This
year, when the House began to write climate change legislation, it was clear to
me that if I didn’t get involved in this process, the needs of agriculture,
forestry and rural communities would not be addressed.
Ultimately,
greenhouse gas emissions are probably going to be regulated, whether
Congress acts or not. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority under the Clean Air Act
to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if they are found to endanger
public health or welfare. The Supreme Court required EPA to determine if they
are a public health hazard or not, and earlier this year, the EPA put out a
proposed finding that says greenhouse gas emissions are a danger to public
health and welfare.
With
or without Congressional action, EPA will be free to regulate greenhouse gases,
resulting in one of the largest and most bureaucratic nightmares that the
That’s
why I decided to get involved and work with my colleagues in Congress to be sure
that agriculture and rural
First, we
insisted that agriculture and forestry be specifically exempt from any cap on
emissions. Agricultural production is an extremely energy intensive
industry that is estimated to produce seven percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Regulating
emissions from farms, ranches and forestland across the country would be
cumbersome, incredibly expensive, and would yield very limited benefits.
So we made sure that the exemption was clear – there will be no taxes on cows
or any segment of agriculture or forestry.
Second,
the climate change bill will allow agricultural producers to participate in a
voluntary, USDA-run, market-based carbon offset program that allows them to earn
money for practices that they implement to sequester carbon or avoid greenhouse
gas emissions. It was important that USDA and not EPA be in charge of
establishing and operating this offset program so that it would be easy for
farmers, ranchers and forestland owners to participate.
Third,
the amendment allows USDA to determine what the best practices are for carbon
sequestration. Under the original bill, only new activities could be counted as
beneficial. We made sure that farmers and ranchers who currently participate in
USDA conservation programs, or who have already undertaken carbon sequestration
activities will receive offset credits for their efforts. We also made sure that
those who have already participated in voluntary offset registries for carbon
sequestration, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange and their partners, are also
compensated.
Fourth,
for rural areas that rely on rural electric co-ops and small municipal
utilities, we corrected a problem with the original bill, which did not provide
enough credits to these electric providers. We understood the need to
ensure that Midwestern providers would have additional credits as they begin to
implement additional energy efficiency measures.
Finally,
the amended bill will prevent EPA from imposing unfair requirements on the
biofuels industry that holds biofuels producers responsible for international
changes in land use, such as deforestation in other countries. It is
unreasonable to say that ethanol production in this country is causing trees to
be cut down in
At
the end of the day, I know the climate change bill the House passed isn’t
perfect. But it’s much better than it would have been if I hadn’t made
it more farm-friendly, and it’s certainly better than if Congress had not
acted and just let EPA bureaucrats regulate everything under the sun. Let
me be clear, however, that these amendments I negotiated must be in place as
this legislative process unfolds, or I will not support a final bill.
-30-