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

The House Energy Bill

A

Anonymous

Guest
The House Voted in favor of the Energy and Security Act--219 for, 212 Against.....

Yes votes Dems 211 Repubs 8
No votes Dems 44 Repubs 168

1 Dem and 2 Repubs did not vote.....
 

per

Well-known member
Can't comment on the bill. Just curious if each vote is a feta complete or are there some surprises once in a while?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Interestingly some of the leftests and greenies are already complaining on the talk shows that they are upset the bill was watered down too much for special interest groups- namely #1 Agriculture...

News from the House Agriculture Committee

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, June 26, 2009

Media Contact:
April Slayton (202) 225-6872
Scott Kuschmider (202) 225-1496



House Passes Clean Energy Legislation with Significant Benefits for Agriculture

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation that will allow farmers, ranchers and forestland
owners to fully participate in a market-based carbon offset program, earning income for activities they undertake to address global
climate change.

The bill's agriculture provisions negotiated by Chairman Peterson had the support of many agriculture, conservation, and forestry
organizations, including the American Farmland Trust, National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Federation, National Corn Growers
Association, National Association of Wheat Growers, National Milk Producers Federation, American Corn Growers Association, American
Forest Foundation, American Soybean Association, Dairy Farmers of America, Growth Energy, Minnesota Corn Growers Association,
Minnesota Farmers Union, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Conservation Districts, National Biodiesel Board,
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Cotton Council, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Union,
National Pork Producers Council, Renewable Fuels Association, United Egg Producers, Western Peanut Growers Association, and
Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation.


House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin C. Peterson (MN) worked with the authors of the American Clean Energy and Security Act
of 2009 (H.R. 2454) to include several important programs that recognize and reward the agriculture and forestry sector for
conservation activities and clean energy production.

Under the legislation passed by the House, the agriculture and forestry sectors are clearly exempt from the bill's greenhouse gas
emission reduction requirements, which means that farmers, ranchers and forestland owners will not be subject to the greenhouse gas
emissions cap.

The bill establishes an agricultural and forestry offset program at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that will work with
farmers, ranchers and forestland owners to design and implement plans that reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and sequester
carbon on their operations. Farmers, ranchers and forestland owners will earn offsets for these actions, and they can sell the
credits to utilities, refiners, or other firms subject to limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

"The offset program run by USDA creates a new market opportunity for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners who can play an
important role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States," Chairman Peterson said. "Farmers, ranchers, and
forestland owners have been participating in conservation and carbon sequestration programs for many years, working to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency, and support a thriving renewable energy industry. This legislation recognizes
those efforts and encourages these important activities."

The bill also boosts the renewable fuels industry by eliminating regulatory requirements that unfairly restrict U.S. renewable
energy production. It prevents the Environmental Protection Agency from holding U.S. biofuels producers responsible for
deforestation or other land use changes in other countries, and it expands the availability of biomass for energy production by
improving the definition of what qualifies as renewable biomass. It also includes a program that will help fund the installation of
blender pumps, making clean-burning renewable fuels available to more Americans.

"This bill promotes homegrown, clean burning renewable fuels, which is one of the best things we can do for the economy and the
environment," Peterson said.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One question that I do not understand on this Ag amendment that Peterson put in-- if you have to break up land first and then put it back into pasture to qualify for being eligible to sell carbon credits?-- or (as it almost looks like) that any grass or forested land you don't break up- would qualify?...That would mean a lot on how it would affect my pocket book- and whether I would support it..
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
One question that I do not understand on this Ag amendment that Peterson put in-- if you have to break up land first and then put it back into pasture to qualify for being eligible to sell carbon credits?-- or (as it almost looks like) that any grass or forested land you don't break up- would qualify?...That would mean a lot on how it would affect my pocket book- and whether I would support it..


why don't you try using principle instead, oh yeah you're a LINO,
Libertarian In Name Only!!
you already supported it with you're vote forobama.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
One question that I do not understand on this Ag amendment that Peterson put in-- if you have to break up land first and then put it back into pasture to qualify for being eligible to sell carbon credits?-- or (as it almost looks like) that any grass or forested land you don't break up- would qualify?...That would mean a lot on how it would affect my pocket book- and whether I would support it..

