Climate change regulation: Scarier than climate change?

 Resize text         Printer-friendly version of this article Printer-friendly version of this article

Only minutes after President Obama announced his new climate change regulatory plan, I was swamped with calls from the media asking for comment. Not knowing much about it then, I said that farmers and ranchers would examine the legislation for clues about the future and continue seeking ways to reduce carbon pollution.

We now know the plan, implemented almost entirely by executive order, might also be called, “choke the life of whatever feeble economic recovery we’ve managed so far.” I’m ready to say I don’t like much about it at all.

There’s a lot of code in there for unleashing enthusiastic federal regulators on job creators and workers.

The net result follows like night after day. There will be less job creation and fewer workers. Reporters often ask me leading questions that suggest farmers would benefit from draconian climate change regulation. It’s frankly hard to see how with a regulatory scheme that penalizes farmers for starting a tractor. Chemical and genetic breakthroughs have dramatically reduced trips across the fields and application of fossil fuel based inputs. Still, no one knows yet how to grow a crop without driving a few times over the land. Farmers might well support reducing carbon pollution – if the methods are incentive and market-based.

What about the drought, you say? Well, a quick look back through history will demonstrate that drought is not a 20th and 21st Century phenomenon. The current one is troublesome, but others in less carbon emitting times were even worse. All this comes up at a time when the U.S. has reduced its carbon emissions to early 1990s levels. Other countries are spooling up new coal fired generators. Oil from the Keystone Pipeline will be burned in Asia if not here.

This administration plans to punish U.S. energy and food producers even more. I’m not seeing how unilateral surrender of our own economic fortune does any good whatsoever in the climate change grand scheme of things.

I’m not a “denier,” but I am a “skeptic” on the whole global warming thing. From where I sit, climate change regulation is much more terrifying than climate change itself.

Comments (3) Leave a comment 

e-Mail (required)


characters left

Bob Tancig    
Brooker, FL  |  July, 09, 2013 at 04:41 PM

A better response to the consequences of 100+ years of pumping CO2 into our atmosphere would be a market based approach such as that advocated by Citizens Climate Lobby - a revenue neutral carbon tax where 100% of the funds are returned to US consumers equally. Look for more details on how you can help cows save the planet by going to

wyo  |  July, 09, 2013 at 07:41 PM

Yes......the climate will change. It is the extreme of arrogance to assume humans can do anything about it. Resist the "climate change" narrative as it is nothing more than a power play.

TN  |  July, 11, 2013 at 09:58 PM

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Please stop referring to carbon as pollution. It is a small and essential part of our resilient atmosphere. Does anyone want to admit that it is what plants require and then turn back into Oxygen. Maybe we have oxygen pollution too. Has anyone monitored the oxygen levels. Facts are ignored in this debate like everything in Washington. Remember that the ice age and little ice age were both extreme climate changes that took place with no help from us evil humans. This is just another Obama / Progressive power grab to take more control of the world economy. Unfortunately many ignorant humans are being suckered by these money sucking pollut-titions.

Farmall® 100A Series

From field to feedlot, you need a tractor that can multi-task as well as you do. Case IH Farmall™ 100A ... Read More

View all Products in this segment

View All Buyers Guides

Feedback Form
Leads to Insight