part because the GOP has not embraced a sensible, market-based approach, the House passed a huge and flawed climate bill over the summer. The Senate is lost in the health-care debate, its members don’t seem particularly eager to take up climate change when health care is done, and its version of the legislation isn’t shaping up to be much better than the House’s. The threat of the EPA regulating in Congress’s stead should persuade lawmakers to look at climate-change afresh.”

Climate Issues: U.S. Officials at Copenhagen- U.S. Climate Negotiator Todd Stern

Darren Goode reported yesterday at the National Journal’s Copenhagen Insider’s Blog that, “Top U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern today deflected attacks from China and other developing nations regarding the Obama administration’s commitment to reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and helping developing nations do the same [transcript].

“China and other critics have charged that the U.S. goal of reducing emissions by about 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 would reduce emissions only by 3 to 4 percent below 1990 levels, which is the standard benchmark year being used in the Copenhagen talks.

“Stern countered that the U.S. commitments ramp up quickly to 18 percent below 1990 by 2025 and 33 percent below 1990 by 2030.”

Bloomberg writers Kim Chipman and Alex Morales reported yesterday that, “Stern, who arrived in Copenhagen today for the United Nations-led talks that end Dec. 18, said the 17 percent reduction target is based on pending U.S. legislation and the administration hopes lawmakers approve a new law that results in steeper cuts.

“‘God willing, in the spring’ the U.S. will be able to report to the UN ‘that our target is even higher,’ he said.

“Stern also said that China, the biggest greenhouse-gas emitter according to U.S. Energy Department data, must do more than tout domestic actions.”

Juliet Eilperin reported in today’s Washington Post that, “The day began with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson detailing the many measures President Obama has taken to cut greenhouse gases in the United States, telling a packed audience at the U.S. pavilion in the Bella Center, ‘We are seeking robust engagement with all of our partners around the world.’

“But two hours later, the U.S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, made clear that the United States sees carbon reductions by China and other major developing countries as ‘a core part of this negotiation.’

“‘Emissions are emissions. You’ve just got to do the math,’ Stern told reporters, citing estimates that 97 percent of future emissions growth will come from the developing world. ‘If you care about the science, and we do, there is no way to solve this problem by giving the major developing countries a pass.’

“Responding to Stern, China’s climate change ambassador, Yu Qingtai, suggested that the United States needed to reexamine its negotiating stance. ‘What they should do is some deep soul-searching,’ Yu told reporters.”

Meanwhile, Andrew C. Revkin and Tom Zeller Jr. reported in today’s New York Times that, “The top American envoy to climate talks here flatly rejected arguments Wednesday by diplomats from poor lands that the United States owes a debt to developing nations for decades of American emissions that contributed to global warming.

“It was not the first time that the American negotiator, Todd D. Stern, had dismissed the notion. But his words highlighted the divide that persists between the poor and the wealthy as nearly 200 nations try to sketch the outlines of a new pact on climate change here.”

The Times article noted that, “Asked about arguments by diplomats and some protesters that the United States should provide hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to developing nations as reparations, Mr. Stern, the special envoy for climate change, bluntly fired back at a news conference.

“‘I actually completely reject the notion of a debt or reparations or anything of the like,’ he said. ‘For most of the 200 years since the Industrial Revolution, people were blissfully ignorant of the fact that emissions caused a greenhouse effect. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon.’”

Alessandro Torello reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Mr. Stern’s comments sharpened the conflict with Beijing and other developing nations, which called again Wednesday for rich nations to hand over large sums of money if they want the developing world to rein in carbon-dioxide emissions, which have increased as their economies have grown.”

However, Bloomberg writer Jim Efstathiou Jr. reported yesterday that, “Efforts to help poorer nations adapt to climate change and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions would receive $1.3 billion under a year-end spending plan approved by U.S. congressional negotiators.

“The $447 billion legislation, which provides funding for hundreds of government programs, includes provisions to promote clean energy, biodiversity and climate-change programs worldwide, said Ellis Brachman, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee. Climate-related programs managed by the World Bank are also funded under the legislation.

“Negotiators at United Nations climate-change talks in Copenhagen are seeking agreement on a $10 billion fund to help the most vulnerable nations adapt to the impacts of global warming. The U.S. contribution should be about $2 billion, U.S. Senator John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said last week.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu

Jim Tankersley reported in today’s Los Angeles Times that U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar viewed and discussed offshore wind energy yesterday in Denmark. The article noted that, “Salazar is perhaps the Obama administration’s strongest proponent of offshore wind, frequently asserting that the Atlantic coast alone holds enough wind power potential to cover the entire nation’s current electricity demand.”

Reuters news reported yesterday that, “U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack also is in Copenhagen and will be joined later by other administration officials, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

“Obama will arrive here toward the end of the talks, when deal-making typically peaks.”

As the U.S. continues makes its perspective on climate issues known at Copenhagen, James Kanter reported in today’s New York Times that, “Most nations seeking to negotiate a new accord on climate change in Copenhagen worked out their negotiating tactics in advance.

“Embarrassingly for the European Union, which claims to be the in the vanguard of environmental issues, its leaders are still figuring out their game plan for the United Nations climate summit meeting that began on Monday in the Danish capital.”

