Sparking partisan reactions, the House of Representatives passed the
American Climate and Energy Security Act, H.R. 2454, by a largely party
line vote of 219-212 the evening of June 26..
House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said in a statement after the vote that the bill's agriculture provisions will allow farmers, ranchers and forestland owners to participate in a market-based carbon offset program.
Peterson said farmers will be able to earn income for activities to address global climate change by selling credits to utilities and others that need carbon offsets.
Under the legislation passed by the House - the Senate has yet to take up the issue - Peterson also said the agriculture and forestry sectors are exempt from the bill's greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements.
That means, he said, farmers won't be subject to the greenhouse gas emissions cap.
"The offset program run by USDA creates a new market opportunity for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners who can play an important role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States," Peterson said in a statement.
The bill also will eliminate regulatory requirements that limit U.S. renewable energy production, Peterson said, by not holding U.S. producers for land use changes in other countries.
On the other side of the aisle, Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., called the bill an $800 billion energy tax cloaked as an energy bill.
"The bill is nothing more than a national energy tax that will hit American's pocketbooks every time they flip on a light switch, drive a car, buy food at the grocery store, charge their cell phone or use a computer," he said in a statement during the debate. Radanovich said that farm income could drop by $50 billion by 2035 and gas prices rise by nearly 60% as a result of the new regulation the bill will bring.
"If we were truly interested in achieving dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions without destroying our economy, we should preserve a robust economy and allow the free market to continue to produce commercially viable energy efficiencies and clean energy technology," he said in the debate.
The Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Chamber of Commerce also expressed opposition to the legislation passed by the House, stating in a press release that it is an unrealistic approach that could further harm the economy and shed American jobs.