Making sense of 'cap and trade': Energy bill impact on consumers uncle

The impact on consumers and the U.S. food supply is another problem critics point to with the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (HR 2454).

According to Garrett Hawkins, Missouri Farm Bureau director of national legislative programs, and others, valuable agriculture land could be switched out of production, negatively impacting the country's food supply.

He said that one study predicts some 18 million acres currently used for agriculture could be planted in trees because of the payout in carbon credits.

"Perhaps most troubling is that the Waxman-Markey bill (HR 2454) will result in more than seven million acres shifting out of production in the first five years, with nearly 50 million acres by 2050," said Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the ranking member of the Senate agriculture

committee, during a hearing Sept. 9.

Missouri Farm Bureau President Charles Kruse said the legislation is "one of the largest transfers of personal earnings into government coffers. The legislation is purported to address our nation's energy problems but instead places a de facto tax on fossil fuels such as coal and oil," he said.

Hawkins points out that 80 percent of Missouri's electricity is generated by coal.

Farm Bureau has identified the top five reasons why "cap and trade" legislation should be defeated, including that it "will have little or no impact on the earth's atmosphere because it does not force other countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions."

Some of the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases -- China, which is the top contributor, and India -- "aren't interested in acting anytime soon" to reduce their emissions, according to Hawkins.

"A ton of GHG emissions emitted in China is the same as a ton of GHG emitted in Virginia," said Bob Stallman, president of American Farm Bureau. "Regulating emissions in Virginia without regulating emissions in China will have little or no effect on the environment."

Other reasons FB opposes the legislation is that "cap and trade" will "jeopardize our competitiveness with our world trading partners, impose higher costs on consumers and all sectors of the U.S. economy and drive up carbon-based energy prices."

To make the issue even more confusing, the Environmental Protection Agency, in response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, recently found that "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere endanger the public health and welfare of current and future generations," and human activities spur global warming.

With that ruling, according to Missouri Corn Growers Board member Terry Hilgedick, the EPA is poised to set regulations under the Clean Air Act, if legislation is not passed.

"So you kind of have competing interests going on right now on who will pass the finish line first," explained Hilgedick.

"My understanding is the Obama administration

would prefer the legislative route to the EPA route," he said.

One of the big differences between EPA regulations and HR 2445 legislation is that trading carbon credits would not be an option in the EPA version.

"There is no choice under the EPA rule. You don't have that option at all," explained Hilgedick. "Ag groups have to discern which is the less painful route."

Hawkins said that Farm Bureau is also concerned "about EPA administratively imposing greenhouse gas regulations ... but that doesn't mean we are willing to accept a severely flawed bill from Congress in its place. Under either scenario, production costs will rise for farmers and ranchers -- the question is how much."

Farm Bureau also believes that Congress should act to prevent EPA from implementing those rules.

"If members of Congress share our concern about EPA imposing greenhouse gas regulations, then the legislative branch should exercise its authority over the EPA. Legislation could be passed to prohibit EPA from taking action or restrictions could be imposed on the Agency's annual appropriation from Congress to limit how the monies are spent," Hawkins said.

Hawkins said that Farm Bureau supports an all-of-the-above approach to provide greater energy security.

"Our country has lacked a comprehensive energy policy for quite some time. In recent years, Congress has taken a piecemeal approach to energy policy and while some positive steps have occurred, particularly on the renewable energy front, the big picture has been overlooked," he said.

"We believe we must recover more of our own energy resources in the U.S. and along our coasts and continue to invest in renewable and alternative energy sources. In addition, nuclear power must be a significant part of the energy equation if our nation is serious about mitigating

Contact Marcia Gorrell at

marshallag@socket.net