Of all stakeholder groups, members of the agriculture community stand to lose from national policies that raise energy and electricity rates. Whether it is higher power bills or elevated costs of fuel and fertilizer, family farmers and rural businesses deserve an energy future that is affordable and reliable. PACE believes that national energy policy must protect agriculture, especially when it comes to regions such as the Southeast whose economies depend heavily on the future viability of farming.
Ron Sparks: Carbon Bill Would Hurt Farmers
In a recent interview with Glenn Beck, Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks discusses the potential impact of Waxman-Markey on America's farmers.
A week ago in Seattle, delegates to the 91st American Farm Bureau Federation annual meeting voted to oppose cap-and-trade legislation over the next eight years. The Bureau has maintained steady opposition to climate change legislation that would negatively affect farmers.
As part of the annual meeting, the delegates approved a special resolution stating that cap-and-trade legislation would raise farmers’ and ranchers’ production costs, and the potential benefits of agricultural offsets are far outweighed by the costs to producers. Due to these and other concerns, the delegates strongly opposed “cap and trade proposals before Congress” and supported “any legislative action that would suspend EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.”
To read the full press release from the American Farm Bureau, click HERE.
In a December 16 letter sent to USDA Chief Tom Vilsack, Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska questions statements made by USDA's Chief Economist about cap and trade legislation. In the letter, Johanns refers to a USDA prediction that cap and trade legislation backed by the agency would result in 59 million acres of cropland coming out of production by 2050.
In the letter, Johanns questions Vilsack's recent assertions that other studies might be more complete than USDA's own analysis, asking why the agency's findings would not be the definitive source for predicting the consequences to farmers of federal legislation.
To see the letter from Senator Johanns, click HERE.
Farm Bureau Chief Stallman Speaks Out on EPA Climate Change Finding
In a statement released on December 7th. American Farm Bureau Chief Bob Stallman confronted the EPA decision on carbon dioxide and climate change, stating:
“The decision by the Environmental Protection Agency today to announce an endangerment finding on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could carry severe consequences for America’s farmers and ranchers.
“We firmly believe any regulations dealing with global warming that could negatively affect our ability to produce food and fiber for our nation and the world should come through the legislative process. While more and more questions are being raised about the scientific validity of global warming models it is not the time to begin making sweeping policy decisions based on the projections offered by those climate models.
“We realize the EPA’s stated intention is to focus this finding narrowly on specific industries, using particular thresholds, but we believe there is no protection in the provisions that prevent them from being applied broadly across all sectors, including farm and ranch families who produce livestock. Due to the timing of the announcement, with the Copenhagen talks about to kickoff, we also believe this move could have more to do with political science than climate science.”
The Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) announced today a new partnership with the Business Council of Alabama (BCA) as part of both organizations’ efforts to advocate affordable and fair national energy policies. Both PACE and BCA have remained active in past months in the national debate over energy issues such as renewable energy standards and cap-and-trade policies.
Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska spoke on the Senate floor today regarding the impact cap-and-trade legislation would have on American agriculture. In advance of a hearing to be held on Wednesday in the Senate Agriculture Committee, Johanns outlined how agriculture will be hammered with increased production costs as a result of cap-and-trade. He reiterated that state- and commodity-specific analyses of cap-and-trade are essential for a successful evaluation of the true costs and Administration-promised benefits.
FAPRI Study Says Climate Bill Will Hit Bottom Line
The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) estimates that Missouri crop operating costs will increase 8.1 percent for dryland corn, 8.8 percent for irrigated corn, 4.4 percent for soybeans and 10.4 percent for wheat, if the climate change bill becomes law, because of higher energy costs.
The FAPRI report, “The Effect of Higher Energy Prices from H.R. 2454 on Missouri Crop Production Costs,” released Monday, said the policy change would reduce the bottom line for Missouri farmers. FAPRI pointed out that the report is not a full analysis of the bill on Missouri crop producers and does not incorporate likely responses by producers to these changes in production costs. As input costs increase, producers could adjust input usage and the mix of crops produced, with implications for crop yields, production and prices, according to FAPRI.
