According to this AP article, in the GOP’s weekly radio and internet address Indiana Rep. Mike Pence “reiterated what GOP lawmakers have been saying for weeks: that the climate bill being considered in the House capping releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would lead to much higher energy costs and accomplish little to counter global warming if other nations do not act as well.” Further, Agriculture Online quoted House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK), that “
’There’s no question that the bill would make energy from petroleum and coal more expensive—that’s the whole point, to drive the nation toward greener sources of energy that put out fewer emissions believed to contribute to global warming.’But Lucas continues to believe the costs will be too high, especially for most forms of agriculture, which is an energy intensive industry.” Reports on the bill’s anticipated costs have been prepared the Congressional Budget Office here, and by the Heritage Foundation here, and provide two opinions on the legislation’s ultimate economic impact.
However, it’s not just the Republications who have issues with the bill. In fact, House members on both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns. According to yesterday’s Washington Post article, as reported at farmpolicy.com, “Democratic allies remain at odds over provisions of a House climate bill and a Senate energy bill, even as congressional leaders and Obama administration officials are pressing to complete work on the legislation. ‘The latest rough patch came late Thursday afternoon when House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) met with the two chief sponsors of a climate bill to hash out differences in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). After more than an hour, they emerged without an agreement, gave reporters curt expressions of optimism and left without taking questions. “There’s no deal, but I’m optimistic,” said Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and co-sponsor of the bill. Peterson, who earlier that day said he would oppose the bill, said only that “we made good progress.”’
The article explained that, “Peterson wants to make the bill more favorable to farmers and agricultural businesses. For example, he wants the Agriculture Department to have the authority to decide whether environmentally friendly actions by farmers would qualify for lucrative benefits under a system in which allowances to emit greenhouse gases would be bought and sold. Under the bill drafted by Waxman and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), the Environmental Protection Agency would have that authority."For a Reuter’s article also on the topic, click here.
Another concern, voiced by Collin Peterson (D-MN), regards the EPA’s plan to include ‘indirect land use’ when “calculating the carbon footprint of ethanol and other biofuels. It would mean that a corn ethanol producer would also be held responsible for the footprint — or emissions — caused by another farmer, American or foreign, who would in theory grow additional corn for food to replace corn going into ethanol. The result: Corn ethanol, once thought to reduce total emissions by about 60 percent compared with an equivalent amount of fossil fuel, would barely qualify as a renewable resource — possibly translating to major financial losses if gasoline producers no longer blended in corn ethanol to meet federal renewable fuel mandates,” according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune Online.
For a summary of the bill’s provisions as compiled by the Congressional Research Service, click here. A scientific report on the effects of climate change will be issued at a press conference today. To read the report, click here. For an article on the topic with findings from the draft copy, click here.
Posted: 6/16/09
