Ad Sales Reps
Saturday's Internet Edition, 11:48 AM, July 04, 2009.
|
The bill, HR 2454, or the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed Energy and Commerce by a 33-25 vote. The bill could potentially reshape U.S. energy policy and require energy-intensive industries to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions significantly over time.
The bill has created some sparks between Waxman’s committee and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who has complained that the bill does little for agriculture and must be referred to his committee for changes.
Ag groups had mapped out how farmers and ranchers could help with carbon offsets and sequestration, but Waxman and his staff chose not to add agricultural offsets to the bill. The House Parliamentarian will have to determine which committees will need to also consider the bill before it would go to the House floor for a full debate.
Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., a strong critic of the climate bill, issued a news release noting that 23 farm groups had written letters to lawmakers stating their opposition to the bill and its possible impacts. Opposition letters came from the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Corn Growers Association, as well as the Fertilizer Institute, National Chicken Council and numerous state organizations.
Other ag groups have vocally supported a cap-and-trade approach to reducing greenhouse gases but are disappointed that agriculture was not included in those provisions. And still other farm groups were just pleased the bill doesn’t appear to set up regulations for agricultural emissions.
The bill boosts renewable energy sources, looks to spur new technologies in carbon sequestration, promotes electric vehicles and builds a new electrical “smart grid” system for the country. Current greenhouse-gas emissions would be expected to be reduced 17 percent by 2020 and 42 percent by 2030 and as much as 83 percent by 2050.
The bill should be considered a major initial win for environmental groups, but some of them expressed disappointment that the bill does not go far enough. Friends of the Earth called the bill “a huge letdown.”
The group stated that the bill sets the bar too low for reducing pollution or stopping global warming and does not require corporations to pay for pollution allowances in too many cases.
Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee saw the vast majority of their amendments defeated largely on party-line votes. Ranking Member Joe Barton, R-Texas, said that the bill would cost Americans through significantly higher energy costs over time and hurt the economy in the process.
While agricultural groups are pleased that farming and forestry are not specifically regulated in the climate bill, Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., noted that the bill would allow the EPA to take into account small emissions and generate an accumulative affect of emissions. Terry said this could allow the EPA to regulate agriculture, or generate lawsuits forcing EPA to regulate livestock emissions.
“It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to add up one plus one that the EPA is going to have to enforce this on agriculture,” he said.
Terry also had tried to get language in the bill that would strip the EPA of the power to factor issues such as “indirect land use” in the lifecycle analysis of biofuels. That amendment failed on Wednesday.
Terry did help get at least one amendment added to the bill. He co-sponsored an amendment with Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, that allows federal loan guarantees for biofuel pipelines. Braley said the pipelines reduce carbon emissions for biofuels up to 30 percent over hauling biofuels by rail and an 87 percent reduction over hauling biofuels by truck. Waxman called the amendment a “straight-forward and sensible provision.”
|
“Where national boundaries and oceans once separated us, we are now in a world-wide market,” said Spitze as he discussed significant changes in public agricultural policy over the last three-quarters of a century and then glanced at the potential future. “This means our food supply can originate from any field or processor on our planet. “Carelessness at one peanut manufacturer, as we’ve seen, began affecting the whole world almost immediately. A problem in one location can have immediate impacts world-wide.” These interconnections focus attention on quality and safety assurance. “We may well see increasing public control by human decision-makers over almost every detail of food production, marketing and distribution,” he said. “Why? Because mistakes in any of these systems can have a devastating impact on health and safety. “Some farmers and distributors are resisting this, but what happens when a whole crop of apples is wiped out or a herd of prize livestock is wiped out because they didn’t have these protections?” Born and raised in rural Arkansas, Spitze has a unique perspective on agricultural policy with on-farm experience combined with a multi-decade career as a distinguished agricultural economist. Broadly defined by Spitze, public agricultural policy can be traced back to the creation of public schools in frontier communities, setting aside public lands in every township to the mid-nineteenth century landmarks that created land-grant universities, agricultural research, and the experiment station system. “In our public policy history today, I’d say there are five broad areas of vivid change,” he noted. “The first involves the gradual broadening of what was once ‘farm’ policy to a diverse array of activities that treat problems of rural America-the environment, conservation, trade, education, and rural health and development. “Because of this, the term ‘farm bill’ is a misnomer today.” Secondly, as the scope of agricultural policy has expanded, so has the seating at the table around which it is made. “Today, there are all types of participants because nearly every group has an interest in the results of agricultural policy,” he explained. “From the Farm Bureau to the League of Women Voters, many groups have a stake in the outcome.’ Third among the sweeping changes is the sophistication of the information available to decision-makers. And that is welcome, he added, if wise policy is to be made. “Today’s USDA budget, for example, covers so much more than simply farming,” he said. “In fact, those segments probably account for less than one-third of the budget. The other things deal with total land use, food, and the system for feeding Americans.” Americans, who once either lived on farms or were only a generation removed, today have no contact with farming. This contributes to the suffering of the current recession, he noted. A fourth area of change is the globalization of the food system, which he described earlier. “Finally, there continues to be a reduction in the number of farms in the United States but an increasing size of the remaining farms,” he noted. “That is a tremendous change over the past century.” On the other hand, some things have not changed. “First and foremost, agricultural and food policy is still important,” he said. “People are more concerned about it today than they have ever been. The importance of the food supply translates into the importance of public policy, no matter how urbanized we get.” |
| Vote on the Issues! |
