• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Adrian Smith is on the job

Sandhusker

Well-known member
By Robert Pore
Grand Island Independent

robert.pore(at)theindependent.com

Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., is concerned about the impact of pending climate change legislation on the nation’s agriculture economy.

Smith, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, held hearings this past week to review the pending climate legislation commonly referred to as “cap-and-trade.” In April, Smith called for this hearing to focus on the legislation’s effects on America’s agriculture economy.
He said the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) would impose new greenhouse gas emissions standards and efficiency standards across the U.S. economy while creating the untested and complex cap-and-trade proposal.

The National Farmers Union, however, that farmers need the chance to participate in a cap-and-trade system to become part of the climate change solution.

According to Smith, some groups supporting the legislation are under the assumption agriculture producers would receive credit for cropland management practices, such as conservation or no-till practices that preserve soil carbon by maintaining a ground cover after planting and by reducing soil disturbance compared with traditional cultivation. However, Smith said, according to recently released information, the Environmental Protection Agency’s revised 2009 projections are significantly lower than previous estimates, which were based on agriculture practices of the late 1990s, effectively zeroing out any benefit from soil conservation.

I am saddened those who drafted this measure would mislead those who would most be affected by it,” he said. “To put it simply, this bill is a national energy tax which will disproportionately target rural America and middle-class families. This bill supposedly combats global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions, but in doing so it imposes enormous taxes and restrictions on energy use – placing an especially heavy burden on rural America and our nation’s agriculture producers.” Smith said that even a small increase in operating costs could “devastate farmers and ranchers.”

“For this reason and others, I have severe reservations about this bill, as do many of my colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee,” Smith said.

To date, nearly 50 agriculture groups – including the Nebraska Farm Bureau – have expressed opposition to this bill, according to Smith.

Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, has called on the House Agriculture Committee to make drastic changes to the climate change bill before it is considered by Congress, telling Smith’s committee that to do less could result in “the economic equivalent of unilateral disarmament” if the government’s optimistic assumptions don’t hold true.

“Those concerns are extensive,” Stallman said. “They include not only mitigating the impact of higher energy costs but assuring that, whatever and however possible, we maximize the role of agricultural producers in any climate policy, including maximizing the opportunities to reduce and sequester carbon.”

Stallman said any climate change legislation passed by Congress must include “a strong, robust, statutorily authorized program of agricultural offsets that are explicitly included in legislative language.” He also said the U.S. Department of Agriculture must be given the primary role in developing, administering and overseeing the offset program.

National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson told members of Smith’s committee to support provisions that allow farmers and ranchers to participate in climate change legislation. He said NFU believes the flexibility of a cap-and-trade program holds the most potential for actual greenhouse gas emissions reductions while helping to mitigate the increased energy costs that would result from such a program. “A cap-and-trade system could provide farmers and ranchers the opportunity to be a part of the climate change solution,” Johnson said. “Carbon sequestration and methane capture from certain livestock projects could be valuable revenue streams for producers who will experience increased agricultural input costs.”

Johnson said the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, while exempting agriculture from an emissions cap and including 2 billion tons of allowable offsets, has serious deficiencies that prevent farmer and rancher participation.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the legislation May 21. “We are very hopeful that the House Agriculture Committee will be able to make the necessary changes to the bill so that it will work for agriculture,” Johnson said.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
placing an especially heavy burden on rural America and our nation’s agriculture producers

Is there any way we can get back to this discussion now, without the sideshow, that was thrown in when I posted it?


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35992&start=0
Obama’s Plan To Destroy America’s Farms Moving Full Steam Ahead
By Michael Eden
The bill is House Resolution 2454, imposing a domestic carbon emissions cap-and-trade program on the American economy.

The goal seems to be nothing short of eradicating American farms and self-sustainability.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
I think you've gotten what you're going to get. You're asking liberals to take out emotions, disseminate facts, and then form a rational opinion of their own. Ain't gonna happen.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
According to Smith, some groups supporting the legislation are under the assumption agriculture producers would receive credit for cropland management practices, such as conservation or no-till practices that preserve soil carbon by maintaining a ground cover after planting and by reducing soil disturbance compared with traditional cultivation. However, Smith said, according to recently released information, the Environmental Protection Agency’s revised 2009 projections are significantly lower than previous estimates, which were based on agriculture practices of the late 1990s, effectively zeroing out any benefit from soil conservation.

“I am saddened those who drafted this measure would mislead those who would most be affected by it,” he said. “To put it simply, this bill is a national energy tax which will disproportionately target rural America and middle-class families. This bill supposedly combats global warming by setting strict limits on carbon emissions, but in doing so it imposes enormous taxes and restrictions on energy use – placing an especially heavy burden on rural America and our nation’s agriculture producers.” Smith said that even a small increase in operating costs could “devastate farmers and ranchers.”

“For this reason and others, I have severe reservations about this bill, as do many of my colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee,” Smith said.

Like I've said before several times- this is the reason, altho I don't fear a Cap and Trade-- I do not like how Ag/Forestry has been represented in the Waxman- Markey bill..
Congressman Stupak and several other Dem Congressman have brought up that they believe the allocations of credits to Ag should not be with EPA- but rather with USDA-- and without some changes/amendments I don't think it can pass...

And since this and the EQUIP Program and all the "conservation" programs are going to be the replacement for all the Farm Subsidy programs to qualify for WTO and all the world trade rulings- that might be the ones to do it....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
What he's saying is that if you're a farmer and you think you're going to make money on this dumb-ass idea, you're wrong.

All this is going to do is sink the whole economy. Didn't anybody learn anything from what high fuel prices did to us last summer?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
What he's saying is that if you're a farmer and you think you're going to make money on this dumb-ass idea, you're wrong.

All this is going to do is sink the whole economy. Didn't anybody learn anything from what high fuel prices did to us last summer?

I'm a firm believer that if done right- cap and trade can be a new and very beneficial financial boon to farmers and ranchers that own land if they put the right guidelines for pricing credits in...

I've already seen people being paid good money for no till- improved pasture- grassland on their land- and this is with little demand or infrastructure for selling the credits set up....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If cap and trade is based on inconclusive science, how can it ever be positive program.

It wouldn't matter if it was a financial boon for farmers/ranchers or not.

If you want to subsidize farmers/ranchers for good stewardship, then pay them, but don't do it under the guise of unproven science.

But it does not really matter, it is not a good program for the ag. Industry as written.

Are you hoping to build/amend the program later?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
What he's saying is that if you're a farmer and you think you're going to make money on this dumb-ass idea, you're wrong.

All this is going to do is sink the whole economy. Didn't anybody learn anything from what high fuel prices did to us last summer?

I'm a firm believer that if done right- cap and trade can be a new and very beneficial financial boon to farmers and ranchers that own land if they put the right guidelines for pricing credits in...

I've already seen people being paid good money for no till- improved pasture- grassland on their land- and this is with little demand or infrastructure for selling the credits set up....

There's something that liberals just don't understand - and thats that the money has to come from somewhere! If the goverment pays it out, that means that they have to confiscate it from somebody else first!
 
Top