1218ChamblisslucasrequestUS.cfm Chambliss, Lucas request USDA, EPA to update climate change analysis
Home News Livestock Crops Markets Hay, Range & Pasture Home & Family Classifieds Resources This Week's Journal

High Plains Journal on Nook
Farm Survey

Reader Comment:
by gabriela

"Good luck Great post y love you!Thanks for the info it had cleared out too"....Read the story...
Join other discussions.


Chambliss, Lucas request USDA, EPA to update climate change analysis

U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, and U.S. Representative Frank Lucas, R-OK, ranking members of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees respectively, Dec. 17 sent a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack regarding his recent remarks on the Department's climate change legislation analysis. Chambliss and Lucas said the statement made by Sec. Vilsack implies a lack of confidence in the modeling used by both USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency. Additionally, they ask that both the USDA and EPA report to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees on the problems with the economic model in order to reflect realistic scenarios while examining the impact of cap and trade on the agriculture and forestry sectors.

Full text of the letter to Secretary Vilsack is below:

The Honorable Tom Vilsack

Secretary

United States Department of Agriculture

14th and Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20250

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

It is with significant interest and concern that we read your comments this week regarding the climate change legislation analysis produced by the Department of Agriculture's Office of the Chief Economist. Statements that imply a lack of confidence in both the modeling used and work product developed by USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency raise doubts regarding the Administration's position on cap and trade legislation and, more importantly, the impacts on the agricultural and forestry sectors.

The Department's testimony delivered earlier this month to the House Agriculture Committee is clear and unequivocal; agriculture will undergo significant structural impacts that will change how food, feed, fiber and fuel are produced in the United States. The disappearance of 59 million acres of cropland, higher food prices and lower exports will undoubtedly shape how farmers and ranchers make a living in the years ahead. While we can disagree on policy, we cannot ignore the facts when they are inconvenient to our preferred narrative.

In light of your critique of USDA's analysis, we respectfully request your office consult with the EPA and report to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees on the problems with the economic model in order to reflect realistic scenarios while examining the impact of cap and trade on the agriculture and forestry sectors. Moving forward with flawed studies will only result in bad policy and legislation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to working with you on this and other important issues to farmers and ranchers in the future.

U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss, R-GA

U.S. Representative Frank Lucas, R-OK


Click for related articles North Texas Ag Conference set for Jan. 12 in Wellington
Experts agree on a universal drought index to combat climate risks
USW reaches out to Saudi Arabian wheat buyers
Colorado producers face tough climate
Looking is as much fun as finding
Climate change to plants: "ready, set....grow!"

Comments on Articles article 2009- 53 - 1218ChamblisslucasrequestUS.cfm
Reader Comments
u gotta be kidding — 01/02/2010 06:01:28
I can't imgaine how the removal of 59 million acres from production along with the destruction of livelihoods for 1000's of farmers can be a benefit to the country. When one factors in the added costs to the producers and consumers, this bill is a disaster in waiting.

Reader Comments
dmac — 12/26/2009 05:12:56
Its fun to watch Chambliss try to appear relevant on this matter. With health care reform, the Dems have proven that they can pass landmark legislation without any help from the Repubs.

The big question for Chambliss, how much campaign money will the large agricultural interests be willing to wast on someone with so little influence. I mean really, pandering to the global warming deniers? Pretty desperate.

Add Your Comment
To post a comment on this story, enter your screen name and email address then click "Add Comment." Your email address will not be displayed.


255 Recommend | 2 Comments

Agriculture News from HPJ - Your Ag News Source
Google
 
Web hpj.com
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012.  High Plains Publishers, Inc.  All rights reserved.  Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at
High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com

Search HPJ








Inside Futures

Editorial Archives

Browse Archives

<