The Economic Devastation Congress Wants Us To Have
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Following the accounts of the U.S. House of Agriculture Committee’s hearing in Washington D.C. on June 11th, it’s only a matter of a few tweaks and agricultural opposition will be placated and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be able to get her wish for a floor vote on the Waxman-Markey Climate Change (“Let’s Destroy The American Economy Bill”) by the end of July. This Wall Street Journal account suggest that it might be a little more complicated, especially if the compromises for farm-state Congressmen sends the green zealots over the edge.
From the perspective of at least this writer, the issues go far beyond the sticky points that Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and others are attempting to describe as the hang-ups. By these simplifications of describing the problems as needing more protection for corn-based ethanol and putting the Department of Agriculture in charge (instead of EPA) of agricultural green house gas emissions – the wink and the nod is that we’ve taken care of this and everything will be alright.
Secretary Vilsack was quoted in one article as saying “if we do this right” it would create more choices and opportunities for farmers over the long term.
Then Of Course There Are Some Actual Facts:
Based on the evaluation of the Heritage Foundation the impact to just farmers and ranchers alone would be a $23 Billion loss in net income over the time span of 2010-2035 – a 57 percent decrease. For agricultural use of energy, gasoline and diesel cost, by 2035 would be expected to increase by more than 58 percent – electricity would be 90 percent higher, according to the study they did.
These calculations are based on a national overview and those who are being “taken care of” are Midwestern corn and soybean producers who might have some of the opportunities that Secretary Vilsack (who comes from Iowa) see’s as being able to handle the negative consequences with a check for the services they might render. It would be our thinking that Nevada farmers and ranchers would be hit far greater and possibly would not be able to survive.
Operating on a razor’s edge already, irrigated agriculture as well as livestock producers hit by unworkable regulations/fees are not in line for the wonderful this 900-plus page might morph into.
The rest of the country is also going to take an economic beating with higher energy costs, few jobs and a lower standard of living…which is exactly what the desired outcome for this legislation is supposed to produce.
The Heritage Foundation has described the proposed cap-and-trade legislation as an energy tax in disguise, seeking to drive up the costs of energy so that we will use less.
We’re supposed to believe that our country’s affluence is a terrible plague on the planet and only through the brilliant efforts of our elected representatives in Congress can we hope to be required to pay the price to punish ourselves into the suffering that we so richly deserve.
Following the accounts of the U.S. House of Agriculture Committee’s hearing in Washington D.C. on June 11th, it’s only a matter of a few tweaks and agricultural opposition will be placated and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be able to get her wish for a floor vote on the Waxman-Markey Climate Change (“Let’s Destroy The American Economy Bill”) by the end of July. This Wall Street Journal account suggest that it might be a little more complicated, especially if the compromises for farm-state Congressmen sends the green zealots over the edge.
From the perspective of at least this writer, the issues go far beyond the sticky points that Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and others are attempting to describe as the hang-ups. By these simplifications of describing the problems as needing more protection for corn-based ethanol and putting the Department of Agriculture in charge (instead of EPA) of agricultural green house gas emissions – the wink and the nod is that we’ve taken care of this and everything will be alright.
Secretary Vilsack was quoted in one article as saying “if we do this right” it would create more choices and opportunities for farmers over the long term.
Then Of Course There Are Some Actual Facts:
Based on the evaluation of the Heritage Foundation the impact to just farmers and ranchers alone would be a $23 Billion loss in net income over the time span of 2010-2035 – a 57 percent decrease. For agricultural use of energy, gasoline and diesel cost, by 2035 would be expected to increase by more than 58 percent – electricity would be 90 percent higher, according to the study they did.
These calculations are based on a national overview and those who are being “taken care of” are Midwestern corn and soybean producers who might have some of the opportunities that Secretary Vilsack (who comes from Iowa) see’s as being able to handle the negative consequences with a check for the services they might render. It would be our thinking that Nevada farmers and ranchers would be hit far greater and possibly would not be able to survive.
Operating on a razor’s edge already, irrigated agriculture as well as livestock producers hit by unworkable regulations/fees are not in line for the wonderful this 900-plus page might morph into.
The rest of the country is also going to take an economic beating with higher energy costs, few jobs and a lower standard of living…which is exactly what the desired outcome for this legislation is supposed to produce.
The Heritage Foundation has described the proposed cap-and-trade legislation as an energy tax in disguise, seeking to drive up the costs of energy so that we will use less.
We’re supposed to believe that our country’s affluence is a terrible plague on the planet and only through the brilliant efforts of our elected representatives in Congress can we hope to be required to pay the price to punish ourselves into the suffering that we so richly deserve.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 6/12/2009 1:25 PM 
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: Cap and Trade Global Warming Congress
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: Cap and Trade Global Warming Congress
Comments