The USDA, EPA and several organizations have all released their own analyses of the impact of various climate change legislation proposals being discussed in Congress. Now a new analysis is being offered by the organization called the 25x’25 Alliance.
The
show more...
25x’25 group worked with the University of Tennessee’s Bio-based Energy Analysis Group on the study. Their conclusions—under a “properly constructed” cap-and-trade program, income from offsets and from market revenues is higher than any potential increase in input costs including energy and fertilizer. It shows that net returns for virtually all major crops are positive, up to 13 billion dollars per year.
The key term there is “properly constructed.” According to the group’s report, an operationally efficient cap-and-trade program is one that is designed to allow offsets for multiple practices, including bioenergy crop production; reduced soil tillage; bioenergy crops; methane capture; efficient fertilizer application; planting perennial grasses or trees on marginal land; and, keeping good farmland in crop production.
The study also warns that if carbon emissions are regulated solely by EPA—as prescribed under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling—net farm income is projected to fall below USDA baseline projections.
“The study provides clear evidence that EPA regulation could subject agriculture to higher input costs,” says Bart Ruth of Rising City, Nebraska, policy chairman for 25x’25. “And there will be no opportunity for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners to be compensated for the greenhouse gas reduction services they provide. Furthermore, the impacts of EPA regulation on beef production are uncertain.”
AUDIO: Bart Ruth (4 min MP3)
25x’25 announced the study results at the National Association of Farm Broadcasting conference in Kansas City. The 25x’25 Alliance advocates for the role of agriculture and forestry in providing energy and climate solutions from the land.
show less...