Maybe you ought to think of what it will do to the prices you receive for the commodities you sell and to the prices for all of the products you buy for your everyday living.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
One question that I do not understand on this Ag amendment that Peterson put in-- if you have to break up land first and then put it back into pasture to qualify for being eligible to sell carbon credits?-- or (as it almost looks like) that any grass or forested land you don't break up- would qualify?...That would mean a lot on how it would affect my pocket book- and whether I would support it..


why don't you try using principle instead, oh yeah you're a LINO,
Libertarian In Name Only!!
you already supported it with you're vote forobama.

I've tried picking/choosing candidates on principle- thats why I voted for Bush- and he thru all principles down the drain- as Tex said for the principal of his corporate buddies profiteering... :wink:

I also voted for GW because he promised a long term energy plan in his campaign- and with a Repub majority Congress I figured he'd get us something...But he immediately forgot that promise (like all others) and sold out America to the oil industry- did nothing about long term- and got us a 300% gas/fuel price cost rise ...
Now its time to look and make decisions on what effects #1...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
One question that I do not understand on this Ag amendment that Peterson put in-- if you have to break up land first and then put it back into pasture to qualify for being eligible to sell carbon credits?-- or (as it almost looks like) that any grass or forested land you don't break up- would qualify?...That would mean a lot on how it would affect my pocket book- and whether I would support it..

Maybe you ought to think of what it will do to the prices you receive for the commodities you sell and to the prices for all of the products you buy for your everyday living.

The CBO scored the current cap-and-trade energy bill in the House, and found it would cost households about $165 for the average household per year....But I'm seeing where they are talking some areas could get $9 an acre for selling carbon credits on no till.... That would be handy to make up for commodity prices that have historically been low :wink:

I know that formerly farmed land put back into improved pasture qualifies under the carbon credits- but some of the reading on the Peterson amendment (the griping of the greeny weenies who think Ag is getting to much) almost makes it look like all land you leave in grass would qualify-- like deeded pasture land....

Don't know- but would like to find out.. I sent an e-mail to Senator Tester to have someone in his office look into it....
 

Tex

Well-known member
Probably the best thing they can do to slow the emissions of carbon is to apply the carbon tax to imported goods as to the carbon it takes to create those goods.

It will do no good for the U.S. to have carbon standards and then import from countries like China who put way more carbon into the air for the same good as if it were produced in a system that has better pollution and carbon controls.


Tex
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
One question that I do not understand on this Ag amendment that Peterson put in-- if you have to break up land first and then put it back into pasture to qualify for being eligible to sell carbon credits?-- or (as it almost looks like) that any grass or forested land you don't break up- would qualify?...That would mean a lot on how it would affect my pocket book- and whether I would support it..

Maybe you ought to think of what it will do to the prices you receive for the commodities you sell and to the prices for all of the products you buy for your everyday living.

The CBO scored the current cap-and-trade energy bill in the House, and found it would cost households about $165 for the average household per year....But I'm seeing where they are talking some areas could get $9 an acre for selling carbon credits on no till.... That would be handy to make up for commodity prices that have historically been low :wink:

I know that formerly farmed land put back into improved pasture qualifies under the carbon credits- but some of the reading on the Peterson amendment (the griping of the greeny weenies who think Ag is getting to much) almost makes it look like all land you leave in grass would qualify-- like deeded pasture land....

Don't know- but would like to find out.. I sent an e-mail to Senator Tester to have someone in his office look into it....

The CEO of Duke energy said it would double electricity costs, which would mean about $300/mo for my family. That doesn't take into account those higher energy prices that will be passed onto me for food, clothing, everyday household items, etc....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tex said:
Probably the best thing they can do to slow the emissions of carbon is to apply the carbon tax to imported goods as to the carbon it takes to create those goods.

It will do no good for the U.S. to have carbon standards and then import from countries like China who put way more carbon into the air for the same good as if it were produced in a system that has better pollution and carbon controls.


Tex

There is something in there about that too- that if a country doesn't go along with the standards they can be charged for their imports...Don't know exactly how its written- but in the debate today the Repubs were arguing it would create another Smoot-Hawley type tariff- and that it would cause trade repercussions and shut down free trade....Whereby the Dems came back that the WTO had just ruled that added costs because of enviromental requirements didn't qualify as tariffs- and was OK...

I'm sure it will take some time to shake out what all is in it- and almost impossible to get an unbiased nonpartisan interpretation :roll: but the Senate also has an energy bill that just came out of committee (which I don't think includes Cap and Trade)- and I have a feeling that the final product will be one worked out in joint commitee...
 
Top