Those readers interested in the debate over potential federal climate change legislation that is currently taking place in Congress may want to consider attending an upcoming, one-day conference on the issues involved in the legislation at Columbia Law School on October 23, 2009.The conference program features several panels of experts that will cover the following topics during the day: 1) The Science of Sequestration and its Role in Climate Policy; 2) Lessons Learned from On-the-Ground Projects; 3) International/Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries; 4) Federal Legislation and Incentives for Sequestration; and 5) Forest and Agricultural Products and Co-benefits; Sustainability Criteria and Measuring, Monitoring, Verification, and Certification. Each panel is expected to last roughly an hour, and lunch will be provided.
For more information on the conference and to register to attend contact Terry Liu,
212-854-2743, tliu@law.columbia.edu.
In the meantime, many organizations are voicing their opinion on the legislation. This past April the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) issued a release that says the AFBF supports a market-based incentive program rather than a government-mandated program to address the issue of climate change. AFBF President Bob Stallman emphasized in a questionnaire he filled out for Congress that any legislation that passes should not mandate "carbon emission reductions to levels not justified by sound, peer-reviewed science and that any legislation designed to reduce carbon emissions must make sure the costs don’t outweigh the benefits." According to a story by Allison Winter, Alex Kaplum and Darren Samuelsohn in the September 10, 2009 issue of E&E Daily, members of the USA Rice Producer’s Group are concerned the legislation will cause economic harm to rice producers. However, Rocky Barker reports that the National Farmers Union supports climate change legislation.
The American Feed Industry Association, along with 14 other industry trade associations signed a letter sent to senators that stated:
“As you develop climate legislation, we urge you to consider the direct and indirect impacts on the cost of food, feed, and household products . . . poorly designed climate legislation could significantly increase the price of food and other household products. In particular, poorly designed climate legislation could significantly increase energy, transportation, regulatory and commodity costs. These are paramount considerations Congress must consider and prioritize among the issues it addresses . . . We believe that H.R. 2454 will increase food and feed prices and reduce the international competitiveness of our businesses, and look forward to working with you to craft climate legislation that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions but which also ensures a safe and affordable supply of food [.]””
Among the other organizations that signed the letter are the American Meat Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Chicken Council, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the National Meat Association, and the National Turkey Federation.
The legislation has gotten the attention of many, but can it be designed in a way that garners the support of the agricultural industries, or, for that matter, the support of 60 United States Senators?
Incoming Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln (AR) has stated that she would prefer the Senate focus on renewable energy legislation because she feels that has a better chance of passing the Senate. Lincoln did concede that she does not expect her committee to have jurisdiction over the bill. Meanwhile, Senators Boxer (CA) and Baucus (MT) are engaged in a power struggle over which of their committees will have jurisdiction over the cap-and-trade payment system and the distribution of “pollution permits.”
Posted: 09/15/09
