# jhegg could soon be unemployed



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg works for Crystal Sugar. Here is the story.

Proposed climate costs: Lethal to beet industry?
FARGO, N.D. - If cap and trade moves forward as currently framed in legislation moving through Congress, it will kill the sugar beet industry in the Red River Valley and much of the rest of the country, says David Berg, president and chief executive officer of American Crystal Sugar Co. 
By: Mikkel Pates, Agweek

SendPrint
Anderson Seed Co. 
We also have Receiving Stations at Durbin and Selz, North Dakota 
Previousview all offers | sign up for email offers | add your businessBruce McCarl

Bruce McCarl, a professor at Texas A&M University, says it appears legislation to stop or reverse climate change is less likely than adaptation. (Mikkel Pates / Agweek) FARGO, N.D. - If cap and trade moves forward as currently framed in legislation moving through Congress, it will kill the sugar beet industry in the Red River Valley and much of the rest of the country, says David Berg, president and chief executive officer of American Crystal Sugar Co.

Berg has led the co-op's management for about three years. Berg, a keynote speaker at a North Dakota State University-organized conference May 24 in Fargo, isn't sugarcoating what he thinks the effect that either version of climate control legislation would have on his industry.

Berg, in a speech to academics and agribusiness

officials gathered for a climate change conference sponsored by NDSU and others, says that while

American farmers in general are exempt from carbon credit requirements, the beet processing plants that farmers own here are entirely vulnerable.

Some 20 speakers addressed aspects of climate change in a conference titled Alternative Policies on Climate Change and Their Implications on U.S. Agricultural Economy. Several nationally known agricultural economists seem to agree that the assumptions for climate change legislation are unknowns. Berg was the most definite about a likely scenario with current assumptions: If beet producers have pay for carbon credits the industry will become an "historical anachronism" within two or three decades.

"Without the sugar beet factory, the beet has no value at all," Berg says, "and without burning fossil fuel, you're not going to convert beets into sugar."

The House version of the bill, called Waxman-Markey, passed June 26, 2009. The Senate version, called Kerry-Lieberman, is in the process, but it's not known when or if it will pass. The beet industry has significant impact in Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska and Wyoming.

Berg says each of Crystal's five factories has a $500 million replacement value, if built new.

"You might say that the factory is an extension of the farm," says Berg, noting that the entire beet sugar industry in the past several years has converted to a farmer-owned cooperative form of governance. Crystal, he notes, was purchased by farmers from a corporation to form a cooperative in 1974. This hints that the industry will be looking to make itself an exception to a climate change law.

Making strides

Berg talked about the amount of energy required to convert sugar beets into crystalline sugar.

"Everything we do in that factory requires a significant amount of energy," Berg says, listing the pieces of the process - diffusing, juice purifying, evaporating, crystallizing and dryinig.

The beet industry carbon-use efficiency has improved significantly in the past 20 years, but largely as a cost-saving measure - not for environmental reasons. In 1990, Crystal calculates it created 1.55 tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent for every ton of sugar produced. Now, that efficiency is closer to 1-to-1.

"Given the right amount of time and investment, we have made important strides," Berg says.

Still, because Crystal produces a third of the beets in the United States, it produces about a third of the nation's beet sugar carbon. He says that if the beet sugar industry disappears, the U.S. cane industry would be hard-pressed to replace it and Americans still would eat sugar but buy it from foreign producers.

About two-thirds of the world sugar is cane sugar, and because the byproducts of that process are used to fire some of the plants, to "a partial extent, they're off the hook" in climate control legislation.

But the sugar beet industry is "in total is in jeopardy," he says.

Beets include 17 to 18 percent sugar, 7 to 10 percent fiber, and the rest - 72 to 76 percent is water. Beets in this region historically have been stored using frigid December-January temperatures. This has tended to increase use of the fixed costs of factories - up to 285 days in some years, compared with an average of 150 to 180 days for many U.S. competitors. But it also means variable costs go up because the factories are processing frozen beets.

Berg says the co-ops use coal or natural gas to fire plants, but that natural gas often is not feasible. It might be feasible in the Fargo-Moorhead area, where companies move natural gas to heat homes. But it's not available in communities like Drayton, N.D., where natural gas pipelines haven't been placed.

Crystal has experimented with burning its biomass-fired boilers, but he thinks "at best, it'll be a supplement." Wind-powered electrical power isn't consistent enough for the process.

"Like it or not, we're more or less married to fossil fuel," Berg says.

Berg uses various assumptions in predicting the impact of cap and trade on his company. He notes that despite a recent run-up in sugar prices, which he likens to increased grain commodity prices in 2008, sugar prices have been "flat for 30 years."

