[quote=Washington Times]Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has ordered his staff to revise a computerized forecasting model that showed that climate legislation supported by President Obama would make planting trees more lucrative than producing food.
The latest Agriculture Department economic-impact study of the climate bill, which passed the House this summer, found that the legislation would profit farmers in the long term. But those profits would come mostly from higher crop prices as a result of the legislation's incentives to plant more forests and thus reduce the amount of land devoted to food-producing agriculture.
According to the economic model used by the department and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation would give landowners incentives to convert up to 59 million acres of farmland into forests over the next 40 years. The reason: Trees clean the air of heat-trapping gases better than farming does.
Mr. Vilsack, in a little-noticed statement issued with the report earlier this month, said the department's forecasts "have caused considerable concern" among farmers and ranchers.
"If landowners plant trees to the extent the model suggests, this would be disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country," he said.
He said the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM), created by researchers at Texas A&M University, does not take into account other provisions in the House-passed bill, which would boost farmers' income while they continue to produce food. Those omissions, he said, cause the model to overestimate the potential for increased forest planting.
Mr. Vilsack said he has directed his chief economist to work with the EPA to "undertake a review of the assumptions in the FASOM model, to update the model and to develop options on how best to avoid unintended consequences for agriculture that might result from climate change legislation."
The legislation would give free emissions credits, known as offsets, to farmers and landowners who plant forests and adopt low-carbon farm and ranching practices. Farmers and ranchers could sell the credits to help major emitters of greenhouse gases comply with the legislation. That revenue would help the farmers deal with an expected rise in fuel and fertilizer costs.
But the economic forecast predicts that nearly 80 percent of the offsets would be earned through the planting of trees, mostly in the Midwest, the South and the Plains states.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and some farm-state Republican lawmakers have complained that the offsets program would push landowners to plant trees and terminate their leases with farmers.
The model projects that reduced farm production will cause food prices to rise by 4.5 percent by 2050 compared with a scenario in which no legislation is passed, the department found.
A department spokesman declined to comment about how quickly the review would take place or whether Mr. Vilsack would revise the department's economic-impact projections.
The Senate has not taken action on climate legislation, although the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a bill similar to the House's last month. That measure did not include agriculture provisions.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Democrat and chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, has said she will hold hearings on climate provisions but has not indicated when those will take place.
The ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and his counterpart on the House Agriculture Committee, ranking Republican Rep. Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma, wrote to Mr. Vilsack and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson earlier this month to ask for new economic analyses of the House and Senate bills.
"EPA's analysis was often cited during debate in the House of Representatives and the study had a great impact on the final vote. If there was a flaw in the analysis, then it would be prudent to correct the model and perform a more current and complete analysis on both [bills]," they wrote.
In a statement, the EPA said: "EPA looks forward to working with USDA and the designer of this particular computer model to continue improving the analytical tools that all of [us] use to predict the ways that different climate policies would affect agriculture."
Allison Specht, an economist at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said other studies have largely confirmed the results of the EPA and Agriculture Department analysis.
"That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.[/quote]
GREAT idea! Let's throw away food-producing land, during a recession, while the US already pays considerably more for food than the rest of the world, to plant trees that will 'offset carbon emissions'! Global warming, though an unproved, shaky-at-best theory is worth starving for, right? :downs:
[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature]SAUCE[/url]
Theres more than enough land already for them to farm on, it's the lack on organization that's the problem. Not using the land well enough. It's a good thing.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;19312818]Theres more than enough land already for them to farm on, it's the lack on organization that's the problem. Not using the land well enough. It's a good thing.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes! A fellow thinker in this sea of bandwagoning stupid people. (No sarcasm intended)
You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;19312818]Theres more than enough land already for them to farm on, it's the lack on organization that's the problem. Not using the land well enough. It's a good thing.[/QUOTE]
How will taking land away help anything?
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19312910]How will taking land away help anything?[/QUOTE]
How does not using the land that they're going to take away help anything? Might as well put it to actual use.
Come out to the country sometime and take a look at all the wasted land that's perfectly suitable for farming, yet isn't due to lack of infrastructure.
no, Global Warming is real, its just stupid to think we are the cause of it, you have to be retarded to think we can fix it.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;19312931]How does not using the land that they're going to take away help anything? Might as well put it to actual use.[/QUOTE]
This plan actually makes it more profitable to plant trees than crops, though. The population sure as hell isn't going down.
l0l global warmign isn t REAL when will the realise1?!?!
... And yet Obama has done nothing to stop the destruction of the Rainforest, which is infinitely more important and useful then this.
I mean, Rainforests are far more efficient in absorbing carbon dioxide then a temperate forest.
[QUOTE=Splode a Pinga;19312967]This plan actually makes it more profitable to plant trees than crops, though. The population sure as hell isn't going down.[/QUOTE]
Then let's use the profits from planting those trees to create the infrastructure needed to provide the supposed lack of food.
We need to convert hippies to useful people. Then we won't have stupid stories like this.
I know from talking to family and reading that it's difficult for farmers to receive the supplies they need to work efficiently and to be able to even break even with their cash crops. Think of all the untapped potential out there in rural America, thousands upon thousands of farmers and land owner's who are unable to utilize their land to it's potential and provide for themselves and the rest of their country.
