Home <http://www.washingtontimes.com/> » News <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news> » *Politics* <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/politics>
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Plan to turn farms into forest worries Obama official
Rate this story
/critic/1/1/79/406501/vote/?r=/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
/critic/1/2/79/406501/vote/?r=/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
/critic/1/3/79/406501/vote/?r=/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
/critic/1/4/79/406501/vote/?r=/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
/critic/1/5/79/406501/vote/?r=/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/
Average 4.25
after 4 votes
Login or register to rate this story <javascript:registration_callback();>
* Font Size -
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature#>+
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature#>
* Print
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief//print/>
* Email
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/mailfriend/79/406501/f15c9f4825/>
* Comment
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature#comments>
* Tweet this!
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature#>
* Yahoo! Buzz
<http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzz?publisherurn=washington_ti859&guid=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2009%2Fdec%2F29%2Fforests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief%2F>
*
Share <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250&pub=washingtontimes>
* Article
* Comments (114)
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/comments/>
* Click-2-Listen
<javascript:OpenC2LWindow('WashingtonTimes','news_2009_dec_29_forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief',m_nwamp3_file,'dfp_zone='+sitepage,'WashingtonTimes','','Production');void(0);>
* Videos
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/videos/>
More Politics Stories
* Former Va. Gov. Gilmore to lead foundation
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/former-va-gov-gilmore-lead-foundation/>
* Key security agencies lack permanent leaders
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/key-security-agencies-lack-permanent-leaders/>
* N.Y. Sen. Gillibrand appears safe in seat
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/gillibrand-appears-safe/>
* Illegals may lose tuition breaks
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/illegals-may-lose-tuition-breaks/>
By Edward Felker <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/ed-felker/>
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.
*TWT RELATED STORIES: *
. Justice transfers Panthers pursuer out of D.C. office
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/justice-transfers-panthers-pursuer-out-of-dc-offic/>
. Al Qaeda takes credit for plot to down plane
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/al-qaeda-takes-credit-for-plot-to-down-plane/>
. Iran arrests 1,000 as protests strengthen
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/iran-arrests-1000-as-protests-strengthen/>
. PRUDEN: Most important civil right of all
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/pruden-most-important-civil-right-of-all/>
"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.
[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
<http://license.icopyright.net/3.7280?icx_id=/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/>
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC
Post a comment
There are *114 comments* on this article, submit your opinion!
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.<<inline: icopy-w.gif>>
