Our Lives. Our Lands.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
EPA Announces “Finding,” Claims Greenhouse Gases Endanger Public
Livestock Weekly
By Jose G. Peña
Extension Economist
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a final rule on Monday, December 7,
stating that greenhouse gases are a threat to the health and welfare of the American people and
could therefore be regulated under the existing Clean Air Act as prescribed under a 2007
Supreme Court ruling.
The EPA's rule includes six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The ruling will allow EPA to move
forward with new regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, factories, etc., and
to regulate global-warming gases even without Congressional legislation.
On the same day, about 15,000 participants from 192 countries attended the first day of the
intensive 12-day, 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The overall purpose of this conference is to establish a new global treaty to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. President Obama is scheduled to address the conference.
The global food supply chain will be one of the central themes of this worldwide conference.
Negotiations will focus on how much developed and developing countries will reduce and/or
slow down carbon emissions and how much economic aid will be provided to developing
countries to upgrade industrial systems.
Decisions will be made that will have a huge impact on everyone, especially agriculture.
Results of negotiations during global change conferences probably have a greater potential to
impact what American farmers and ranchers will do in the future than any other activity. Legally
binding treaties are not expected to be negotiated during this conference, but the pressure is on
the U.S. to help negotiate and participate in a world clean-air treaty. Probably the most to be
expected as an outcome from this conference is an agreement that we have a massive global
climate change problem which must be resolved, and to lay down some principles.
The whole nation appears to be expressing skepticism over the costs to implement massive
climate change legislation. Most, however, agree that something must be done to manage the
global warming trend. In terms of agriculture, while these new EPA regulations will have more of
a direct impact on other industries, agriculture will experience the indirect impact of increased
energy costs, such as increased prices for fuel, fertilizer, electricity, etc. Recent studies estimate
that in the long term, fertilizer costs will go up.
The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 on June 26, and two
Senate committees approved energy-related legislation that included renewable energy
standards. It does not appear that climate change regulations affecting agriculture will simply “go
away,” especially now that the EPA announced its final rule for GHG emission control.
Cap and trade legislation, as passed by the House in June, was designed to reduce carbon
emissions and allow farmers to financially benefit by retaining carbon in the soil. This means that
while climate change rules will increase some expenses for agriculture, a cap and trade program
could provide payments, as well.
While the agricultural sector contends that a cap and trade program will increase financial risk
to agriculture as input costs will increase, other recent studies contend that a properly
constructed cap and trade program could increase net returns for virtually all major crops,
especially when compared to an EPA-regulated program to control carbon emissions as
proposed by the EPA's December 7 rule.
So, while it is likely that EPA regulations will directly impact other industries and farmers may
experience the same higher costs from the regulations, without any related programs which give
agriculture the opportunity to be part of the solution, such as a cap and trade program, agriculture
will lose both ways.
It appears that the time is right for agriculture to become involved in this climate change
revolution in order to have an impact on the outcome.
(Publishers note: As is the practice of Academia and most of the media around the world, not
one word was mentioned here about the deliberate attempt by some of the world's leading
scientists to fabricate data to support the claim of global warming. Despite this revelation, it
appears that many countries are prepared to adopt policies that will cost billions if not trillions of
dollars to stop a process that is in serious question now.)
(And one from the editor: The EPA diktat, of course, is part and parcel of this entire sorry
spectacle, a blatant, extortionary, Chicago-style threat to kneecap everyone unless they pay
“protection” money by signing on to “Cap and Tax” legislation. The sole bright spot is the fact that
it is obviously and transparently a desperation move, panicked flailing in an attempt to ram a bill
through before the entire “global warming” house of cards collapses. It is not yet a foregone
conclusion that the scam will succeed; lawsuits are already stacking up to challenge EPA’s rule,
the public has become broadly skeptical of the whole idea, and next November’s Congressional
election looks frighteningly close for Democrat legislators from moderate and conservative
districts. The rotund soprano has yet to belt out her aria …)
Livestock Weekly
By Jose G. Peña
Extension Economist
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a final rule on Monday, December 7,
stating that greenhouse gases are a threat to the health and welfare of the American people and
could therefore be regulated under the existing Clean Air Act as prescribed under a 2007
Supreme Court ruling.
