Passing Climate Change Bill Would be the Height of Folly
American Farm Bureau reports with contributions by Julie Murphree, Arizona Farm Bureau
American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Bob Stallman in July asked the Senate Agriculture Committee to take an active and aggressive role in the climate change debate, but cautioned committee members that rushing to pass such sweeping legislation would be a fundamental mistake.
“On a matter that could affect our nation for literally decades to come, it would be the height of folly to rush to judgment in a matter of days or weeks,” said Stallman.
Testifying before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Stallman encouraged members to analyze the issue closely, carefully and thoroughly. He also recommended that the committee improve climate change legislation so that it is as beneficial as possible for the agriculture industry.
The Senate examined H.R. 2454 in July and is scheduled to take it up again this month. The House-passed climate change bill will serve as the basis for writing Senate companion legislation. AFBF and Arizona Farm Bureau are strongly opposed to H.R. 2454 for several reasons. 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. It 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 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.”
AFBF 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 H.R. 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.”
Participating in an offset program will depend to a great degree on where the producer is located, what he or she grows and if his or her business can take advantage of the program, Stallman noted. Not every dairy farmer can afford to capture methane. Not every farmer lives in a region where wind turbines are an option. Not every farmer can take advantage of no-till. And not every farmer has the land to set aside to plant trees.
“Yet, these producers will incur the same increased fuel, fertilizer and energy costs as their counterparts who can benefit from the offsets market,” said Stallman.
How poorly some states benefit from a carbon offset can be discovered in the June 2009 issue of Arizona Agriculture in the lead feature, “Carbon Becomes a Crop for Some; But a Cash Crop?” (The article can also be found online at www.azfb.org under the heading “Featured Articles” within the Media tab.) For Arizona farmers carbon offsets do not outweigh the costs a cap and trade bill would generate.
Arizona Farm Bureau President Kevin Rogers disagrees with House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson who told the American Soybean Association recently that the increased costs to agriculture for climate change legislation are “bearable.”
Says Rogers, “They may be bearable in the Midwest since carbon sequestration in their soils is doable, allowing them to participate in selling credits to carbon polluters and offset the increased production cost of feed, fertilizer and other costs. However, Arizona soils don’t have the same amount of organic matter due to our high-temperature, desert conditions. All Arizona producers will get is increased costs due to cap and trade.”
Farm Bureaus Lobby Congressional Delegation during August Recess
Farm Bureau members across the country were encouraged to attend one of the 21 Energy Citizen rallies across the country that began August 18 in Houston and continue through the first week of September. The rallies are seen as important for defeating the climate change bill, which will be considered by Senate committees this month.
State Farm Bureau presidents spoke at a number of the rallies with Farm Bureaus in the various states actively involved in the organization of the event. The rallies are sponsored by the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Petroleum Institute and the National Association of Manufacturing.
About the bill Senator Jon Kyl said, “President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle-income Americans, but legislation he and congressional Democrats are backing would do just that. The House of Representatives passed legislation described by Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein as ‘a stealth strategy for a massive long-term tax increase.’ All Americans, regardless of income, will feel the effects of this tax hike.”
Senator Kyl goes on to say, “At a time when the economy remains shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high, Congress should not be considering new taxes. They would be bad for families and would slow the economic recovery as well.”
Senator McCain opposes the current language in the House bill that would slap trade sanctions on carbon-intensive goods that come from developing countries without their own stringent climate standards. "It's protectionism," McCain said. "I'm a free trader. It calls for us to mandatorily enact protectionist measures against countries that don't meet standards that we set."
Arizona Farm Bureau members are encouraged to contact our Arizona Senators and lead senators driving the bill. If their offices are flooded with faxes, the U.S. Senate will at least have to recognize the mountain of opposition to this bill. Experts contend that faxes are most effective because they’re not held up for inspection (like regular mail) and are taken more seriously than emails.
Senator and Fax Number
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 202.224.3542
Senator Jon Kyl 202.224.2207
Senator John McCain 202.228.2862
