I grew up in Enid, Okla., a community once known as the Wheat Capital of the World, so I appreciate Sen. James Inhofe’s excitement upon learning that the board of the National Wheat Growers Association had shifted its position and now opposes “Cap and Trade” (i.e., the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill).
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)
“I’m pleased that the organization representing the interests of wheat growers nationwide has reached the right conclusion,” said Senator Inhofe, a Republican and the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Cap-and-trade legislation and potential EPA greenhouse gas regulation pose serious harm to farmers and rural America.
“In times of great hardship in rural communities across America, both of these approaches to addressing climate change will only bring further job cuts and economic decline. This new resolution marks an important step in the effort to defeat a cap-and-trade energy tax and EPA’s misguided regulations.”
Senator Inhofe applauded the NGWA board for its near-unanimous (26-2) vote Sept. 4 that approved a new resolution on climate legislation and regulation. That resolution puts the group on record as “opposed to greenhouse gas legislation or regulation that has a negative impact on production agriculture.”
The new resolution marks a stunning shift from the group’s recent endorsement of the Waxman-Markey legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June. As the Oklahoma Farm Report noted today, the Wheat Growers Association firmly stated that, “neither greenhouse gas regulation nor legislation should take effect until the major carbon emitting countries of the world have agreed to regulation their own greenhouse gases in a like manner to ours.” And it will “oppose EPA regulation and will work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.”
The board also voted 24 to 0 to “remove existing resolutions relating to greenhouse gas regulation and an agriculture cap-and-trade program.”
Related:
Crass commercial plugs for The Bob McCarty Shop:
6 responses so far ↓
1 Henry chance // Sep 9, 2009 at 8:22 am
I have worked as a custom wheat harvestor and hauled wheat to the elevators in Enid when in High school. It is about time that farmers realize cap and tax will make the price of fertilizer and fuel escalate. You have it from me that the carbon credits will not exceed a few pennies per dollar if at all for raising crops. Carbon trading will be a trillion dollar scam.
2 hotoffthepress2 // Sep 9, 2009 at 9:39 am
Right on, Henry!
3 Russell C // Sep 9, 2009 at 11:59 am
Kudos to the NAWG Board, but there’s still a hitch with their capitulation that ANY kind of CO2 regulation might still be valid.
I immediately emailed the NAWG and urged them to study S Fred Singer’s and Craig Idso’s “Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the NONgovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)”. This is the 880 page report found at this web site, http://www.nipccreport.org/ that is a thorough rebuttal of the IPCC.
I also urged the NAWG to prominently support the US Chamber of Commerce’s request for the EPA to hold a very public hearing about the fundamental science of global warming (see CofC page here: http://www.chamberpost.com/2009/08/transparency-science-and-the-epa-revisited.html ), so that all of us can resolve the differences between the IPCC followers and the skeptic scientists who say global warming is the result of unalterable natural causes.
Further, I asked the NAWG to consider that skeptic scientists are pointing out how IPCC reports fall short of EPA guidelines requiring highly influential scientific assessments to meet a variety of standards for transparency, data availability and due diligence, while also noting that people behind CO2 regulation actually censor debate of the underlying science of global warming.
There is a much larger problem here beyond effective or ineffective CO2 regulation economic costs.
4 hotoffthepress2 // Sep 9, 2009 at 12:03 pm
There is definitely a big problem. I call it GLOBULL WARMING.
5 Dan Miller // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:45 am
Russell C offers sound-science advice in urging the NAWG leadership to read the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), “Climate Change Reconsidered.” I hope NAWG takes Russell’s warning to heart that any cap on carbon emissions inevitably will restrict economic growth not just in agriculture but throughout the world in all industries.
And for what? Carbon emissions don’t cause global warming (see NIPCC report).
6 hotoffthepress2 // Sep 10, 2009 at 8:48 am
Thanks Dan! I believe it’s all GLOBULL WARMING.
Leave a Comment