Climate Bill Will Bring Higher Food Costs, Increased Job Loss


A report released Tuesday by the National Association of Manufacturers points to job loss and slow economic growth in the United States if the Waxman-Markey climate change bill becomes law.

The report was prepared by the Science Applications International Corp. and commissioned by NAM and the American Council for Capital Formation. It found that projected annual adjusted gross domestic product would be reduced by 1.8 percent—equal to $419 billion—by 2030 under a low-cost scenario or by 2.4 percent—equal to $571 billion—under a high-cost scenario.

Like Farm Bureau, NAM is opposed to the bill and opposes a cap-and-trade system for cutting greenhouse gases. Both Farm Bureau and NAM back greater development of nuclear energy, carbon capture and sequestration, and use of domestic oil and natural gas resources.

Top food companies warn that the Waxman-Markey climate change bill could lead to higher food prices, according to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal.

Two months ago the companies formed a coalition which is becoming more active after concluding that member companies did not receive enough concessions in the House climate legislation.

In a letter sent last month to Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the coalition said the House bill “will increase food and feed prices and reduce the international competitiveness of our businesses.” The letter said Congress “must take extreme care to avoid adverse impacts on food security, prices, safety, and accessibility to necessary consumer products.”

Advertisements

One response to this post.

  1. Posted by Tyler Bradt on August 14, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    First things first: GDP isn’t everything. What about quality of life? and a reduction of 1.8% over 20 years? What even is that? Peanuts if it even is true. The way money is being thrown around and shoved into the welcoming wheelbarrows of corporate CEOs in the U.S., 4.19 billion dollars over 20 years would probably cover the cost of said CEOs’ hair cuts. I’m not a huge supporter of the Cap-and-trade bill that is currently floating around, but I think some of your arguments are ridiculous. And the proposed solutions??? Nuclear? That will always cost more than any other option. the mining process is dangerous and highly toxic. The amount of water used could replenish the Sahara. Carbon capture and Sequestration is a myth. There are a million problems and one benefit. (http://iaminformed.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/carbon-capture-the-questions-issues/) and explain to me how using domestic oil and gas could possibly be a solution for cutting greenhouse gases? You may want to remove that bit from your post as it actually is a boon to your argument. And don’t get me started on Inhofe (http://iaminformed.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/senator-inhofe-oil-and-gas-dont-pollute/)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: