Editorial
Front Page - Friday, October 30, 2009
Read all about it...
I don’t think so
Pettus L. Read
We have all heard the story of the beautiful princess who happened upon the frog one day who instructed her to give him a great big smooch on the mouth and he would turn into a handsome prince. The story ended with her doing just that and he did turn into a good-looking guy, causing them to get married and live happily ever after.
Just the other day I heard somewhat of the same story, but with a different twist. It seems there was this independent and self-assured princess coming upon a frog who gave her somewhat of the same line as you have heard before. You know the one where you give him a kiss and he turns into Prince Charming. But, this frog didn’t know when to stop the courtship and went on to tell her that once he turned into the prince they would get married, move into the castle with his mother, and the princess could prepare all his favorite meals, wash his clothes, have a bunch of kids and she could feel happy forever for doing so.
However, the end of the story changes here somewhat, with the results that might not being everyone living happily ever after. Instead it closes with the princess dining on frog legs, laughing and saying, “I don’t think so.”
This happy ever after stuff happens a lot in fairy tales, but every now and then even the fairy tales allow the farmer’s wife to do damage to the mice that can’t see real well. In real life the second story of the frog and its results is the one we hear about more often than the happily ever after.
Right now, there is a princess and frog fairy tale happening up in Washington called climate change legislation and it is using some of the same lines that the second frog used with the princess. It is promising to save the planet, but at the expense of farmers, consumers and the U.S. economy. The bill, authored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass), seeks to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade program. The legislation would require greenhouse gas emissions to be cut 20 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels — greater than the House bill’s target of 17 percent, which is also not a very good piece of legislation. The 20 percent target is unrealistic and will lead to higher energy bills for all consumers.
For all us consumers, the cost of cap-and-trade programs as part of climate change legislation will be a kiss from a frog that wants it all. Our very own U.S. Energy Department estimates annual energy costs are likely to increase by $1,870 per household. Combined with higher costs for food due to the shrinking of the agricultural sector, families would have to absorb a $2,300 hit each year. And, they need to be asking some lawmakers just where do they absorb that kind of hit.
Looked at another way, if cap-and-trade becomes law, America’s taxpayers will foot the bill for its $200 billion annual cost. That’s the equivalent of a 15 percent hike in personal income taxes for each U.S. taxpayer. If we thought the recent town hall knockdown and drag out events were something during the health care debates, we haven’t seen anything compared to when John Q. Public has a 15 percent personal income tax.
Agriculture in Brazil, Russia, India, China and Argentina produces more greenhouse gases than the U.S. If the Senate approves House-passed cap-and-trade provisions of climate change legislation, global greenhouse gas emissions will increase as more food is produced by these less-efficient nations. If the climate bill becomes law, U.S. agriculture will shrink as land used for food production is instead planted with trees with the intention of reducing greenhouse emissions. So we do all the things requested by this legislation. Does that mean that just by making changes here in the USA the climate changes will be fixed? And, I still question if they are broken. These less-efficient nations are not making a lot of headway in cleaning up their air quality. Instead we put America’s food producers, the farmer, at a competitive disadvantage in international markets with countries that do not have similar carbon emission restrictions.
It is time to be just like the second princess and say, “I don’t think so.” The current senate climate change bill is a frog with a lot of warts and it is time to let Washington know that we don’t want to play spin-the-bottle.
Pettus L. Read is editor of the Tennessee Farm Bureau News and Director of Communications for the Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation. He may be contacted by e-mail at pread@tfbf.com
|
|