| January 7, 2009 | |
 |
|
USCA Director Leo McDonnell Talks Climate Change at IAC-INCA Meeting |
|
| Contact: Leo McDonnell 406/322-4447 - usca@uscattlemen.org | |
|
|
| Ranchers Will Be Losers With Climate Change Legislation... USCA (January 7, 2010) - U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) Director Emeritus Leo McDonnell was one of the featured speakers during the recent Intertribal Agriculture Council (ICA) and Indian Nations Conservation Alliance Conference held in Las Vegas, Nevada. McDonnell outlined concerns ranchers should have with climate legislation. The following are excerpts from McDonnell’s speech. “While there are groups that have worked hard to exclude industries like agriculture from such legislation, the impact from the Clean Energy Bill, which is more focused on energy regulation, goes much deeper. There are many upstream suppliers to our industry that this legislation will have a significant impact on that will increase agriculture’s cost of production and the value of our calves coming off ranches. “Energy, fuel and fertilizer will all see significant increases in costs in the future under such legislation. While fertilizer cost increases would not come into play until 2025, due to government subsidies to defray such increases, it will in the long term, increase, and fuel and energy will be impacted immediately. “In recent testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture’s Subcommittee, Dr. Glauber, Chief Economist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that as a result of such legislative action, net farm income is estimated to decline by as much as 7.2 percent from baseline levels. In farming, it is projected that corn will be one of the big losers, which will impact livestock production and prices, with estimates stating that livestock production will have a decline. “There are those who believe that with a more comprehensive expansion of the carbon credit market for agriculture, that agriculture would then become the winner of such climate change legislation. There is no doubt that there will be financial winners, but overall, you will see a reduction in agriculture production and this will be happening at a time when one-sixth of the world goes hungry. Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Dr. Hayes of Iowa State University have reported that the development of such carbon markets would see 50 million acres of the U.S. converted from crop production to woodland to capitalize on this new market if carbon prices go to $30 per ton. “Let me put this into perspective for you. This is more than the equivalent than all CRP and greater than the recent conversion of corn land used for feed to biofuel production. There is no way that consumers, the livestock sector or main street rural businesses are going to benefit from these prices. These types of actions also question how one can effectively address food security with a growing population if present legislative actions decrease agricultural production. “It also appears that developing countries will not be held to the same level as developed countries, even though the majority of increases in GHG in recent years have come from those countries. That means that U.S. agriculture product will not be as competitive in the global markets, as well as here at home, as we compete with artificially cheaper imported product. “Much of the push for such regulatory expansion comes from the international communities through the United Nations. It is interesting to see the United Nations pushing for such obligations at the Copenhagen meetings, while their other top priority is addressing global hunger. Bill Gates probably stated it best recently when he said that government actions that increase regulations on agriculture and directly or indirectly raise costs of production are counter-productive to addressing global hunger. This has become the hypocrisy of the United Nations and countries pursuing such extreme measures for climate change regulation. On one hand their goal is to address global hunger, and on the other hand they are pursuing regulatory changes that will not only have a negative impact on agriculture production, but also will increase the cost of food. “You should also be concerned with recent administrative announcements that carbon dioxide is a ‘dangerous pollutant’. This gives the EPA a green light to start developing regulations without direct legislative guidance. Agriculture may now need to take a proactive stance to design such legislation to protect itself from an overzealous agency. “This is not to say we should not be engaged somehow to address negative commercial impacts to our environment. In fact, if you look back to where we were both in air and water contamination forty years ago and where we are today, it is hard for anyone to argue that we have not already made significant advances. The best way to get an industry involved in such changes is not regulation or increased costs, but through incentives. For example, in the carbon credit market why pay someone for what they are already doing. All that’s accomplished is market saturation. However, if we truly want to make progress in addressing global warming concerns related to greenhouse gases, then we should develop incentives that reward and encourage such ingenuity. “Even though the science behind global warming concerns has been openly found questionable and the initial studies, known as ‘hockey models’ are not standing up to broader scientific scrutiny, we can expect climate change to continue sharing center stage. The challenge then becomes for this industry to not only meaningfully address those issues that are problematic, but just as importantly, to create opportunities so the industry can continue to grow and meet both producer needs and consumer obligations while minimizing government regulations on our businesses. This is very doable if we make it part of our industry plan. |
|
|
|