Dan Barker of the Fort Morgan Times reported on Senator Michael Bennet’s visit to Fort Morgan this week. His excellent story provides a revealing look at what rural Coloradoans think about the clean energy bill, among other topics.

By Dan Barker/ Original Post

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet came to Fort Morgan Wednesday to find out how rural Coloradans feel about the clean energy bill and health care. It was his latest stop in a tour of cities and towns to hear people’s concerns on various issues, and most want to talk about the economy and health care, he said during his visit to the Country Steak-Out.

He was invited to attend a gathering of area agricultural producers and officials at the Agriculture and Clean Energy Summit, sponsored by the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union.

Bills dealing with agriculture, and particularly how the industry can control carbon emissions, are working their ways through the U.S. Congress. But they are too complex and need to focus on creating green jobs that bring energy from resources like wind power, solar energy, renewable sources like ethanol, biofuel and even natural gas, Bennet said.

Because Colorado has so many of those resources, a good energy bill would mean unleashing the enormous potential of the state, he said. Not only would that mean more jobs in Colorado, but new energy sources would help to make the U.S. independent of foreign oil and questionable regimes in other nations, Bennet said.

Bennet sits on the Senate agriculture committee, which will oversee the ag portion of the Senate energy bill, he said. The chairman of that committee has made it clear he is not interested in any bill that does not support farmers and ranchers, Bennet said.

Committee members are quite aware that producers do not want agricultural issues controlled directly by the Environmental Protection Agency. Ag carbon issues, for instance, should be handled by the USDA, he said.

“There’s an absolute consensus on that on both Democrat and Republican sides,” Bennet said.

Bennet said he supports a market-based approach, which would allow producers to sequester carbon in the soil and then sell carbon credits to industries that emit things like carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. One bill has cap and trade provisions which allow for that but it is too complicated, and farmers and ranchers need more clarity on the economic consequences of their decisions than the bill provides, he said.

A correctly drawn bill would allow Colorado’s dedicated and creative entrepreneurs to unleash the energy potential from sun, wind and abundant natural gas, Bennet said. “This is an issue that is critically important to the future of agriculture,” said Jon Scholl, president of American Farmland Trust.

It is vital for producers and agricultural organizations to be a part of planning any legislation, said Morgan County’s Bill Midcap, who is RMFU director of renewable energy. If good legislation is not written, Midcap said, the EPA will have regulation of carbon issues in agriculture by default.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA has the authority and ought to regulate climate change-related energy policy, Scholl said.

Some people still debate whether or not human activities are part of the cause of global warming, but Congress is going to act, Bennet said. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe humans do impact climate change, so the debate is over what to do, Scholl said.

“The debate in Washington (D.C.) is not on the science,” he said.

Further, 80 percent of Americans believe carbon emissions affect global warming and there is growing public support to do something about it, Scholl said.

“Something is going to happen,” he said, and that is reality. “Agriculture needs to be engaged and agriculture needs to be supportive.” Otherwise, the EPA is poised to take over, Scholl said.

There is no assurance that the USDA will be given oversight unless ag interests stop fighting the science debate and start becoming part of the solution, he said. In return, legislation could offer producers rewards which are opportunities to make more revenue and to have some control over the regulations, Scholl said.

New Opportunities

Part of the debate in agricultural circles is whether the new clean energy rules will lead to more expensive fertilizer and fuel — and producers felt the impact of that when the price of oil peaked in 2008 and prices skyrocketed — but that kind of price rise will come again unless agriculture takes a proactive stance in fighting climate change, Scholl said.

This is an opportunity to earn money through carbon credit exchanges, said Alice Madden, Colorado’s climate change director. Almost no family ag producers earn their whole living on the farm, and this is one way to bring in more income, Bennet said. Only looking at higher electric bills restricts the analysis to one part of the issue, and energy costs are rising anyway, he said.

A new energy system will create an “entirely new economy,” which will keep jobs in the U.S. and give the nation energy independence. People need to step back and take a longer view of the future, Bennet said.

Legislators are looking at ways to keep the energy bill from boosting the cost of fertilizers or electricity, he added.

Charles Tucker of Pierce said he does not believe in global warming. “I think it’s a joke,” he said after Bennet left. Tucker told Bennet he worried that allowing industries to trade carbon credits would simply make that a kind of speculation and would not really benefit farmers or ranchers. It also takes away free enterprise, Tucker said.

It is true that the government can overregulate or underregulate anything, and the agricultural portion of the energy bill needs to strike a balance with appropriate regulations to make sure carbon credits do not become speculative, Bennet said.

The legislature needs to make sure that the regulations are consistent and do the job, he said. That takes a real will to work together to make the right choices, Bennet said.

“Please forget what party you’re in,” he said. “Please forget what cable channel you watch.” This is a crucial time when legislators are making decisions that will affect all future generations, Bennet said.Producer organizations and other interest groups must overcome the politics of the moment and take a longer view, he said.

Bennet also said he would not support any energy bill unless he could say it would create jobs for Colorado. It should give incentives to those who build renewable energy resources such as those in Colorado, he said. It is essential for the U.S. to build a 21st century economy, Bennet said.
 
Summit

The purpose of Wednesday’s energy summit organized by RFFU was to help agricultural growers to be aware of how a new bill might be implemented, and how they might benefit, Midcap said.One session looked at sorting out the costs and benefits of the new legislation, and the opportunities for ag producers.

Under the U.S. House of Representatives American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009, the legislature is considering a cap on carbon emissions and allowing companies to trade carbon credits, according to one handout at the summit. One study showed there could be significant economic opportunities for farmers and ranchers which will ultimately outweigh the costs, it said.

Energy cost increases would be modest, and agriculture stands to be one of the largest beneficiaries of a new system, it noted.

Producers could profit from soil carbon sequestration, animal waste methane capture, nitrous oxide reductions from less fertilizer use, reduced tillage, winter cover cropping, improved nitrogen fertilizer management and improved manure management, another report said.

The carbon offset market could be valued at $2.7 billion to $3.4 billion or more annually within five years, that report said.

Source: Fort Morgan Times