***

The PBS Newshour also included a recap of activities in Copenhagen on yesterday evening’s program; this segment is available here, “Climate Pact Elusive in Copenhagen as Stakes Rise.”

Louise Roug and Tim Grieve reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “‘Climategate’ has muddied the good green message that was supposed to come out of the United Nations climate change talks here, forcing leaders to spend time justifying the science behind global warming when they want to focus on ending it.”

And Politico writer Jake Sherman reported yesterday that, “House Republican leaders used a trip to the White House Wednesday to deliver a letter to President Barack Obama expressing concern with plans for a new economic stimulus bill, cap-and-trade legislation and the president’s trip next week to Copenhagen.”

Climate Issues: U.S. Agriculture

The “Washington Insider” section of DTN indicated yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Secretary Vilsack ventured gingerly into the climate change debate on last Wednesday in a press conference called for that purpose. He took the occasion to reassert that agricultural benefits from climate change legislation will far outweigh any additional costs. That same day, and again on Thursday, USDA economic experts trekked up to the Hill to brief Congress on the likely effects of the House-passed climate change bill.

“The new USDA work puts a finer point on the secretary’s assertions, and raises some important questions. The first is how USDA plans to link the program’s benefits to ‘normal’ crop and livestock production since perhaps 85 percent of the expected benefit is seen as coming from planting trees on crop and pastureland. The second is related, and involves the enormously tricky problem of identifying potential winners and losers from the new program, and defining USDA’s role in keeping U.S. production agriculture efficient in the future, especially during the transition.

“USDA estimates that carbon credit prices during the period will be high enough to drive significant conversion of crop and pasture land to trees. By 2013, the price of carbon allowances is seen as about $27 per ton of CO2 equivalent and additional afforestation is expected on almost 27 million acres. By 2050, when carbon allowance values could increase to $70 per ton of C02 equivalent and push an additional 60 million acres into trees, with about 35 million of that from cropland (14 percent decline from baseline) and 24 million acres from pasture (almost 9 percent decline from baseline).”

After additional analysis, yesterday’s DTN item noted that, “So, Secretary Vilsack most likely has been pushed from the climate change frying pan into the fire by the USDA estimates. He continues to argue that farm income prospects increase ‘significantly’ in the near-term and ‘dramatically’ over the longer term. However, USDA is now on record with estimates of some pretty large cost increases — especially for livestock producers — and at the same time, is leaving many producers scratching their heads about just how projects that increase tree planting can be woven into their farm plan.

“And, other components of the food supply chain are worried, too, considering the possibility that large polluters might bid big blocks of farmland out of production and make some important infrastructure investments superfluous.”

A related item on climate issues and agriculture was also completed by Mark Steil of Minnesota Public Radio; this segment, “New farming practices in middle of global warming debate,” aired yesterday.

Also with respect to climate change and agriculture, a news release issued earlier this week by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) indicated that, “Agriculture is a key source of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for 14%. But the sector also has a high potential to reduce greenhouse gases by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it in soils and plants and by reducing its own emissions.

“‘The overall challenge we are facing is to transform the technical mitigation potential of agriculture into reality,’ said Alexander Müller, FAO Assistant Director-General.

“‘Many suitable technologies and farming practices to sequester carbon in smallholder agriculture already exist. These include practices used in conservation and organic agriculture, based on no/low tillage, utilizing residues for composting or mulching, use of perennial crops to cover soil, re-seeding or improving grazing management on grasslands and agroforestry, which combines crops and trees. Nearly 90 percent of agriculture’s potential to reduce or remove emissions from the atmosphere comes from such practices. These practices are also known to have a positive impact on hunger and poverty reduction. However, barriers to adoption of these technologies and practices is a key challenge that needs to be overcome. The programme aims to unlock the enormous mitigation potential of agriculture.’”

Biofuels

Bob Meyer reported yesterday at Brownfield that, “The House passed the biodiesel tax incentive extension on Wednesday. On a 241 to 181 vote, the incentive is extended for a year to December 31, 2010. The Senate has yet to act and American Soybean Association President Rob Joslin says he is not sure if they will get it done before the current incentive expires at the end of the year.”

The AP reported yesterday that, “An industry study says biodiesel production could stop unless a federal $1-per-gallon tax credit is extended.

“The credit is scheduled to expire at year’s end. Biodiesel supporters are concerned that efforts to extend the credit will get bogged down in Congress.”

Food Security

A news release issued yesterday by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) indicated that, “Global food prices are on the ascent again with the FAO Food Price Index – a food basket composed of cereals, oilseeds, dairy, meat and sugar – registering four straight monthly rises.

“However market conditions are different from those that triggered the food price crisis that started two years ago, FAO said in its December Food Outlook report published today.”

In a related article, DTN Political Correspondent Jerry Hagstrom reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Citing the likelihood of volatile harvests and food prices in the future, World Food Program Executive Director Josette Sheeran urged world leaders gathering at climate talks in Copenhagen to establish programs immediately to help developing countries plant trees, save water and take other actions to adapt to climate change.

“‘Risk is the new normal,’ Sheeran said in a telephone news conference from London on Wednesday.”

Crop Insurance

An update posted yesterday at the USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) Online noted that, “RMA Provides Side-by-Side Comparison of Current and Proposed SRA [Standard Reinsurance Agreement] Draft.”

Keith Good