Climate Legislation
Lisa Lerer reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “Shortly after Democrats took office last January, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed the Senate would pass climate change legislation before the start of the international climate talks in Copenhagen.
“But less than a month before the eyes of the world turn to Denmark, it’s clear that there’s no chance a bill will get through the Senate by then — a domestic policy failure that leaves the U.S. with a weakened hand as it seeks to negotiate a global warming treaty with the rest of the world.”
Yesterday’s article indicated that, “Top administration officials say that U.S. negotiators are unable to commit to any ‘hard and fast’ agreements without having a bill through the Senate. And if the U.S. delegation did make any strong commitments on climate change, that could further jeopardize the chances of the Senate passing the legislation early next year.”
Ms. Lerer also quoted GOP Senator Richard Lugar (Indiana) as saying, “The discussion in preparation for Copenhagen is clearly softened by the fact that most of our constituencies — in fact, most of our colleagues — want to talk about something else and that makes it more difficult to do something tremendously dramatic.”
Reuters writer Richard Cowan reported yesterday that, “U.S. Senate Democrats will attempt to pass a climate-change bill in ‘early spring’ of 2010, Senator John Kerry told reporters on Monday, further complicating prospects for an international summit on global warming next month.”
The Reuters article explained that, “Last week, Kerry had said he hoped the outlines of a compromise climate bill could be sketched out before the December 7-18 global warming summit in Copenhagen that will be attended by some 190 countries.
“But when asked about the likelihood of that happening, Kerry on Monday would not commit to providing the ‘framework’ of legislation before the Copenhagen meeting.”
Meanwhile, the AP reported yesterday that, “There's not enough time to strike a detailed and binding deal at next month's Copenhagen conference on climate change but nations say it still can succeed if all 192 countries can agree on two sets of numbers.
“Those numbers - how much money will be given to poor countries to adapt to global warming and how much industrial countries will reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 10 years - are highly contentious, and there's no guarantee that even the scaled-back ambition for a political agreement can be reached.”
Reuters writer Alister Doyle noted yesterday that, “Widening agreement that next month's Copenhagen summit will likely fall short of a legally binding treaty runs the risk of a longer-term stalemate, which at worst could drag on like the Doha trade round, experts say.”
Also on the issue of the scaled back Copenhagen conference next month, The Wall Street Journal editorial board indicated in today’s paper that, “Of course, the pointlessness of Copenhagen will now become part of Mr. Obama's argument that the Senate must inflict cap and tax on the U.S., as well as a justification for the EPA's nondemocratic carbon crackdown via clean-air regulation. If he and we are lucky, however, the Senate will fail to act too, the EPA will get tied up in court, and the economy will recover faster without the looming burden of higher energy taxes.”
With respect to more specific perspectives on potential climate legislation, Politico reporter Lisa Lerer reported yesterday that, “Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb said on Monday he would not back the cap-and-trade legislation sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer, (D-Calif.), another blow to the troubled Senate climate change bill.
“‘In its present form I would not vote for it,’ he said. ‘I have some real questions about the real complexities on cap and trade.’
“Webb is the latest in a series of Democratic moderates to raise significant concerns with the climate bill, which has floundered since passing the House in late June.”
Tom Steever reported yesterday at Brownfield that, “Even considering the different versions of climate change legislation offered in Congress, Missouri Farm Bureau President Charlie Kruse says he doesn’t envision any that are palatable to farmers. Kruse says increases in energy costs resulting from climate change proposals will devastate farmers, small businessmen and consumers.”
Gary Truitt reported earlier this week at Hoosier Ag Today (HAT) that, “During an interview with HAT at the National Association of Farm Broadcasters meeting in Kansas City last week, [Former Secretary of Agriculture John Block (1981-86)] said the climate change legislation will result in a negligible improvement of the global climate. He also worries that this move will put US agriculture at a disadvantage compared to other nations, like China and India, who will not have to make the same adjustments, ‘So here we are; we are going to go do this for the good of mankind all over the world, and it won’t make any difference anyway and will cost us a lot.’”
In a separate article posted yesterday at Brownfield, Tom Steever reported that, “Farm Bureau’s chief economist says climate change proposals present the nation with a dilemma. Cap and trade proposals will shrink agriculture in the U.S., according to Bob Young, chief economist at the American Farm Bureau, who says not allowing the offsets will jack up production costs and force some producers to quit, while allowing offsets will result in land brought out of production to be put into trees.
“‘I think the real question then becomes do you like the agriculture you end up with,’ Young told Brownfield during an interview. ‘It’d be a much more brittle agriculture, it’d be much less resilient to short crop situations, because you just wouldn’t have the dirt to respond with, and that, I think becomes the real question: do you like what you end up with at the end of the day.’”
