Senators John Kerry (Mass) and Barbara Boxer (CA) recently introduced a draft version of the Senate climate change bill. Almost immediately, mixed reactions came flooding in, and agricultural voices were among those airing their opinions.For their part, the National Farmers Union (NFU), and its president Roger Johnson, were “critical” of the bill, according to an article by the Ohio Farmer. Johnson believes the bill does not give agriculture a big enough role to play in curbing climate change. The NFU had suggested several provisions they supported, but the bill fails to address these provisions. “NFU believes a national, mandatory carbon emission cap and trade system must meet these core principles: USDA is granted control and administration of the agriculture offset program; early actors are recognized; no artificial cap is placed on domestic offsets; carbon sequestration rates are based upon science; and producers are permitted to stack environmental benefit credits.”
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) expressed their dissapointment in the bill via news release. In the release AFBF president Bob Stallman made this statement, '“America’s farmers and ranchers did not fare that well in the House-passed climate change bill and they fare even worse in the Senate bill . . . There are few benefits and even greater costs to agriculture and the American public."'
New Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (AR) made this statement regarding the legislation, "I am carefully reviewing the Boxer/Kerry legislation and particularly the draft language for agriculture. Though an offsets program may provide some opportunities to Arkansas farmers, I fear that it will not outweigh the costs. I have expressed my serious reservations about a cap-and-trade system and its potential impact on the cost of fuel, feed and fertilizer, as well as food for Arkansans. As Chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, I am interested in holding more oversight hearings on climate change and will continue working with my Committee members, Senate colleagues, and stakeholders."
Senate Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (GA) was also critical of the bill. In Chambliss’s opinion, the Senate bill and the House bill are both flawed. Chambliss believes the legislation will lead to higher energy costs and harm the overall economy while providing no benefits. ‘“Further, it would only hurt farmers, ranchers and forest landowners and provide them no opportunity to recoup the higher costs they will pay for energy and the other inputs necessary to work the land . . . I cannot support this bill.”’
Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska, who was the Secretary of Agriculture under President George W. Bush’s administration, had this to say about the bill according to the Hoosier Ag Today website, “[Johanns] called the House and Senate bills and the President’s policies relative to global warming, - a direct assault on agriculture. He said this kind of legislation can – directly hurt - small town economies.”
As Kate Galbraith reports for the New York Times’ Green Inc. Blog, the bill goes further than the House bill in that it requires a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2020, whereas the House bill called for a 17 percent reduction for GHGs by 2020. The Senate bill also calls for an 80 percent reduction in GHGs by 2050. Environmentalists “praised the Senate version for setting a stricter emissions cap.”
Meanwhile, Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center stated, ‘“Areas of promise for reaching a broader consensus include nuclear power, the role of agriculture, oil and natural gas development, carbon market permit allocation and revenue recycling.”’
Though it’s not very surprising, given he denies the existence of global warming, but Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has questions over regulatory uncertainty when it comes to nuclear power. The American Petroleum Institute made the following comment that the bill ‘“leaves unaddressed key elements of how it intends to constrain carbon emissions.”’
It is worth noting that several democratic senators have issues with climate change legislation too. Both “rust-belt’ Democrats and farm-state Democrats have previously expressed concern over the direction of climate change legislation, and the impact it will have on their constituents. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will need the support of practically all Senate Democrats if he hopes to pass the 60 vote hurdle necessary to cut off debate on the bill and move the bill forward for a vote. While this is certainly a step forward in the process, climate change legislation still has a journey ahead of it before it can go to President Obama’s desk for his signature.
President Obama is attending an international conference on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark this December, and the President has stated he would like to have passed a strong climate change bill to help show the U.S.’s commitment to solving a global problem and to put the U.S. in a better bargaining position with other nations attending.
To read the Ohio Farmer article click here.
To view a copy of the over 800 page bill click here.
To read the Green Inc post click here.
To read the Hoosier Ag Today post click here.
Posted: 10/02/09
