NFU president says
Congress must address climate change
8.28.09 By Robert
Pore
robert.pore@theindependent.com
Johnson was in
At both of those meetings, Johnson addressed the two hot button issues on the
minds of a lot of Americans this summer -- health care reform and climate
change legislation, which are both going to be addressed by Congress when
lawmakers return from their summer recess.
"These are events that maybe once a decade you can expect one of them to
be considered, but you have both of them cued up in Congress right now at a
time when we are digging out of one of the deepest economic crises since the
Great Depression," he said.
According to Johnson, both health care reform and climate change legislation
are vital pieces of legislation for the country.
In health care, Johnson said, NFU has supported a single-payer system for a
long time.
He said health care reform is especially a vital issue for agriculture
"because we experience (difficulties) at more extreme rates than the rest
of society."
"We have less access on a per capita basis in rural areas than in urban
areas," Johnson said. "Farmers are older than average, meaning they
pay higher premiums. As a rule, they buy individual policies instead of group
policies and pay higher premiums. The real kicker, though, is that most of us
end up buying these individual policies with after-tax income. That makes it 25
percent or 30 percent more expensive than everybody else."
And, according to Johnson, the skyrocketing cost of health care and the
enormous individual debt it creates for families both with and without health
insurance have become "the number one cause of bankruptcy in
Because of the emotional content of
the climate change debate, Johnson said, there has been a lot of "fear
mongering."
"Right now the fear mongering is winning, but I firmly believe in the end
that the science is going to win," he said. "You can be naysayers and
not believe the science, but eventually that is going to overtake that. You can
be out there saying that this is the worst piece of legislation ever and prefer
the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) come out and regulate this under the
U.S. Supreme Court ruling."
An earlier decision had the U.S. Supreme Court mandating that it's the EPA's
responsibility to address climate change under the nation's clean air law.
"When farmers come to understand that, a lot of that tide will switch
back," Johnson said.
He said NFU supports cap-and-trade legislation and would prefer Congress
approve climate change legislation rather than allowing the EPA to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions.
He said that in the coming weeks, the EPA is poised to determine greenhouse
gases to be a threat to public health and thereby potentially trigger its
regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act. The Obama administration has been
steadfast in calling upon Congress to address greenhouse gas emissions, rather
than leaving it to the EPA.
Johnson points to an economic analysis conducted by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) that demonstrates a significant economic benefit for farmers
and ranchers via climate change legislation's offset opportunities. Annual net
returns to farmers range from approximately $1 billion per year in 2015-2020 to
nearly $15 billion to $20 billion in 2040-2050. These economic opportunities
would not exist under a purely regulatory scheme.
"You have a lot of people who are worried," Johnson said.
"Change is not easily embraced, especially when it's coming with all of
these negative connotations."
According to Hansen of Nebraska Farmers Union, "It's easy to scare folks
about cap and trade, but when they sober up and say, 'Let me get this straight,
it's going to be EPA or cap and trade.' Then it's a very different answer than
if it's just cap and trade or do nothing."
Hansen said having the EPA begin a regulatory process to address climate change
would be a "worst-case scenario."
Copyright © 2009 - The Independent