In a follow-up to Dan Morgan’s article from last week regarding agriculture and climate issues (“Mining Carbon Down on the Farm”), the AgMag Blog (The Environmental Working Group) provided a bit more perspective from Mr. Morgan in an update from yesterday.
The update quoted Mr. Morgan as saying; “The studies I have seen suggest that agriculture can play a significant role in sequestering carbon, particularly over the next 30 years. For that to happen, however, Congress will have to craft legislation that adequately rewards farmers and ranchers for taking lasting steps to protect the atmosphere while also avoiding giving away the store just to garner the votes of farm state lawmakers. This will be tricky because evaluating how much carbon the soil is sequestering depends on many variables — rainfall, for example. It isn’t as easy as measuring the CO2 coming out of a chimney. One thing is certain, though: agriculture is going to be at the table when the final climate legislation is written.”
Also in response to a question regarding beef production and carbon emissions, Mr. Morgan noted that, “You refer to methane production by cattle, I take it. I was surprised to learn on my recent trip out West that new, intensive grazing systems that enable grasslands to capture larger amounts of carbon don’t necessarily depend on reducing the size of herds, just managing those herds differently. Ironically, the best venues for capturing cattle methane releases are feedlots and dairies where the animals are contained in small spaces and fed on heavy corn diets. This is why this whole issue is so darned complicated.”
While the U.S. climate debate slogs forward, agriculture is factoring into the climate debate in Australia.
Bloomberg writer Tracy Withers reported earlier this week that, “Australia’s government has offered to exempt agriculture from the nation’s carbon-reduction system in an effort to get political support, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said.”
The article explained that, “Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s Labor Party government wants lawmakers to vote on the legislation by the end of this month as part of a push for carbon trading to start in 2011. Opposition Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull proposed a number of changes last month, including permanently excluding farming emissions and compensation for affected businesses.”
Reuters writer Bruce Hextall reported yesterday that, “Australia's grain production stands to get a boost following changes to the country's proposed carbon-emissions trading scheme announced at the weekend.
“Industry officials said on Monday the decision to exclude agricultural emissions from the scheme and to possibly allow farmers to earn carbon credits through better land-management practices would enhance production of crops such as wheat.”
The Reuters article pointed out that, “Australia's emissions-trading scheme has been delayed in the Senate where the government lacks a majority. In order to secure the support of opposition lawmakers, it has been under pressure to give more concessions to both farmers and heavy industry.
“On Sunday, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, in an attempt to win over the opposition, said the farm sector would be exempt from paying for its emissions, which account for about 16 percent of the nation's total, according to government figures.
“Wong also indicated that farmers might be allowed to generate and sell carbon credits in what has been dubbed an ‘all carrot and no stick’ approach to the powerful farmers' lobby.”
Food Security: UN and U.S.
In an article linking climate change and food security issues, Javier Blas reported yesterday at The Financial Times Online that, “The world cannot achieve food security without first tackling global warming, the United Nations secretary-general said on Monday, warning that failure at next month’s international climate change negotiations would result in a rise in hunger.
“The warning by Ban Ki-Moon at the start of a three-day UN world food summit in Rome came one day after Barack Obama, US president, backed European and UN views that the Copenhagen summit would not produce a legally-binding agreement to tackle global warming.”
The article added that, “Jim Fitzpatrick, UK minister for food, farming and environment, told the Financial Times that food and climate security were ‘two sides of the same coin’”.
Meanwhile, the AP reported yesterday that, “World leaders at a food summit on Monday rallied around a new strategy to fight global hunger by helping poor countries feed themselves, but rebuffed a United Nations appeal to put a pricetag on funding.
“The summit approved its final declaration during its first hours in a show of broad consensus. Countries pledged to substantially increase aid to agriculture in developing nations, so that the world's 1 billion hungry can become more self-sufficient.
“In effect, the 192 countries were essentially endorsing the strategy adopted by the world's wealthiest nations at the Group of Eight summit this summer in L'Aquila, Italy.
“But Monday's meeting didn't commit to the $44 billion a year for agricultural aid that the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization says will be necessary in the coming decades.”
Neil MacFarquhar reported in today’s New York Times that, “A United Nations summit meeting on combating hunger that opened in Rome on Monday underscored the split between rich and poor countries on the issue, with the industrialized nations balking at concrete targets.
“Sixty leaders attended the meeting, but apart from Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of Italy there were no leaders from the wealthiest nations. Some of those who attended, including Pope Benedict XVI, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya, lashed out at what they called unfair agricultural policies by more developed nations.”