Analysis by AFBF economists also shows increases in production costs, based on Environmental Protection Agency projections on what would happen to energy prices under the bill. AFBF pegs an $8 per acre increase for soybeans and a $33 jump for corn.
Farm Bureau: Climate Bill Embarks on a Fool’s Errand
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 14, 2009--- American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman today said that the House-passed climate legislation will have little to no impact on global temperatures. Testifying before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Stallman said without the adoption of similar actions by other countries, the U.S. “will be embarking on a fool’s errand.”
AFBF is opposed to H.R. 2454, the House-passed climate change bill being examined by the Senate and that will serve as the basis for writing a Senate companion bill.
“Unilateral cap-and-trade legislation will have little or no impact on the climate because greenhouse gas emissions require a global response,” said Stallman. “A ton of GHG (greenhouse gases) emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia. Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment.”
Stallman noted that most experts agree that if the House legislation worked exactly as planned, it would not lower temperatures by more than a few tenths of a degree by 2050. Further, most experts agree the U.S. can’t solve the problem alone.
AFBF also contends that the bill will raise food prices for consumers unless an offset program is put into place to defray production input costs. 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.
In a June 15th op-ed, Mississippi Poultry Association Mark Leggett explains why cap and trade proposals are a bad idea for the agriculture community. Leggett writes, "The increases in energy costs caused by the provisions of pending legislation represent a monumental tax increase on business and industry, and especially Mississippi consumers who would pay more at the pump for gasoline and more at home for electricity. Further, higher energy prices, fewer jobs and the loss of industrial production would seriously impede economic growth in our State."
Farm Bureau Disappointed in Passage of Energy Bill June 29, 2009
The American Farm Bureau Federation is disappointed that H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed the House on Friday but is committed to defeating the legislation if it is brought up in the Senate. Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for AFBF, says the narrow vote in the House means it will be a challenge for the bill to gain the 60 votes required for passage in the Senate.
“The Democratic leadership had to twist a lot of arms to get the necessary votes for the bill to pass the House,” Krause said. “The dynamics in the Senate are different. Farm Bureau sees much stronger opposition to the bill in the Senate.” AFBF remains strongly opposed to the bill despite the inclusion of an amendment by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) that calls for the Agriculture Department to manage an offset program for farms, rather than the Environmental Protection Agency.
What happened during the wee hours of the morning when Waxman-Markey passed the House? Did lawmakers even have an opportunity to read the bill and see amendments? National Review writer Jonathan Adler recounts the shocking details of how landmark energy legislation came one step closer to becoming law.
In a letter sent today to all 435 members of the House, AFBF President Bob Stallman said H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will “unquestionably impose enormous costs on the American economy, including agriculture.”
The Southern Association of State Departments of Agriculture (SASDA) opposes HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, as currently written. The U. S. Agriculture sector will bear an inequitable share of the adverse impacts from the new regulations it mandates. Little to no input from the agriculture sector was solicited and included in the bill.
In addition, SASDA opposes any other current or future environmental legislation or regulation related to climate change unless and until it includes significant input from all sectors of agriculture and the interests of agriculture are included.
Economists at the Heritage Foundation are digging deep into the dangerous effect of Chairman Waxman's legislation on the U.S. economy. One of the chief victims: farmers.
Click Here to read the Heritage Foundation's Analysis.
In a recent op-ed, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) states:
The cap-and-trade part of this bill will essentially create a national energy tax, and it will do more harm to production agriculture, American industry, and our standard of living than it will do any good for the environment. A national energy tax will impact all of us. If you like being warm in the winter, you are going to be affected. If you like being cool in the summer, you are going to be affected. If you own a farm, if you like to eat, if you run a small business or work in one, you are going to be affected. If you want to go anywhere, this bill will affect you.
From higher energy costs to lost jobs to higher food prices, cap-and-trade promises to cap our incomes, our livelihoods, and our standard of living, while it trades away American jobs and opportunities. For this reason, as this bill stands now, I cannot embrace it.
To read the full op-ed from Rep. Lucas, click here.
Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy • P.O. Box 70072, Montgomery, AL 36107 • A 501(c)(4) Organization