He also says that Crystal likely would qualify for "free credits" for export- and trade-sensitive businesses, but that those would go away over the long term as the supply of those allowances goes down and disappears in 2006.

Mitigate or adapt?

Bruce McCarl, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University, also was part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. McCarl, a co-recipient of a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, says carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere is just as serious as ever, but that he's skeptical in today's political climate that there will be a choice to do anything to effectively mitigate damage it by limiting emissions. He says the costs are now and the results of those costs are uncertain.

"What this tells me is that we're not going to avoid climate change, we're going to have to adapt to climate change," he says.

He sees increased water needs if warm areas get warmer. He says this may in fact increase the fresh surface water, as the earth gets warmer and there is more evaporation.

Likely impacts are more pests, altered grass, more precipitation in infrequent, severe events. McCarl sees northward crop migration and conditions better for cattle and hogs, as well as inundated facilities, winter access to water transportation, more yield variability.

With the varying climate and weather, the effectiveness and return from agricultural research will be altered, he notes.

"We can't count on the weather being stationary, so we have to increase the research investment," he says.

Dennis Nuxol, senior director of government relations for the American Farmland Trust, says studies that have shown cap and trade as it's currently formed in House and Senate versions would be less costly to farmers than if the Environmental Protection Agency moves forward with regulation.

"Under the EPA regulatory scenario, agriculture doesn't have the opportunity for income," says Nuxoll, a former staffer for Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. There are conflicting studies on how much income farmers would receive and how much cropland would have to be shifted to trees to make it happen.

Ag's uncertainty

Projecting income is a difficult task with carbon prices projected at $15 to $20 per ton, but the Chicago Climate Exchange having hit a high of $7 per ton and now at "about a nickel or less than a dime or quarter on the voluntary exchange."

Nuxoll also says that if Congress tries to use legislation to delay or prevent EPA regulation, it doesn't have an abil-ity to overcome a presidential veto, "which is almost certain to happen."

Doug Goehring, North Dakota agriculture commissioner, at one point in the presentation, asked how cattle could be counted for methane output in greenhouse gas calculations, but also asked about the output of such things as wetlands.

Bill Hohenstein, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Global Change Program, says wetlands are considered "natural and background" and therefore not counted among the "human contribution" to the greenhouse gas.

Won Koo, the NDSU agricultural economist and director of the Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies, announced results of a survey in which North Dakota farmers were asked whether they would participate in markets that trade their ag practices as carbon credits under a cap-and-trade scenario.

He says farmers indicated they generally are reluctant to participate. The survey says farmers are more likely to participate with increases in carbon prices, or if they own land in the Conservation Reserve Program or in rangeland. He says farmers younger than age 45 are likelier to participate, as well as those who generally support climate change mitigation legislation

jhegg

I have a question for you. Who invented the Chicago Climate Exchange?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Now with Obama coming out publicly saying we as a nation need to move quickly towards a "green" solution with oil spill.

How will taxing or getting rid of plants like Crystal sugar help the economy and jobs? How will now making more higher standards for our auto industry help the economy or the barely staying alive Detroit auto factories? How will this impact the economy and jobs?

I will tell you.....if our elected officials keep hamstringing industry you will see more and more jobs pushed over seas, more lay offs, and a tougher economy. We are not out of the recession at all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me. Trees? CRP? store little carbon. Wetlands don't give off much, they store carbon. They give of some methane and nitrous oxide, but store up to 35 tons of carbon per acre. Heavily vegetated wetlands that is. If they want to start playing with carbon, then restore wetlands and pay farmers for restoration, but leave the true crop land alone. Messing with carbon credits in the Red River Valley is sheer lunacy.

Restored wetlands = stored carbon
Restored wetlands = waterfowl habitat
Restored wetlands = flood abatement
Restored wetlands = energy costs held down as compared to technology reduction of carbons

I could go on, but my point is carbon tax is a waste, but if we are going to throw money around we can throw it at restoring wetlands and the money will not be wasted because there are other benefits. Maybe that makes to much sense for the politicians to consider it.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Good thing I'm getting close to retirement!

Jim


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> Good thing I'm getting close to retirement!


 That's a three pointer Jim. :beer:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Good for you. :thumb:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg said,



> Good thing I'm getting close to retirement!


What a well thought out answer Jim. "I got mine screw the rest." What kind of jobs are going to be available to the next generation?

Jim, in your elderly years have you given much thought to how this next generation is going to pay for your social security, medicare, pension, meals on wheels etc?

New wealth can only come from two areas. Agriculture and mining. If the next generation can only find work doing your laundry and giving Dick a hair cut, how much new wealth is generated?

Again, I have a question for you. Who invented the Chicago Climate Exchange?


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

DG,

You sound like a mean spiteful person :eyeroll:

I'll pray for you.


