Print
E-mail
Johanns says Senate climate bill disaster for agriculture
By Robert Pore
robert.pore@theindependent.com
Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., didn't think much of the House-passed climate change bill, especially when it comes to its potential impact on the nation's agricultural industry.
But things have gotten worse, according to Johanns, now that climate change legislation has been introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass.
Johanns characterized the Senate bill as "left of Obama, Pelosi."
He also described the bill as "an assault on agriculture ."
As with the House bill, Johanns said, the legislation will "lead to higher taxes, higher energy costs, a tighter squeeze on disposable income, more lost jobs and lower standards of living."
"For agriculture, the costs are real and the benefits are theoretical -- our country's heartland is in the crosshairs of this national energy tax," he said.
According to The Associated Press, cap and trade is still the centerpiece of the Senate bill, as it is in the House-passed version. Under cap and trade, emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, refineries and factories would face increasingly more stringent limits, or caps. Companies could then invest in pollution-reducing technologies, or buy and sell permits to meet the cap -- the trade portion.
The bill calls for a 20-percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, and an 80 percent cut by mid-century.
According to Johanns, under the proposed legislation:
-- Reductions of 20 percent below 2005 levels would be required by 2020, compared to the Waxman-Markey reductions of 17 percent and the president's proposal of 14 percent in the same period.
-- The EPA would move ahead with regulation of greenhouse gases.
-- Control of the offsets program is located within EPA.
-- EPA would move ahead with indirect land use calculations for biofuels.
Joining Johanns' concern about the legislation's impact on agriculture was the National Farmers Union.
According to National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson, while the farm organization is pleased that the Senate legislation is dealing with climate change and renewable energy, the language in the Boxer/Kerry bill, "fails to address the unique role agriculture can play."
Johnson said NFU supports a national, mandatory carbon emission cap-and-trade system if a number of core principles are met. Those principles include the U.S. Department of Agriculture being granted control and administration of the agriculture offset program; early actors being recognized; no artificial cap placed on domestic offsets; carbon sequestration rates based upon science; and producers being permitted to stack environmental benefit credits.
He said the draft Boxer-Kerry language "fails to address these provisions."
In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., voted against the bill.
Smith said the House-passed bill would "span the working lifetime of every young farmer and rancher and will have a monumental impact on our economy."
"This bill is a national energy tax, which will disproportionately target rural America and middle class families," he said. " Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry. On average, 65 percent of farmers' variable input costs are fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals. An increase in operating costs could devastate farmers and ranchers."
But things have gotten worse, according to Johanns, now that climate change legislation has been introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass.
Johanns characterized the Senate bill as "left of Obama, Pelosi."
He also described the bill as "an assault on agriculture ."
"For agriculture, the costs are real and the benefits are theoretical -- our country's heartland is in the crosshairs of this national energy tax," he said.
According to The Associated Press, cap and trade is still the centerpiece of the Senate bill, as it is in the House-passed version. Under cap and trade, emissions of heat-trapping gases from power plants, refineries and factories would face increasingly more stringent limits, or caps. Companies could then invest in pollution-reducing technologies, or buy and sell permits to meet the cap -- the trade portion.
The bill calls for a 20-percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, and an 80 percent cut by mid-century.
According to Johanns, under the proposed legislation:
-- Reductions of 20 percent below 2005 levels would be required by 2020, compared to the Waxman-Markey reductions of 17 percent and the president's proposal of 14 percent in the same period.
-- The EPA would move ahead with regulation of greenhouse gases.
-- Control of the offsets program is located within EPA.
-- EPA would move ahead with indirect land use calculations for biofuels.
Joining Johanns' concern about the legislation's impact on agriculture was the National Farmers Union.
According to National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson, while the farm organization is pleased that the Senate legislation is dealing with climate change and renewable energy, the language in the Boxer/Kerry bill, "fails to address the unique role agriculture can play."
Johnson said NFU supports a national, mandatory carbon emission cap-and-trade system if a number of core principles are met. Those principles include the U.S. Department of Agriculture being granted control and administration of the agriculture offset program; early actors being recognized; no artificial cap placed on domestic offsets; carbon sequestration rates based upon science; and producers being permitted to stack environmental benefit credits.
He said the draft Boxer-Kerry language "fails to address these provisions."
In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., voted against the bill.
Smith said the House-passed bill would "span the working lifetime of every young farmer and rancher and will have a monumental impact on our economy."
"This bill is a national energy tax, which will disproportionately target rural America and middle class families," he said. " Agriculture is an energy-intensive industry. On average, 65 percent of farmers' variable input costs are fuel, electricity, fertilizer and chemicals. An increase in operating costs could devastate farmers and ranchers."
 |
||
| First frost warning comes at time when corn crop is lagging behind maturity |
Commenting is currently disabled on all stories. The Grand Island Independent is currently reviewing its guidelines for commenting on news stories.
Start a topic in our forums
Submit a Letter to the Editor
Start a topic in our forums
Submit a Letter to the Editor
