Home News Livestock Crops Markets Hay, Range & Pasture Home & Family Classifieds Resources This Week's Journal

High Plains Journal for Kindle
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.


U.S. agriculture interests split over energy bill

OMAHA, Nebraska (AP)--Legislation to confront climate change could be an economic boon to American farmers and ranchers. Or it could be an enormous financial burden.

It depends on whom you ask, and not even farmers and ranchers agree on the matter.

Those who are against the bill say it would lead to skyrocketing fuel and fertilizer costs, cutting into farmers' and ranchers' already unpredictable profits. Those who support it contend any losses would be more than made up for through a provision that would allow companies to meet their pollution targets by investing in offset projects, such as farms that capture methane or plant trees.

The legislation would cap emissions from major industrial sources, including power plants, factories, refineries and electricity and natural gas distributors. Emissions from agriculture would be excluded.

A U.S. Department of Agriculture report concluded that if the proposal passed, farmers and others in agriculture could see an initial 1 percent to 7.2 percent loss in income due to increased costs in energy and, therefore, fertilizer--which requires a great deal of energy to be produced. Those losses would be far outweighed by the tens of billions of dollars farmers are expected to rake in for projects to reduce greenhouse gases in years to come, the report said.

But Republican Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska said the report is incomplete and believes the USDA rushed the study to address senators' concerns after the House of Representatives passed its bill in June. The Senate is expected to vote this fall.

"We still have a question about how is this going to impact livestock, corn, soybeans and wheat in our state,'' said Johanns, who was agriculture secretary from 2005-2007 under President George W. Bush.

However, the National Farmers Union backs the legislation, provided the USDA administer the agriculture offset program and that those already practicing carbon-reducing techniques be rewarded for their efforts.

"These guys that are screaming that it's going to drive costs through the roof--all of the credible economic research that's been done really disproves that,'' said National Farmers Union president Roger Johnson.

He also said that energy costs could soar even without the legislation and noted that global warming could wreak havoc on the food supply.

"All of the climate change research says we're going to see more flooding, we're going to see more droughts, we're going to see higher temperatures, we're going to see more pests, we're going to see more diseases,'' he said. "All of these things are going to require significant adaptation cost increases for agriculture.''

Other farm groups share Johanns' view on the legislation, as do a number of farm-state lawmakers in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and South Dakota. Leaders in Southern energy-producing states, such as Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky, also have voiced concern that their coal and natural gas industries will be hurt.

The American Farm Bureau Federation has denounced the legislation as an energy tax in disguise, saying energy costs alone could spike well beyond the 20 percent estimated by the federal government.

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas said the USDA report grossly underestimated the increases in natural gas and fertilizer costs likely to be sparked by the climate legislation.

"This bill puts a chokehold on the local economy,'' Roberts said.

Don't tell that to South Dakota cattle producer and grain farmer Doug Sombke, who has been employing environmentally friendly techniques like no-till planting for more than a decade on his 2,500-acre (1,000-hectare) operation.

"People are so afraid of this energy cost thing; that just amazes me,'' Sombke said. "In the last two years, we've still seen energy costs go up, and not just the 15 or 20 percent like they're predicting. We've seen it go up 200 percent.

"We survived that; we'll survive this small increase.''


Click for related articles New clue found to disappearing honey bees
Vilsack announces availability of value added producer grants
Secretary of Ag awards more than $4.2 million for woody biomass utilization projects
USDA asks public for comments, schedules public meeting on CRP
Platte River symposium set Oct. 14 and 15 at Kearney
Agriland offers hands-on opportunities to learn about ag

Comments on Articles article 2009- 37 - 0902USaginterestssplitovere.cfm
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.


225 Recommend | 0 Comments

Agriculture News from HPJ - Your Ag News Source
Google
 
Web hpj.com
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2011.  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






Canola U registration
Harvest Heroes ad




Inside Futures

Editorial Archives
<