Welcome To Our Best Deals For Xmas Gifts Outlet Online Store Orders Over $150 , Enjoy Free Shipping,save $20 shipping cost!

designer purses

Published: Wednesday 28 August, 2013

designer purses designer purses ´╗┐agriculture interests s designer purses plit over climate bill



Dont Miss:Readers Choice 2013June happeningsmySpy: Texas ComiconDream Home: Beauty exudes old world charm90s Pop StarsComics GamesOMAHA, Neb. Climate change legislation before Congress could be an economic godsend to farmers and ranchers. Or it could be an enormous financial burden.



It depends on whom you ask, and not even farmers and ranchers agree on the matter.



Those who are against the bill say it would lead to skyrocketing fuel and fertilizer costs, cutting into farmers and ranchers already unpredictable profits. Department of Agriculture report concluded that if the proposal passed, farmers and others in agriculture could see an initial 1 percent to 7.2 percent loss in income due to increased costs in energy and, therefore, fertilizer which requires a great deal of energy to be produced. Those losses would be far outweighed by the tens of billions of dollars farmers are expected to rake in for projects to reduce greenhouse gases in years to come, the report said.



But Sen. , RNeb., said the report is incomplete and believes the



We still have a question about how is this going to impact livestock, corn, soybeans and wheat in our state, said Johanns, who was agriculture secretary from 20052007 under President . This makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why would the leadership of the House . put a bill out when they hadnt had analysis on the ag sector? That not only impacts farmers and ranchers, it impacts consumers.



The National Farmers Union backs the legislation, provided the USDA administer the agriculture offset program and that those already practicing carbonreducin designer purses g techniques be rewarded for their efforts.



These guys that are screaming that its going to drive costs through the roof . all of the credible economic research thats been done really disproves that, said National Farmers Union president , North Dakotas former agriculture commissioner.



He also said that energy costs could soar even without the legislation and noted that global warming could wreak havoc on the food supply.



All of the climate change research says were going to see more flooding, were going to see more droughts, were going to see higher temperatures, were going to see more pests, were going to see more diseases, he said. All of these things are going to require significant adaptation cost increases for agriculture.



Other farm groups share Johanns view on the legislation, as do a number of farmstate lawmakers in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and South Dakota. Leaders in Southern energyproducing states, such as Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky, also worry their coal and natural gas industries will be hurt.



The has denounced the legislation as an energy tax in disguise, saying energy costs alone could spike well beyond the 20 percent estimated by the federal government.



Sen. , RKan., said the USDA report grossly underestimated the increases in natural gas and fertilizer costs likely to be sparked by the climate legislation.



This bill puts a chokehold on the local economy, Roberts said. Bottom line .



People are so afraid of this energy cost thing; that just amazes me, Sombke said. In the last two years, weve still seen energy costs go up, and not just the 15 or 20 percent like theyre predicting. Weve seen it go up 200 percent.



We survived that; well survive this small increase.



On the other side of the debate is , who owns a 15,000acre ranch with her husband near Halsey in the Nebraska Sandhills.



I just think the major concern in agriculture today is how we can keep our cost of production affordable to stay in business and still be competitive with other markets, she said. designer purses

Back