Climate Change

The House climate change bill would impose higher energy and food costs on consumers, raise fuel, fertilizer and energy costs for farmers and ranchers, and shrink the American agricultural sector, resulting in reduced U.S. food production.

The Economy:  The cost of climate change provisions will hit families hard.  Families will be paying higher energy costs under any cap-and-trade program.  According to the Department of Energy, energy costs could grow by $1,870 per household.  Combined with higher costs for food, the additional yearly hit on families would total about $2,300 per household.  Said another way, the cap and trade law would impose costs of up to $200 billion a year on American taxpayers, according to the Treasury Department.  That's the equivalent of a 15 percent hike in personal income taxes. 

Energy Cost and Supply:  The legislation will create an energy shortage.  Government predictions that nuclear energy will be able to fill the energy gap created by greenhouse gas regulations are not realistic.  These predictions assume there will be no limits on new nuclear power plants, and that they soon will be available to meet future energy needs.  Of the 100 nuclear plants in existence in the United States, the last one was built in the 1980's.  Most nuclear plants are nearing obsolescence.  Currently, there are only two permit applications pending for new plants.  In order to consider nuclear as a viable alternative, studies indicate we would need to build 4-5 nuclear plants per year to make up the deficit.  The bill contains no streamlining of the approval process or incentives to accomplish that goal.  There is no evidence to suggest more new nuclear plants will be built, which will add substantially to the cost of the bill. 

A similar folly in the bill assumes that for coal-generated electricity, carbon capture and storage technology will be commercially available by 2015.  If it were, it would allow for the continued use of coal as a cheap and plentiful source of energy.  But, at present, not even a demonstration project of the technology exists.  Commercial viability six years from now represents wishful thinking. 

Domestic and Global Food Supply:  Reduced production means higher food costs at home, more hunger overseas.  Under the House bill, as much as 17 percent of U.S. agricultural land currently used for food production will be idled and planted in trees.  That is because the vast majority of incentive payments will go to people who choose to grow and maintain trees for greenhouse gas reduction, rather than farmers who work to put food on American's tables.  This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store.  Food costs could rise by up to an average of $33 billion annually in 2020 and up to $51 billion annually by 2030 as a result of this legislation. 

The U.S. will no longer serve as the reliable global safety net against world hunger.  The United Nations says farmers will need to produce 70 percent more food for an additional 2.3 billion people worldwide by 2050.  Our national goal should be focused on enhanced food production, not measures that limit our farms' productive capabilities.  The commodities produced by U.S. farmers and ranchers today feed more than 300 million people in the U.S. and millions more around the world.  With world population expected to rise from 6.8 billion people today to 9.1 billion people in 2050, the U.S. will be reducing the number of people it can feed as our agriculcutral land is pulled out of food production.  American agriculture's ability to export food and fiber to countries that need it the most will diminish. 

International Competitiveness

Climate legislation will put American producers at a competitive disadvantage in international markets.  The increased costs of production incurred by American farmers and ranchers as a result of this legislation will put them at a competitive disadvantage in international markets with competitors in other countries that do not have similar carbon emission restrictions. 

The House climate change bill would actually increase total greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture worldwide.  America's farmers and ranchers are the most efficient producers of food and fiber in the world -- including their efficiency regarding greenhouse gases.  The countries that could compensate for lost U.S. production -- Brazil, Russia, India, China, Argentina -- would release more greenhouse gases per unit of food production than U.S. farmers would.  Due to more food being produced by less-efficient nations, global greenhouse gas production would actually rise.

Based on analysis developed by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the Department of Energy, the Cap and Trade legislation will raise energy costs which will in turn, lower the general level of activity in the nation's economy, a loss of jobs, and will boost overall inflation.