Loading...
Dirty Energy & FuelPolicies & Politics

Cap and Trade Climate Bill Is "A Pig in a Poke"

[social_buttons]

According to Missouri Senator Kit Bond (R) the cap and trade Waxman-Markey Bill “is really a pig in a poke.” That’s what he told the committee on Tuesday, anyway. Given the opportunity to speak in front of a committee on the financial impacts that the climate bill would have on farmers, Senator Bond wasted no time calling the bill a hoax.

Senator Bond told committee members on Tuesday that the proposed bill would end up costing farmers up to $30,000 per year with the increase in energy costs. These costs work into every detail of a farmers life, from diesel fuel to power their tractors and combines to natural gas in order to make fertilizer. Farm equipment uses energy for irrigation pumps and drying grain before storage.

According to a Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) representative sample, a 1,900 acre soybean farm in Lafayette County could expect a $11,649 increase in energy costs in 2020, rising to $30,152 in 2050 under the Waxman-Markey bill.

“I can only tell my colleagues here on the committee, many of whom are from the East Coast or West Coast and may not be familiar with farm costs,” Bond said, “that $11,000 rising to $30,000 per farm is a jaw dropping number for farmers.  Forcing farmers to pay $11,000 rising to $30,000 per farm each year for cap and trade would be a bit more than the postage stamp per day we were told earlier – it would be unconscionable.”

Higher energy costs would increase more than just the tractor, too. Seed, fertilizer, chemicals, custom hire and rental, machinery fuel, drying and irrigation energy, machinery repairs and operating interest would all feel the effects of an increase in energy prices.

“So, we see that the “cash cow” climate supporters are trying to sell us is really a “pig in a poke” – an $11,000 rising to $30,000 per farm “cat in the bag” that this FAPRI study just let out.”

So what is the answer if this cap and trade bill isn’t?

“I support reducing carbon emissions with zero-carbon nuclear power, low-carbon biofuels and clean coal technology, low-carbon hybrid and plug-in vehicles, and solar and wind power where it makes economic sense.  But we should not support a cap and trade bill that hurts farmers much more than it helps them.”

To listen to Senator Bonds’ statements, click here.

Photo Credit: ∗FranJa via flickr under Creative Commons License




One comment
  1. Bobby B.

    It hurts everybody. Download the PDF and scan a few sections of HR2454 to see just how far reaching and draconian this bill really is. Those of you who own or rent a house, apartment or mobile home may be intererested in the following excerpts:

    Sec. 201 states as follows:

    1. Pages 214 & 215 under the title “(3) VIOLATIONS.”, which reads, “(3) VIOLATIONS.—It shall be a violation of this section for an owner or builder of a building to knowingly occupy, permit occupancy of, or convey the building if the building is subject to the requirements of—…

    In plain English, if you own a dwelling, you cannot live in it, rent it or sell it for whatever length of time it takes to bring it if up to the new code at your own expense.

    2. Pages 215 to 220 under the title “(e) STATE ENFORCEMENT OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUILDING CODES.—…”

    A rather ominous section that describes the responsibility of each state to enforce this federal law. The terms compliance, enforcement and random inspection (presumably without the need for a warrant) appear frequently.

    3. Pages 220 to 224 under the title “(f) FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.”, which reads in part:

    “(f) FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.—Where a State fails and local governments in that State also fail to enforce the applicable State or national energy efficiency building codes, the Secretary shall enforce such codes, as follows: (1) The Secretary shall establish, by rule, within 2 years after the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, an energy efficiency building code enforcement capability. (2) Such enforcement capability shall be designed to achieve 90 percent compliance with such code in any State within 1 year after the date of the Secretary’s determination that such State is out of compliance with this section. (3) The Secretary may set and collect reasonable inspection fees to cover the costs of inspections required for such enforcement. Revenue from fees collected shall be available to the Secretary to carry out the requirements of this section upon appropriation.
    “(g) ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.—(1) The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section, pursuant to subsection (d)(3), in accordance with the procedures described in section 333(d) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6303). The United States district courts shall also have jurisdiction to restrain any violation of this section or rules adopted there under, in accordance with the procedures described in section 334 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6304). (2) Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation. (3) In the event a building constructed out of compliance with the applicable code has been conveyed by a knowing builder or knowing seller to an unknowing purchaser, the builder or seller shall be the violator.”

    Again in plain English, passage of this bill will establish a federal energy czar with the authority to police every citizen’s property and to punish those who violate any section of this bill. Not only will owners of deficient homes be fined for the deficiency, but they will be fined for “Each day of unlawful occupancy” while they work to correct the deficiencies.

    4. Pages 245 to 250 under the title “SEC. 203. ENERGY EFFICIENT MANUFACTURED HOMES.”

    If you live in a mobile home that was built prior to 1976 and voluntarily foot the bill to have it demolished and landfilled, the government will provide a $7,500 rebate towards the purchase of a new mobile home; but not a traditional house.

    Currently floating around the internet are a video and a streaming audio file of Congressman Steve Scalise’s (R-LA) comments on this bill, which include the following quotation: “We’re setting up a global warming Gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, ‘unlawful occupancy.’ Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill. This is ludicrous.”

    Remember when the liberals used to complain about the government coming into their bedrooms? Now those same statists want the government to be intimately involved in every fiber of your life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *