GRAPEVINE, Texas – American farm groups want to be seen in a favourable light under pending climate change legislation.
There is a growing sense south of the border that legislation will be enacted in short order, possibly as soon as this year.
“It’s one of the high priorities for (U.S. president Barack Obama’s) administration early on, is to get some kind of cap-and-trade climate change legislation in place,” said Rick Tolman, chief executive officer of the National Association of Corn Growers.
Obama’s 2010 budget proposal included a 10-year, $150 billion investment in clean energy funded by the sale of greenhouse gas emissions credits, a strong sign that cap-and-trade legislation is on the horizon.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
Daren Coppock, chief executive officer of the National Association of Wheat Growers, thought the legislation would have been put on the back burner until the U.S. economy was on the mend. But that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Chairs of two influential Senate and House committees have indicated they want to move forward with the bill.
“Some kind of cap-and-trade package is extremely likely to happen,” said Coppock.
“What we’re trying to do is position farmers so that we can be part of the solution instead of just having costly regulations piled on that will increase fertilizer and fuel prices.”
NAWG and a dozen other agricultural groups support climate change legislation that allows unlimited agricultural greenhouse gas offsets and adheres to key principles.
Among other things, they believe agriculture should not be regulated, that the United States Department of Agriculture should develop and administer agricultural offset programs and that producers who have already taken steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should not be overlooked.
Tolman said it is imperative that the agriculture sector monitors the development of the legislation.
“There are a lot of people that believe agriculture is either a villain or a solution in cap-and-trade and climate change,” he said.
There are a number of potential “thorny issues” that could arise, such as the indirect land use factor, which can turn a positive life cycle analysis for corn ethanol into a negative one.
But for the most part, agriculture groups view the legislation as more of an opportunity than a threat. They feel they have more to gain through carbon offsets than they stand to lose through the potential for rising fuel and fertilizer costs.
An analysis by the Pew Center for Global Climate Change indicates agriculture could provide up to 40 percent of the U.S. reductions needed to return 2010 greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.
“We’ve got a good story to tell on the environment and I think we’re set up very well to gain from that climate change legislation,” said John Hoffman, chair of the American Soybean Association.
Farmers are using precision technology to place fertilizer exactly where it is needed, have adopted GM crops that reduce the application of chemicals and are continually increasing no-till acres, which reduces soil erosion and run-off that occurs.
A study released in January 2009 From Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture states that between 1987 and 2007 corn farmers significantly reduced the environmental impact of producing a bushel of corn.
The study says land use is down 37 percent, soil loss dropped 69 percent, energy use fell 37 percent and greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by 30 percent.