***
Domestically, a USDA news release from yesterday sated that, “USDA's Economic Research Service's (ERS) today released its annual report on Household Food Security in the U.S., which revealed that in 2008, 17 million households, or 14.6 percent, were food insecure and families had difficulty putting enough food on the table at times during the year. This is an increase from 13 million households, or 11.1 percent, in 2007. The 2008 figures represent the highest level observed since nationally representative food security surveys were initiated in 1995.” The full study is available here.
Reuters writers Charles Abbott and Christopher Doering reported yesterday that, “President Barack Obama called the USDA report ‘unsettling’ and vowed to reverse the trend of rising hunger.”
Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) indicated in a statement from yesterday that, “The 2008 food insecurity report released today by the United States Department of Agriculture is a sobering reminder that there are tens of millions of Americans struggling through one of the worst economic recessions in recent memory. My home state of Arkansas has been especially hard hit and now has the third highest rate of hunger in the country. The unprecedented increase in the number of Americans experiencing hunger or at risk of hunger underscores the critical importance of federal food assistance programs and the need for Congress to undertake the reauthorization of federal child nutrition programs with a strong focus on increasing program access and improving nutritional quality. Tomorrow the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry will hold a hearing on the reauthorization of child nutrition programs, which remains one of the Committee’s top legislative priorities.”
For more information on today’s Senate Ag Committee hearing, just click here.
Philip Brasher reported yesterday at The Des Moines Register Online that, “The report ‘is a wakeup call for us to get very serious about food security and hunger,’ said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.”
DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “USDA classifies food security as having consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living. A food-insecure household is one that at some time during the year is unable to put adequate food on the table.
“About one-third of the households considered food insecure were considered having ‘very low food security.’ USDA stated about 6.7 million households, or more than 17 million people, had to reduce the amount of food they eat or did not have adequate supplies to feed an entire family. USDA stated those households also included more than 1 million children.”
Bloomberg writer Alan Bjerga reported yesterday that, “The typical U.S. household spent $43.75 a week on food for each member last year, up from $42.50 in 2007, while food- insecure households spent $33.33 per person compared with $32.50 the previous year, the study found.”
In an article published in today’s Washington Post, which featured several helpful graphics, Amy Goldstein reported that, “Vilsack attributed the marked worsening in Americans' access to food primarily to the rise in unemployment, which now exceeds 10 percent, and in people who are underemployed. He acknowledged that ‘there could be additional increases’ in the 2009 figures, due out a year from now, although he said it is not yet clear how much the problem might be eased by the measures the administration and Congress have taken this year to stimulate the economy.
“The report's main author at USDA, Mark Nord, noted that other recent research by the agency has found that most families in which food is scarce contain at least one adult with a full-time job, suggesting that the problem lies at least partly in wages, not entirely an absence of work.”
Scott Kilman and Roger Thurow reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Maura Daly, vice president of government relations for Feeding America, said 90% of food banks in the recent survey reported that, according to anecdotal evidence, unemployment is the leading factor for the increased demand.”
Jason DeParle reported in today’s New York Times that, “Analysts said the main reason for the growth was the rise in the unemployment rate, to 7.2 percent at the end of 2008 from 4.9 percent a year earlier. And since it now stands at 10.2 percent, the survey might in fact understate the number of Americans struggling to get adequate food.
“Rising food prices, too, might have played a role.
“The food stamp rolls have expanded to record levels, with 36 million Americans now collecting aid, an increase of nearly 40 percent from two years ago. And the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed last winter, raised the average monthly food stamp benefit per person by about 17 percent, to $133. Many states have made it easier for those eligible to apply, but rising applications and staffing cuts have also brought long delays.”
U.S. Ag Economy
A separate USDA Economic Research Service report from yesterday (“The Debt Finance Landscape for U.S. Farming and Farm Businesses”) indicated that, “Income and wealth for farm businesses have changed noticeably this decade. Debt levels have been rising, asset levels have outpaced debt despite a recent fall in land prices, and equity has more than doubled for farm businesses. However, recent declines in farm income and falling land prices have raised concerns about the financial position of U.S. farms. Total farm sector debt reached a record $240 billion in 2008, a $26-billion increase over 2007. Debt is expected to decline to $234 billion in 2009. The distribution of debt among farm operators has also been changing. In 1986, nearly 60 percent of farms used debt financing. By 2007, the number had dropped to 31 percent. In essence, farm debt has become more concentrated in fewer, larger farm businesses. Lenders and farm operators indicate that real estate accounts for the largest use of farm debt. Debt repayment capacity utilization (DRCU) of farm operators has dropped since the 1980s. DRCU dropped from 27 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2007. Larger farms are more likely to use more of their debt capacity.”
Keith Good
