Climate Change

Yesterday I attended a speaker series hosted by NC Policy Watch. This luncheon focused on climate change and federal legislation surrounded cap & trade. There was an interesting perspective on this issue and the recurring theme of all 3 speakers was that action needed to be taken now. While they all agreed that any policy that comes out of Congress won't be perfect, cap and trade is an ideal option and needed to be signed into law immediately.

The NC State Grange has opposed cap & trade because of concerns that it will result in higher costs for the average household, decreased global competitiveness and detrimental impacts on the agricultural industry. All of these concerns tie back to the notion that cap & trade will do little to nothing to affect global climate change. During Q&A time with the speakers, I couldn't help but ask what the actual effect on global climate change a cap & trade policy would have. Simply, the answer I received was that an insignificant change would occur. Exactly the point the Grange has been stating all along. The speaker argued that China has the capability to implement a cap & trade policy and technology which would surpass us in reducing the carbon footprint and we would be "left behind" by China. There wasn't enough time for a follow up question, but if there was I would have asked - what indication has China given us that they are going to reduce their carbon emissions? None that I have seen. He was absolutely right.. China has the ability impose a policy to reduce carbon emissions and has the ability to do it through technology. However, they have not given any type of indication that they have any intention of doing so. The other two speakers followed up with my initial question by saying that cap & trade would only be the first step toward reducing carbon emissions. What an even scarier thought.....

Climate bill delayed until November

The House passed "cap & trade" legislation at the end of June and as it has moved into the Senate, there have been road blocks. As health care reform has preoccupied Senate's time and energy, cap & trade legislation has been delayed. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (CA) stated "We'll do it as soon as we get back"in September from a month long break. Four other committees will also review the climate bill. A White House spokesman says that the White House continues to work with Senate and believes the legislation is right on track. Senators don't feel as though this delay will hurt the chances of the bill passing Senate this year. They hope to "take this as far as we can take it [before Copenhagen]" The COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 will be held in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Check out the entire article from the Washington Post.
The North Carolina State Grange opposes this cap & trade legislation.

Cap & Trade

Clean energy legislation (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) passed the US House of Representatives, but not before the House Agriculture Committee ensured that farmers, ranchers and forestland owners would have the ability to participate in a market-based carbon offset program which would be an income earning activity. Legislation that was passed in the house states that the agriculture and forestry sectors are exempt from the bill's greenhouse emission reduction requirements - in other words, they're not subject to the greenhouse gas emissions "cap". "Within the USDA, an agricultural and forestry offset program would 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. They can then sell the credits to utilities, refiners, or other firms subject to limitations on greenhouse gas emissions."Chairman Peterson states: "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."

How NC delegation voted:
YES: Butterfield, Miller, Watt, Shuler, Price, Etheridge
NO: Jones, Foxx, McIntyre, Coble, McHenry, Kissell, Myrick

The NC State Grange finds comfort in the fact that the House Agriculture Committee worked extremely hard to advocate on behalf of farmers, ranchers and forestland owners. It is important that there are folks doing their best to consider legislation that positively affects farmers, ranchers and forestland owners. However, the State Grange has opposed H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 based on the following tenets.

• The cost of compliance to a "cap and trade" policy will ultimately be passed onto the consumer / A typical family's energy bill would rise
• Poor and middle income earners spend a larger percentage of their paycheck on fuel, groceries and home heating
  
• Rural Americans spend more fuel as a percentage of their income than those living in urban areas because the distance that must be traveled to work and shop
• 2009 Council of Economic Advisers' Report of the President (see p. 27 of the report): US action alone will not reverse global emission growth or stabilize global atmospheric greenhouse concentrations
• China & India = home to most polluted cities in the world and they have not committed to reduce emissions
• American commitment to reduction will place us at a competitive disadvantage