Web Note from Ronnie Cummins and Will Allen
of the Organic Consumers Association:
Please see article:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_20200.cfm
A
news release issued yesterday by USDA stated that,
"Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today discussed how properly
structured climate change and energy legislation will benefit
America's farmers and ranchers in a speech at the National
Farmers Union
2010 convention in Rapid City, S.D. USDA also released a
memo looking at assumptions in the FASOM model - developed by
researchers at Texas A & M University that the Environmental
Protection Agency - to study the impacts of climate legislation.
"'USDA is committed to helping Congress design and implement a
carbon offsets market that will provide significant income
opportunities to America's farmers and ranchers,' said Vilsack.
'USDA and third-party analyses, as well as our experience in
implementing conservation techniques, make it absolutely clear
that properly structured legislation will avoid unintended
consequences and provide enormous benefits to our agricultural
economy, and our environment.'"
The release pointed to the complete text of USDA Chief Economist
Joe Glauber's memo to Secretary Vilsack on the FASOM model,
which is
available here.
DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton
reported yesterday from the NFU convention in Rapid City
where he indicated that, "Going against the political tide and
the beliefs of other farm groups, members of the National
Farmers Union still see income potential in climate legislation
and green energy, but acknowledge that a cap-and-trade plan has
become mired in partisan politics.
"At its annual convention in Rapid City, the National Farmers
Union held two panels detailing the potential benefits to
farmers from renewable fuels, wind and biomass, as well as
carbon offsets through a climate bill. In between, Secretary of
Agriculture Tom Vilsack argued there is a need for a
comprehensive climate bill and that farmers would benefit."
The DTN article noted that, "While many farm groups have walked
away from cap-and-trade legislation, Vilsack continues to make
the case that if carbon controls are implemented properly they
would add tens of billions of dollars to the rural economy.
Agriculture accounts for about 7 percent of the U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions, but could translate into as much as 25 percent of
the solution, he said.
"'That's why it's important to set up an offset market that pays
farmers for doing the right thing regardless of whether they are
raising crops or raising livestock,' he said.
"Vilsack highlighted that several studies show a net benefit for
agriculture, including a
USDA study last December that examined the impacts of the
climate bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last
year."
With respect to the memo by Chief Economist Joe Glauber to Sec.
Vilsack on the FASOM model, yesterday's DTN article stated that,
"USDA is issuing a memorandum that outlines some of the problems
with that model and that challenges the notion of dramatic
acreage shifts, Vilsack said. He said the model made some flawed
assumptions, such as assuming agricultural emissions would be
regulated even though the House bill exempted agriculture.
"Further, the model made assumptions on the speed in which
people would convert from crops to forestry that Vilsack said
appeared 'over exaggerated.' Also, the acreage shift did not
take into account the ability of producers to get proper
information accurately to make the appropriate decision, he
said."
The article added that, "'Our experience with the farm bill and
our experience with farm programs is that the evolution and
understanding of new programs takes awhile to filter through the
process,' Vilsack said. 'So there were a number of assumptions
made in the model that clearly don't match up to what is being
discussed.'
"Vilsack said the universities of Texas A&M, Oregon State and
Duke will be working with USDA to create a more accurate model
based on what is practiced in the field and what could happen
with a properly constructed carbon market."
Meanwhile, from a legislative perspective, Darren Goode and Amy
Harder
reported yesterday at the National Journal Online that,
"Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., and
Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn.,
might offer Senate colleagues and key interest groups an outline
for their climate and energy strategy this week.
"The three are scheduled to sit down Wednesday with a large
gathering of business and industry groups and industry
officials, who were told last week that they would likely be
given a narrative outline for a proposal.
"If so, centrist senators who would be crucial to getting a
filibuster-proof margin would be expected to be given a look at
the outline early this week."
The update added that, "Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have been
ramping up meetings in recent weeks to cut a deal. Last week,
Obama sat down with about a dozen senators to hear what they
would need to support a bill putting a price on industrial
carbon emissions and ramping up domestic nuclear, oil and gas
and other production."
Reuters writer Richard Cowan
reported yesterday that, "A compromise climate control bill
that could be sketched out next week in the Senate will be
anchored by a 'cap and trade' plan for reducing carbon dioxide
emissions from utilities such as power plants, a key senator
said on Monday.
"'That's not to say there are not some details left to be
resolved with utilities but the overall approach is that,' the
senator said during an interview with Reuters.
"Under cap and trade, companies would have to obtain permits for
every ton of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases they
emit. The number of permits would steadily decline during the
next 40 years and companies could trade those permits on a
regulated financial market."