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

jhegg said:


> Good thing I'm getting close to retirement!
> 
> Jim


Glad to hear this won't effect you much Jim. What is the attitude you are seeing from co-workers?


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

DG said:


> jhegg said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Considering the employment impact on the valley this will have.....

I'd say it's a good question from the younger generation. Having spent 11 years working the fall harvest, it's a huge impact. A couple billion dollars are spent in that month, what will replace them in the valley?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Zogman,

I like your Harry S. Truman quote.



> Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything"
> "America was not built on fear. America was built on courage."


farmerj,

I like yours also.



> We reap what we sow. In our case, we have sown our government.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,

After your ramble about Crystal Sugar, you asked me this question:



> jhegg
> 
> I have a question for you. Who invented the Chicago Climate Exchange?


As best as I can find out, here is the answer from http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=821



> Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) operates North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.
> 
> CCX Members are leaders in greenhouse gas (GHG) management and represent all sectors of the global economy, as well as public sector innovators. Reductions achieved through CCX are the only reductions made in North America through a legally binding compliance regime, providing independent, third party verification by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA, formerly NASD). The founder and chairman of CCX is economist and financial innovator Dr. Richard L. Sandor, who was named a Hero of the Planet by Time Magazine in 2002 for founding CCX, and in 2007 as the "father of carbon trading."


I assume you have access to Google and could look it up yourself, but you didn't. I do not know what nefarious reasons you had for posing that question to me. Perhaps you could explain that. In addition, I have a few questions for you to answer:

*What is your point with this post?

Is there something wrong with me approaching retirement age?

Am I supposed to be responsible for the well being of all my co-workers?

What bone do you have to pick with Crystal Sugar?*

Jim


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Jim,

Hope you hold nothing against me. Mine was a much more rhetorical question.

If this does impact Crystal, how will it hit the valley. Considering the impact it will have. From research and development, manufacturing, retail, services etc.....

There isn't many that won't be touched by this one.

In a way, it's likely to be a good eye opener if an entire regions economy are impacted by this.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

farmerj,

I hold nothing against you. If Crystal goes down, it will be a huge impact on the valley. Management is doing the best it can to talk some sense into those who want this legislation passed. I don't know how it will turn out.

Jim


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg,

The Chicago Climate Exchange was created by the Joyce Foundation based in Chicago. This web is old but I like it because Barack Obama is listed as the eleventh guy on the board.

Joyce Foundation

Background
The foundation was established in 1948 by Beatrice Joyce Kean, a Chicago heiress whose family wealth stemmed from lumber, building, and sawmill interests.

Finances

for tax year ending 12/31/2002

Total Assets $653,771,733.00 
Grants Awarded $0.00

Officers and Other Supporters

Name Position 
John T. Anderson Chairman 
Robert G. Bottoms Director 
Carin A. Clauss Director 
Charles U. Daly Director 
Paula DiPerna President 
Richard K. Donahue Vice Chairman 
Anthony S. Earl Director 
Roger R. Fross Director 
Carlton L. Guthrie Director 
Marion T. Hall Director 
Barack Obama Director 
Paula Wolff Director

Selected Grants

Environmental Working Group 
Grant $1,620,000.00 in 2000 
Source IRS Form 990 or 990-PF 
Details For Work on [the] 2002 Farm Bill

Center for Science in the Public Interest 
Grant $140,000.00 in 2000 
Source Foundation Annual Report 
Details To further the case for restricting the use of antibiotics in agriculture.

Union of Concerned Scientists 
Grant $110,000.00 in 1998 
Source The Foundation Center 
Details To explore public health and environmental concerns related to use of antibiotics in large-scale beef, hog and chicken farms

