As we’ve seen, the USDA has found economic benefits of climate bill for farmers ‘easily trump’ the costs. And that’s no surprise since unrestricted GHG emissions will be catastrophic to U.S. farmers (see Our hellish future: Definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year — and that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual!). In this Wonk Room post, however, Brad Johnson explains that many leading Senators from farm states still don’t get it.
U.S. Senators are attacking the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act as threatening farmers even though America is suffering from the ravages of a climate out of control — heat waves, floods, storms, droughts, and seasonal shifts. Scientific studies show global warming has already hurt American agriculture, and that the damages will grow catastrophic if action is not taken. In a new video, the Center for American Progress Action Fund argues that passage of a strong climate bill is imperative, and senators should stop filibustering our farmers’ future. Watch it:
The rising tide of climate change — the catastrophic droughts in Texas and California, the heat waves in Louisiana and Nebraska, the storms across the High Plains and the Midwest, the floods in North Dakota and Minnesota — require action. Yet many senators are arguing that a limit on carbon pollution would be too costly for farmers:
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): “No farmers will escape the effect of this bill.” [Senate agriculture hearing, 7/22/09]
Jim Inhofe (R-OK): “I had the opportunity of going and talking to the national farm co-ops the other day and addressed to them if we were to pass the cap-and-trade system what that would do to my folks in Oklahoma and all of America . . . It would be disastrous for our farmers in America.” [Senate floor, 7/15/09]
Mike Johanns (R-NE): “The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill would have a significant if not severe impact on agriculture. . . . Different studies come up with varied numbers but they all paint the same picture: agriculture loses.” [Senate floor, 7/20/09]
Ben Nelson (D-NE): “I’m concerned that if this is going to be the approach that is taken, that it be the most benign approach to balancing the economy and the environment. It’s not just agriculture, it’s people turning on their lights and businesses as well.” [Senate agriculture hearing, 7/22/09]
John Thune (R-SD): “They’re worried about the EPA regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and what that would mean for the future of the production of agriculture.” [Senate agriculture hearing, 7/22/09]
The effort to filibuster clean energy legislation means that a minority of senators can block the effort to preserve the livelihood of farmers in America. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) have committed to cloture — standing against the filibuster. The rest of the senators need to join them.
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Thanks for naming those responsible. Time to lay blame directly. Every interest group has an excuse to burn more carbon fuels.
But there is a very simple rule:
Carbon fuels should be used only for the manufacture and deployment of non-polluting energy systems. Any other use of carbon fuels should be severely regulated, restricted and heavily taxed.
Only this scientifically ruthless action can address the pressing emergency need. Anything else is pandering while our future slips away.
Unfortunately the American Farm Bureau is leading the charge: http://www.fb.org/ index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.agenda
What about fertilizer? Natural gas is the primary feedstock for producing natural gas and although the amount of amonium nitrate fertilizer has declined from its peak in the early 1970’s its still a signficant source for soil fertilization and this means that its a CO2 emitter. So how would the use of commercial ammonium nitrate fertilizer be addressed?
Sorry that was supposed to say natural gas is the primary feedstock for producing ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
Surely it’s not possible to determine what the cost/benefit of the legislation will be to farmers until the USDA has decided how the offset scheme will work?!
Granted we might be able to work out the effects on fertiliser prices (although oil/gas price fluctuations will surely be a much bigger contributor). But until the main potential income stream is defined aren’t all these predictions just whistling in the wind?
Joe, I’ve heard that pro-climate legislation folks (working on ag as well as other issues) have been amazed by the lack of effort, coordination, messaging from the administration. Some are saying the administration is going to punt on climate this year. Are you still hopeful that a cap and trade bill can pass and is there any chance the Administration is going to get active and show leadership this fall?
[JR: Top WH folks are focused on health care. As I've said many times, the final bill won't be on the desk til next year (March?), which is a good thing. Senate vote in Nov, Dec, Jan. I'm not thrilled with WH effort to date, as I've also said. More later.]