South Dakota Farm Bureau vs EPA

As regular readers of this space are aware, I am not a supporter of the many and varied subsidies which agribusiness is the recipient of. Taking this position often puts me at odds with those (like the South Dakota Farm Bureau) whose livelihood is largely based on subsidies continuing.

It was interesting, therefore, to receive the following press release from the South Dakota Farm Bureau (which I reproduce here in its entirety):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 23, 2010

Contact: Joel Arends at 605-254-2624 or Craig Dewey at 605-261-3842

Huron, SD – The South Dakota Farm Bureau has announced their opposition to efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gases.  If the proposed EPA changes are enacted, job creation could be jeopardized and lead to significant burdens on energy-efficient technology investment, cause an increase in energy markets and natural gas prices, and the ability to move forward on a reasonable climate policy.

“These regulations will make it more expensive to run and start farming operations in South Dakota.  Premature EPA regulation will make it difficult for existing operations to expand and increase productivity.  Congress should stop the EPA from moving ahead with burdensome policy which will hurt job creation instead of help,” stated Mike Held, CEO of the South Dakota Farm Bureau.

Proposed regulations by the EPA would also include new cars and light trucks.  If the EPA issues the rule, it’s also required under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions at as many as 6 million of America’s industrial facilities, power plants, hospitals, small businesses and commercial establishments, known as “stationary sources.”  The EPA and states will have to issue permits to each new regulated stationary source and to existing sources that make major modifications.  The permitting process slows agricultural expansion that can help increase efficiencies in farming operations.

“If implemented, the regulations will affect jobs and deter investment in new energy-efficient technologies.  New jobs will be at stake.”  Held added, “The Clean Air Act was not intended to apply to GHG emissions.  If the Clean Air Act is used to implement these proposed changes the consequences on jobs are far-reaching and the economic impact is significant.”

The EPA could issue news rules before the end of March this year.  Mike Held is available for interviews and can be reached by contacting Joel Arends at 605-254-2624 or Craig Dewey at 605-261-3842.

I agree with the Farm Bureau that what the EPA is doing is bad news. Like them, I am wholeheartedly against it. However, I disagree with what the EPA is doing on the grounds that the agency does not have the authority, leaving out anything to do with the cost. Cost is merely a symptom of the greater issue. The EPA is striving to do via regulation what our President was unable to do with a treaty–bring us (US) under whatever non-agreements came out of Copenhagen with reference to AGW.

It’s called an end-run around the rules. Like the process which has brought us Obamacare, it is a patent perversion of the laws (like the Constitution) which we are supposed to be following. As frosting on the cake, it is also based on poor science.

May the Farm Bureau be successful in its bid to put an end to this misbegotten attempt to further restrict our freedoms and drive our economic futures into the ground.

2 thoughts on “South Dakota Farm Bureau vs EPA

  1. The US Supreme Court has ruled that EPA not only has the authority, but that it must issue rules in this area.

    1. Donald,

      Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

      Even the Supreme Court gets things wrong from time to time. That ruling in 2007 (with reference to Massachusetts), spoke of actual and imminent harm–from rising sea levels– which was being caused by a failure to regulate greenhouse gases.

      Based on all the evidence which has come to light since then which shows how the climate change/global warming data has been manipulated and lied about, one wonders what the court would now think of its own ruling. One thing is certain, the science is far from settled. Therefore, one sees benefit in challenging poor policy with an eye toward changing it.

Comments are closed.