Top Grants Made

Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame 
Environmental Defense $8,124,000.00 1993 - 2005 
Environmental Working Group $6,645,000.00 1991 - 2005 
Natural Resources Defense Council $4,699,445.00 1989 - 2005 
Union of Concerned Scientists $3,339,167.00 1993 - 2005 
Sierra Club $3,007,675.00 1993 - 2002 
American Farmland Trust $2,867,896.00 1994 - 2005 
Tides Foundation & Tides Center $2,772,260.00 1988 - 2003 
World Wildlife Fund $2,205,694.00 1993 - 2002 
Center for Rural Affairs $1,850,649.00 1993 - 2005 
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities $1,826,000.00 1996 - 2002 
Land Stewardship Project $1,627,564.00 1993 - 2002 
World Resources Institute $1,618,750.00 1993 - 2002 
Consumer Federation of America $1,307,053.00 1999 - 2002 
Environmental Support Center $1,153,152.00 1993 - 2002 
Izaak Walton League of America $1,040,000.00 1997 - 2004 
Sustain $1,000,000.00 1997 - 2005 
National Wildlife Federation $948,145.00 1993 - 2005 
Physicians for Social Responsibility $918,750.00 1995 - 2002 
Economic Policy Institute $900,000.00 1995 - 2002 
Center for a Sustainable Economy $750,000.00 1999 - 2002 
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy $748,000.00 1996 - 2004 
Rocky Mountain Institute $512,785.00 1993 - 1999 
Friends of the Earth $480,000.00 1995 - 1999 
Redefining Progress $400,000.00 1996 - 1997 
Winrock Int'l Institute for Agricultural Developmt $371,250.00 1997 - 1998 
Consumers Union of the United States $320,000.00 1997 - 1999 
National Audubon Society $285,000.00 1994 - 1995 
Public Citizen $255,000.00 1994 - 2000 
Wisconsin Rural Development Center $217,899.00 1995 - 1998 
Greenpeace $200,000.00 1993 - 1997 
Public Health Institute $188,048.00 1996 - 1999 
Common Cause $145,000.00 2001 - 2002 
Center for Science in the Public Interest $140,000.00 2000 - 2000 
Institute for Environment and Agriculture $100,000.00 1996 - 1996 
League of Conservation Voters $100,000.00 2002 - 2002 
Earth Day Network $75,000.00 1999 - 1999 
Join Together $56,946.00 1996 - 1996 
Environmental Grantmakers Association $55,302.00 1996 - 2002 
Farmers' Legal Action Group $45,000.00 1992 - 1992 
U.S. Public Interest Research Group $30,000.00 1998 - 1998

jhegg

The foundation is supposed to be giving money out to do philanthropy works. These are tax dollars that were destined for the US general treasury but are in a tax haven. Happens all the time. However, look who the Joyce Foundation is funding. Do these dollars come with no strings attached? Hardly. These 501(c)3 nonprofits get their marching orders. The National Wildlife Federation is listed with all these greenies.

Is it global warming or climate change?

http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warming.aspx

The national wildlife federation then gives its marching orders to its affiliates.

http://www.ndwf.org/globalwarming.asp

The north dakota wildlife federation is promoting global warming and the Joyce Foundations carbon credit and cap and tax schemes. Follow the money.

jhegg

I do not know if you are a member of the north dakota wildlife federation but they are a supporting member and instigator of the high fence initiative of which you are a sponser. They want to take my livelyhood and now it would seem they want to take yours at Crystal Sugar also.

Isn't it funny how these things come full circle.

I wonder if old lady Beatrice Joyce Kean personally knew Roger Baldwin? He started the ACLU back in 1920. He said, "I am for socialism, disarmament and ultimately the abolishment of the state itself.... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolishment of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth."


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,

I figured that, in your mind, there had to be some sort of connection with the high fence initiative. Have a nice day!

Jim


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

jhegg said:


> in your mind


Good call Jim !!!


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

MossyMo,

Glenburn ND isn't a real big place. Do you know Lynn Stevens? How about the Savelkouls?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The Joyce Foundation also gave money to:


> Farmers' Legal Action Group


I wouldn't hold this against farmers. Many times groups go looking for donations anywhere they think they can get them. To keep this all in perspective: I dislike the Joyce Foundation because they fund many more than worthless groups.


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

Dwight,
Yes, I do know them. I believe they both live in the west suburbs of Glenburn.....


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman wrote,



> I wouldn't hold this against farmers. Many times groups go looking for donations anywhere they think they can get them. To keep this all in perspective: I dislike the Joyce Foundation because they fund many more than worthless groups.


Sometimes groups such as Farmers Legal Action consist mostly of antis but will have one like minded farmer to give it an appearance of farm related. They trot him out in front of the people whenever they need to dupe the public.

Yes the Joyce Foundation gives money to worthless groups. The National Rifle Association reported a couple of years ago that the Joyce Foundation gave 18 million dollars to anti-second Amendment groups.

Mossymo wrote,



> Dwight,
> Yes, I do know them. I believe they both live in the west suburbs of Glenburn.....


Cute


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Some of this stuff is getting out of hand. First... We are not gonna stop global climate change, it's part of the natural process of the earth. This is a proven fact. We may be able to slow, not the change itself, but the minute acceleration of that change caused by mankind but even that would take centuries and will not stop or slow down the change itself. We need to adapt as life has before us and life will continue to do afterwards. It's just common sense.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

we will kill each other off this planet before the planet kills us


----------



## takethekids (Oct 13, 2008)

TK33 said:


> we will kill each other off this planet before the planet kills us


TK33,

Despite your political orientation (or at least what I assume is your orientation based on many of your posts) I appreciate you and your sensible approach and responses. I am all for saving the environment....at least the parts of it that are in jeopardy. I too believe that we humans will eliminate ourselves before mother nature has the chance.


----------