My great-grandmother for instance, a 86 year old women in Nebraska who receives help from our family has been unable to utilize her farm for many years. Not because of her age, but because of lack of the ability to purchase new equipment. Many of those farmers are sharing machinery with their neighbors.
it;p: Increase the abilities of the farmers with funding for new equipment and infrastructure, increase farm yield. Maybe use some sort of a plant those free trees on your land, get money for your farm program?
*facepalm*
Farming is the basis of our economic development, without farming all the other areas collapse and have to depend on foreign imports.
Does anyone else think this is a very bad idea?
I still have no idea what a carbon emission credit really is, or why it's good to collect them, or why the fuck you could sell them.
Planting some trees isn't going to make up for every single negative emission and downed rainforest on the planet.
Jesus christ, how stupid are people, anyways?
How stupid are people thinking that trees wont do anything durp ^
They will help, not a lot but it's better then nothing. Besides there is so much farmland. You can afford to loose a snack or 2 because of slightly less crops being grown.
[QUOTE=fear me;19315341]Planting some trees isn't going to make up for every single negative emission and downed rainforest on the planet.
Jesus christ, how stupid are people, anyways?[/QUOTE]
So unless we can match all of the negative things we do to the environment 1:1 with good things, we shouldn't do anything at all?
Nice logic.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;19312997]... And yet Obama has done nothing to stop the destruction of the Rainforest, which is infinitely more important and useful then this.
I mean, Rainforests are far more efficient in absorbing carbon dioxide then a temperate forest.[/QUOTE]
Even better, fixing the ocean or atleast stopping people from dumping shit into it. Seeing as how some 70% of our oxygen comes from the ocean.
Sorry, I've been in a shit mood lately.
I'll just lurk for a while...
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;19312997]... And yet Obama has done nothing to stop the destruction of the Rainforest, which is infinitely more important and useful then this.
I mean, Rainforests are far more efficient in absorbing carbon dioxide then a temperate forest.[/QUOTE]
Didn't realize there were lots of rainforests in the US. I mean, you're putting the responsibility on Obama so you must be referring to American rainforests, right?
:rolleyes:
they can just subsidize farmers more to even out costs or whatever; it's not even much of an issue regardless because food in the US is cheap as shit anyway. oh no, your goddamn dr pepper will cost .25 cents more, abloo bloo bloo etc
this is good idea as far as I understand it (which is just taking a cursory glance at the article in the op) but I'm sure obama will find a way to fuck it up somehow
[editline]03:54AM[/editline]
also climate change is real morons, if you don't think it is shut the fuck up and come back after you've read about ocean acidification and desertification
I'll be good with this as long as they don't punish farmers for not converting.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19315900][editline]03:54AM[/editline]
also climate change is real morons, if you don't think it is shut the fuck up and come back after you've read about ocean acidification and desertification[/QUOTE]
Its just the man-made part is losing ground every day and is turning into a fucking laughing stock.
Why the fuck aren't we investing in vertical farms?
[url]http://www.verticalfarm.com/[/url]
It seems like such a fucking great idea that it's impossible for congress to notice! Look at these beautiful advantages!
[b]1. Year-round crop production.
2. Eliminates agricultural runoff.
3. Significantly reduces use of fossil fuels (farm machines and transport of crops).
4. Makes use of abandoned or unused properties.
5. No weather-related crop failures.
6. Offers the possibility of sustainability for urban centers.
7. Converts black and gray water to drinking water by collecting the water of transevaporation.
8. Adds energy back to the grid via methane generation using inedible parts of crop plants.
9. Creates new urban employment opportunities.
10. Reduces the risk of infection from agents transmitted at the agricultural interface.
11. Returns farmland to nature, helping to restore ecosystem functions and services. [/b]
[img]http://www.verticalfarm.com/Images/design/chris/chris_jacobs_dark.jpg[/img]
We already pay farmers not to grow all the food they can to keep prices up.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;19315813]Didn't realize there were lots of rainforests in the US. I mean, you're putting the responsibility on Obama so you must be referring to American rainforests, right?
:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the fact that Obama hasn't done any talks or anything else related to preserving the rainforests of South America and Asia.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;19318899]I was referring to the fact that Obama hasn't done any talks or anything else related to preserving the rainforests of South America and Asia.[/QUOTE]
Those rainforests are more or less South America and Asia's problems right now. We have enough things going on in America, and don't need to worry about some other country's trees.
[QUOTE=faze;19313194]We need to convert hippies to useful people. Then we won't have stupid stories like this.[/QUOTE]
Eating anything crop-related is for hippies. Real men eat only raw beef steaks.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19317034]
[b]1. Year-round crop production.
2. Eliminates agricultural runoff.
3. Significantly reduces use of fossil fuels (farm machines and transport of crops).
4. Makes use of abandoned or unused properties.
5. No weather-related crop failures.
6. Offers the possibility of sustainability for urban centers.
7. Converts black and gray water to drinking water by collecting the water of transevaporation.
8. Adds energy back to the grid via methane generation using inedible parts of crop plants.
9. Creates new urban employment opportunities.
10. Reduces the risk of infection from agents transmitted at the agricultural interface.
11. Returns farmland to nature, helping to restore ecosystem functions and services. [/b]
[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, that's a beautiful list. Especially the fact that we won't have anymore runoff.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
