If It Matters Who Is In Charge – Doesn’t That Say Something About Something That Should Matter?
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Does “science” factor in on any of the considerations being given to the politically-motivated Climate Change, Cap-and-Trade legislation now in the U.S. Senate? We’re supposed to believe that “science” is at the heart of needing to do something in the first place. We’re supposed to believe that “science” tells us that the earth’s atmosphere is warming up at a dangerous pace. We’re supposed to believe that “science” tells us that this warming is caused by man’s over-use of carbon-based energy. We’re also supposed to believe that it is critical that the U.S. Government take immediate action by regulating and taxing our country’s use of carbon-based energy as the solution.
Although it’s never been said, one would think that somewhere “science” would have something to do with the regulating and the basis for the market that is supposed to be created for the “Cap-and-Trade” elements of the program. If “science” is the basis, would it matter who was in charge of the details? If it does matter who is in charge of the details – what does that say about the “science” that’s in play?
This account shares the new-found confidence that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson has of the deal that he was able to get included in the squeaker passage for the legislation in the U.S. House. A major selling point of the deal that Congress Peterson is pushing is that the Department of Agriculture – not the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be operating the agricultural offset program.
While it is very understandable why this arrangement would be preferred by farmers (given the differences of attitudes of the two agencies) – wouldn’t “science” be the same? Or, perhaps “science” doesn’t really have anything to do with it in the first place…
Agriculture Being Wooed To Join The Party:
It is interesting to note the priority that champions for this legislation are placing on covering the commodity bases with those involved in production of different forms of bio-fuels. It would seem logical that these would be the first to cave for their self-interests and hopes for carving out advantages for themselves.
We’ve recently read accounts of how the head of EPA went calling on the corn producers to tell them how critical passage of the legislation is and how they won’t be harmed by gulping the Koolaid. Now the Minnesota Congressman who’s in charge of the House Ag Committee is out selling the same idea to soybean growers.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, D.C. the American Farm Bureau Federation was in front of the Senate’s Agriculture Committee taking a much different point of view. Farm Bureau President, Bob Stallman was quite clear in stating that rushing to pass this ill-conceived legislation would be “the height of folly”.
The Farm Bureau leader pointed out for the Senate Agriculture Committee members that, as written, the bill would impose enormous costs on agriculture and other sectors of the economy; the cap-and-trade program would take effect whether or not competing nations like India and China adopted similar programs, meaning U.S. industries would have an incentive to locate overseas.
The bill also provides no concrete alternative energy program, such as nuclear, to hold down energy costs; and, lastly, the measure would appear to have little or no impact on the climate, Stallman noted.
“Most recently, the administrator of EPA testified before the Senate that the H.R. 2454 would have a negligible impact on temperature by the year 2050,” said Stallman. “And virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. alone can’t solve the problem.”
Farm Bureau contends that reducing carbon emissions must be a shared, global responsibility. Without other countries doing their part to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, H.R. 2454 will never work. Stallman noted that while the United States may be a large emitter of GHGs, if emissions are measured based on unit of output, the U.S. is one of the cleanest producers. The effect of HR 2454, Stallman pointed out, would be to punish environmentally sound practices while letting others off the hook.
“A ton of GHG emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia,” said Stallman. “Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment.”
AFBF also maintains that an agricultural offsets program administered by the Agriculture Department is an essential cost containment measure, but revenues from offsets will only partially defray increased costs and not all agriculture sectors will benefit from offset opportunities.
“Inclusion of an offset program is not the complete answer,” said Stallman. “Even with a robust agricultural offset program, the bill still does not make economic sense for producers because a number of sectors will be not able to participate.”
Does “science” factor in on any of the considerations being given to the politically-motivated Climate Change, Cap-and-Trade legislation now in the U.S. Senate? We’re supposed to believe that “science” is at the heart of needing to do something in the first place. We’re supposed to believe that “science” tells us that the earth’s atmosphere is warming up at a dangerous pace. We’re supposed to believe that “science” tells us that this warming is caused by man’s over-use of carbon-based energy. We’re also supposed to believe that it is critical that the U.S. Government take immediate action by regulating and taxing our country’s use of carbon-based energy as the solution.
Although it’s never been said, one would think that somewhere “science” would have something to do with the regulating and the basis for the market that is supposed to be created for the “Cap-and-Trade” elements of the program. If “science” is the basis, would it matter who was in charge of the details? If it does matter who is in charge of the details – what does that say about the “science” that’s in play?
This account shares the new-found confidence that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson has of the deal that he was able to get included in the squeaker passage for the legislation in the U.S. House. A major selling point of the deal that Congress Peterson is pushing is that the Department of Agriculture – not the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be operating the agricultural offset program.
While it is very understandable why this arrangement would be preferred by farmers (given the differences of attitudes of the two agencies) – wouldn’t “science” be the same? Or, perhaps “science” doesn’t really have anything to do with it in the first place…
Agriculture Being Wooed To Join The Party:
It is interesting to note the priority that champions for this legislation are placing on covering the commodity bases with those involved in production of different forms of bio-fuels. It would seem logical that these would be the first to cave for their self-interests and hopes for carving out advantages for themselves.
We’ve recently read accounts of how the head of EPA went calling on the corn producers to tell them how critical passage of the legislation is and how they won’t be harmed by gulping the Koolaid. Now the Minnesota Congressman who’s in charge of the House Ag Committee is out selling the same idea to soybean growers.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, D.C. the American Farm Bureau Federation was in front of the Senate’s Agriculture Committee taking a much different point of view. Farm Bureau President, Bob Stallman was quite clear in stating that rushing to pass this ill-conceived legislation would be “the height of folly”.
The Farm Bureau leader pointed out for the Senate Agriculture Committee members that, as written, the bill would impose enormous costs on agriculture and other sectors of the economy; the cap-and-trade program would take effect whether or not competing nations like India and China adopted similar programs, meaning U.S. industries would have an incentive to locate overseas.
The bill also provides no concrete alternative energy program, such as nuclear, to hold down energy costs; and, lastly, the measure would appear to have little or no impact on the climate, Stallman noted.
“Most recently, the administrator of EPA testified before the Senate that the H.R. 2454 would have a negligible impact on temperature by the year 2050,” said Stallman. “And virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. alone can’t solve the problem.”
Farm Bureau contends that reducing carbon emissions must be a shared, global responsibility. Without other countries doing their part to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, H.R. 2454 will never work. Stallman noted that while the United States may be a large emitter of GHGs, if emissions are measured based on unit of output, the U.S. is one of the cleanest producers. The effect of HR 2454, Stallman pointed out, would be to punish environmentally sound practices while letting others off the hook.
“A ton of GHG emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia,” said Stallman. “Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment.”
AFBF also maintains that an agricultural offsets program administered by the Agriculture Department is an essential cost containment measure, but revenues from offsets will only partially defray increased costs and not all agriculture sectors will benefit from offset opportunities.
“Inclusion of an offset program is not the complete answer,” said Stallman. “Even with a robust agricultural offset program, the bill still does not make economic sense for producers because a number of sectors will be not able to participate.”
Posted by Doug Busselman at 7/22/2009 9:28 AM 
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: Agricutlural offsets Cap-and-Trade Global Warming
Categories: Climate Change
Tags: Agricutlural offsets Cap-and-Trade Global Warming
Comments