Straight From the Horse's Mouth

Duane A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator, Webster County December 12, 2009 Edition Every time that I sit down to write this column it seems that the hot topic of the week involves an attack on agriculture and the attacks on animal agriculture really do seem to catch my attention. There is something I could write on that subject every week and this week is no exception with some HSUS activities that are of interest to me. Animal rightists are only one element that we have to worry about in today’s world. Another element is the same extremism that can come from environmentalists. It goes beyond saving some beetle, prairie dog, small minnow or spotted owls. They are very instrumental in many things that effect air, water, and soil - all of which are of course the basics of agriculture. Their lobby is big, strong and affective and has, like their animal rights colleagues, deep pockets. They have really been working at pushing the agenda (many of which seem to start in California) of environment. We know about this with the Clean Air and Water Acts and the earlier worry we had with the so-call “Cow Gas Tax”, which we were told would never happen. Not so fast….this week I just could not overlook the decision that ironically was released on December 7. That date is familiar. Wasn’t that “the day that lives in infamy” with the attack on Pearl Harbor? I hope that isn’t an omen. That decision was made by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and it could in my opinion, have far reaching affects on the agriculture industry. Could we be facing another sneak attack on our nation? The EPA said this past Monday that “Global warming pollution endangered the health and welfare of Americans and must be reduced.” That sounds like just a sentence, but believe me it packs quite a punch. That punch amazingly comes the week before a big international conclave on Global Warming in Copenhagen. Pure happenstance, I wonder! Many environmentalists consider it a move that is timed to signal that the U.S. is serious about joining an international bid to reduce the risks of damaging climate change. Monday's finding means that the EPA will proceed with preparations to regulate producers of greenhouse gas emissions. Those rules could take effect if Congress doesn't pass legislation on GHG. That sounds very close to blackmail to me. Gosh, another happenstance, right at the time of discussion on Cap and Trade. I don’t know about the rest of you, but all of these happenstances bother me. This is especially troubling when you find out that it is declared by the EPA Administrator, who is appointed by the President of the United States, and is supposedly acting by Executive Order from the President. I guess there are several ways you can skin a cat! This finding sets the stage for greenhouse regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and would give the EPA unprecedented control over every sector of the U.S. economy and especially over all segments of agriculture. To be up front, the endangerment finding does not itself regulate GHGs; but unless Congress acts, it sets in motion EPA regulation of GHGs from stationary sources and the setting of new source performance standards for GHGs. The extent to which EPA can change statutory permitting requirements is unclear. Only time will tell how federal courts will address regulation of all sources that emit GHGs in excess of the statutory thresholds or act on the lawsuits that are bound to follow. EPA indicated that it also would be developing an approach to regulate GHGs from hundreds of thousands of small operations, including farms and buildings. According to the National Cattlemen Association, “While agricultural sources are currently generally not required to obtain permits for greenhouse gas emissions, regulation of GHGs under the CAA may for the first time trigger such regulation. Given the fact that America currently has over 2,000,000 farms, it would be virtually impossible to permit a majority of them. It would also impose massive regulatory compliance costs on producers, which could force many operations out of business.” We do not know the total effect of the “Cap and Trade”, but from what I see it, would push the cost of electrical and fuel energy up dramatically. I find it curious as well that with this past week’s finding of hundreds of emails circulating between so-called climate scientists that indicate that there were definite bias in the rendering of “Scientific Data”. I think that it is really premature to issue this kind of finding, especially given that recent controversy surrounding the scientific validity of alleged human contributions to climate change. Regulation of greenhouse gases should be based on science, and it should be thoughtfully considered and voted on by Congress through a democratic process, not dictated by the EPA. This in my eyes is like having the fox in charge of the henhouse! It furthermore should never be politicized. When Congress and EPA were challenged on the “Cow Gas Tax” they said “Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to be used for greenhouse gas regulation.” Now I would say that in their defense the Act has done a good job of cleaning up pollutants, but in all honesty I doubt that it is adequately equipped to address global climate change. My belief parallels the National Cattlemen’s assertion that “Any attempts to use it for this purpose would be devastating to U.S. agriculture and our American economy.” The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home