The EPA's rule includes six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The ruling will allow EPA to move
forward with new regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, factories, etc., and
to regulate global-warming gases even without Congressional legislation.
On the same day, about 15,000 participants from 192 countries attended the first day of the
intensive 12-day, 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The overall purpose of this conference is to establish a new global treaty to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. President Obama is scheduled to address the conference.
The global food supply chain will be one of the central themes of this worldwide conference.
Negotiations will focus on how much developed and developing countries will reduce and/or
slow down carbon emissions and how much economic aid will be provided to developing
countries to upgrade industrial systems.
Decisions will be made that will have a huge impact on everyone, especially agriculture.
Results of negotiations during global change conferences probably have a greater potential to
impact what American farmers and ranchers will do in the future than any other activity. Legally
binding treaties are not expected to be negotiated during this conference, but the pressure is on
the U.S. to help negotiate and participate in a world clean-air treaty. Probably the most to be
expected as an outcome from this conference is an agreement that we have a massive global
climate change problem which must be resolved, and to lay down some principles.
The whole nation appears to be expressing skepticism over the costs to implement massive
climate change legislation. Most, however, agree that something must be done to manage the
global warming trend. In terms of agriculture, while these new EPA regulations will have more of
a direct impact on other industries, agriculture will experience the indirect impact of increased
energy costs, such as increased prices for fuel, fertilizer, electricity, etc. Recent studies estimate
that in the long term, fertilizer costs will go up.
The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 on June 26, and two
Senate committees approved energy-related legislation that included renewable energy
standards. It does not appear that climate change regulations affecting agriculture will simply “go
away,” especially now that the EPA announced its final rule for GHG emission control.
Cap and trade legislation, as passed by the House in June, was designed to reduce carbon
emissions and allow farmers to financially benefit by retaining carbon in the soil. This means that
while climate change rules will increase some expenses for agriculture, a cap and trade program
could provide payments, as well.
While the agricultural sector contends that a cap and trade program will increase financial risk
to agriculture as input costs will increase, other recent studies contend that a properly
constructed cap and trade program could increase net returns for virtually all major crops,
especially when compared to an EPA-regulated program to control carbon emissions as
proposed by the EPA's December 7 rule.
So, while it is likely that EPA regulations will directly impact other industries and farmers may
experience the same higher costs from the regulations, without any related programs which give
agriculture the opportunity to be part of the solution, such as a cap and trade program, agriculture
will lose both ways.
It appears that the time is right for agriculture to become involved in this climate change
revolution in order to have an impact on the outcome.
(Publishers note: As is the practice of Academia and most of the media around the world, not
one word was mentioned here about the deliberate attempt by some of the world's leading
scientists to fabricate data to support the claim of global warming. Despite this revelation, it
appears that many countries are prepared to adopt policies that will cost billions if not trillions of
dollars to stop a process that is in serious question now.)
(And one from the editor: The EPA diktat, of course, is part and parcel of this entire sorry
spectacle, a blatant, extortionary, Chicago-style threat to kneecap everyone unless they pay
“protection” money by signing on to “Cap and Tax” legislation. The sole bright spot is the fact that
it is obviously and transparently a desperation move, panicked flailing in an attempt to ram a bill
through before the entire “global warming” house of cards collapses. It is not yet a foregone
conclusion that the scam will succeed; lawsuits are already stacking up to challenge EPA’s rule,
the public has become broadly skeptical of the whole idea, and next November’s Congressional
election looks frighteningly close for Democrat legislators from moderate and conservative
districts. The rotund soprano has yet to belt out her aria …)