The Republican War on the EPA

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Feb 14, 2011 at 01:35:13 AM PST

New House Ag Chair Speaks Out Against the EPA

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 00:45:03 AM PST

"I want to commend the Farm Bureau for taking a strong stance on one of the most significant issues facing American agriculture:  the hostile regulatory approach of the EPA.  As the new Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I pledge to hold vigorous oversight of the administration on a number of issues that threaten the livelihoods of our farmers and ranchers.

"I welcome the Farm Bureau's continued efforts to rein in the EPA's aggressive attempt to impose new regulations on agricultural production throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which has far reaching consequences for the entire U.S.  We all support the goal of achieving clean water, but EPA is moving forward with accelerated and questionable regulations without considering the consequences for farmers and rural communities or without considering the ongoing conservation measures our producers are using to improve water quality.

The Farm Bureau Hearts Blanche Lincoln

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Sep 09, 2009 at 16:30:06 PM PDT

For more read-it-and-weep news about Lincoln, I recommend this piece on her by Tom Laskawy. He says:

And what about Blanche Lincoln? Well, as Phil Brasher of the Des Moines Register puts it:

Lincoln is as vigorous a proponent for large farms and livestock interests (think Arkansas-based Tyson Foods) as there is in Congress. Pair her with the panel's senior Republican, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and you have a powerful one-two punch for the southern perspective on agricultural policy.

Let's spell out what that could mean. More leniency on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). No bans on non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock. No cleanups for manure lagoons. More rice and cotton subsidies. And, by the way, Lincoln thinks limiting payments to even the largest farms is a rotten idea. Meanwhile, since the Agriculture Committee is likely to play a key role in marking up climate legislation, it's worth considering her views on that front. Here's ag reporter Chris Clayton:

Lincoln also likely is going to be more skeptical of climate legislation because it may offer little benefit for rice growers or producers of other southern crops. She was quoted in mid-August saying Congress should just focus on a renewable-energy bill and drop the cap-and-trade emissions plan.

Not only that, but Lincoln's currently facing a tough re-election race in 2010, giving her incentive to move even further to the right.

If you aren't familiar with the Farm Bureau, please watch the 60 Minutes videos I've embedded below.

Farm Bureau confident climate change bill going nowhere

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jul 03, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM PDT

Mary Kay Thatcher, AFBF director of public policy, tells Agriculture Online that Farm Bureau doesn't anticipate the massive climate change bill passed by the House last week to pass the Senate this year.

And the New York Times reported Tuesday that opposition from Farm Bureau and other agricultural groups threatens to kill the bill in the Senate. The Times reports that groups such as AFBF wield greater clout in the Senate, because members there must be protective of an entire state, rather than a small congressional district.

Here are the links to the Agriculture Online piece and the New York Times article.

You may recall that the Farm Bureau Federation lobbied members of the U.S. House to vote for Collin Peterson's lousy amendments to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act but against the bill intended to address climate change.

I have my own problems with the ACES bill, especially the deals made to appease the coal industry and Peterson's colleagues on the House Agriculture Committee. That said, the objections big agribusiness and their Congressional allies have raised against the cap-and-trade approach are off-base and short-sighted.

It wouldn't surprise me if Farm Bureau's vote-counter is correct and the Senate rejects the Waxman-Markey bill for the wrong reasons. Frankly, that might be better than letting senators like Claire McCaskill make this flawed bill even worse.

Farm Bureau: Yes on Peterson's amendment, no on Waxman-Markey

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:29:41 AM PDT

In a letter sent today to all 435 members of the House, AFBF President Bob Stallman said H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, will "unquestionably impose enormous costs on the American economy, including agriculture."

An AFBF economic analysis shows that at a minimum, net farm income will decline by $5 billion annually by the year 2020, if H.R. 2454 is passed.

"The $5 billion impact is under the most optimistic set of assumptions," Stallman said. "Those estimates do not begin to tell the story of what will happen when the program mandated by this legislation fully takes hold." [...]

Stallman praised Peterson's effort to improve the bill and urged passage of his amendment because it incorporates provisions that are critical to American agriculture.

"The Peterson amendment establishes an agricultural offset program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture; provides for a list of eligible agricultural offsets; corrects the misuse of indirect land use calculations in evaluating the use of biofuels; and alters the definition of biomass," Stallman explained.

I have a lot of trouble supporting the ACES bill myself, because as written it seems more like a pretend solution to a problem than a real effort to combat climate change. That said, Farm Bureau is taking the worst possible position: supporting an amendment that undermines the bill without supporting the overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.