Mr. Cowan explained that, "In an interview with Reuters, the
senator said: 'There's more certainty about cap and trade for
utilities' than how the government would mandate carbon
pollution reductions from other sectors, such as transportation
and manufacturing.
"A bill passed last June by the House of Representatives would
set an economy-wide cap and trade program, including power
companies, oil refineries and factories. Emissions would decline
by 17 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels under the House bill.
Senators are looking at a similar target, which the Obama
administration has embraced.
"But an economy-wide cap and trade program did not appear to
have enough votes to pass the Senate."
Yesterday's article added that, "Instead, senators have been
looking at a possible oil industry tax to help control carbon
emissions in the transportation sector. Some senators from heavy
manufacturing states have been pushing for a delay in carbon
emission requirements for factories before moving to a cap and
trade program or other mechanism.
"The Senate compromise bill, which the senator said could be
outlined sometime next week, will 'be different ways to deal
with different sectors. It's a step-by-step sectoral approach,'
the senator said."
Ben Geman,
writing yesterday at The Hill's Energy and Environment Blog,
noted that some economists question whether the anticipated
"hybrid approach" from Kerry, Graham and Lieberman ("Start with
a cap-and-trade system for utilities, bring other industrial
facilities under a cap at a later date, while motor fuels would
be addressed through some sort of tax or fee") makes for the
best policy.
Mr. Geman pointed to
this update from the Solve Climate Blog which noted that,
"Strictly from an economic efficiency perspective, you're better
off with either an economy-wide cap-and-trade policy or an
economy-wide carbon tax," says Michael Livermore, executive
director of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York
University Law School.
Regardless of the specific details and potential economic
implications of forthcoming Senate legislation, Bloomberg writer
Simon Lomax
reported yesterday that, "The Obama administration is
considering a carbon-trading system under existing law if
Congress doesn't pass cap-and-trade legislation that allows
companies to buy and sell the right to pollute, a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency official said today.
"The existing Clean Air Act 'could enable us to include
emissions trading' within agency regulations aimed at reducing
carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists have linked to
climate change, Anna Marie Wood, a senior policy analyst at the
EPA, said at an event in Washington hosted by the American Bar
Association.
"'We're considering all that right now and thinking about what
might make sense,' Wood said. While the agency 'strongly
prefers' that Congress pass new laws dealing with greenhouse
gases, 'we think that there's a lot of progress that can be made
using certain tools under the Clean Air Act.'"
The Bloomberg article explained that, "The EPA under President
Barack Obama isn't likely to set up an emissions trading system
for greenhouse gases under existing law that can 'survive
judicial review,' [Raymond Ludwiszewski, a Washington-based
partner at law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and a former EPA
general counsel under President George H.W. Bush] said.
"'It will be very difficult for the administrator to find tools
that will allow cap-and-trade approaches to regulating
greenhouse gases under the current Clean Air Act,' he said."
And the article noted that, "So far, the EPA has proposed
greenhouse gas regulations that would toughen fuel economy
standards for new cars and trucks and require new and modified
industrial polluters, such as power plants, to install the 'best
available' technology to limit emissions.
"There has been 'no final decision' on greenhouse gas
regulations 'beyond what EPA has previously announced,' Brendan
Gilfillan, a spokesman for the agency, said in an e-mail."
On the issue of EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases,
Jim Snyder reported yesterday at The Hill's Energy and
Environment Blog that, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked the
EPA to reconsider its endangerment finding, the legal
underpinning of the agency's efforts to regulate greenhouse
gases.
"Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel of the
Chamber,
released a statement that said the business lobby believes
the 'right way' to lower greenhouse gas emissions is through
'bipartisan legislation and comprehensive international
agreements.'"
In other climate related developments, Jim Tankersley
reported yesterday at the Los Angeles Times Online that,
"The federal government has 'significant gaps' in its strategy
to cope with the increasing effects of climate change on the
country, according to a White House report scheduled to be
released Tuesday.
"The report will call for better risk assessments, more thorough
scientific research and improved coordination of federal and
local governments in order to handle the effects of warming
temperatures, according to a draft of the report."
And Meredith Shiner
reported yesterday at Politico that, "Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)
attacked former Vice President Al Gore on the Senate floor
Monday, calling climate change 'the greatest hoax ever
perpetrated on the American people' and claiming that Gore is
now 'running for cover.'"
A video replay of Sen. Inhofe's remarks
can be viewed here.