Carbon Trading means more woods

January 2, 2010 7:49 AM

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. Planting trees puts the land in a lower tax rate in many states. And as the fossil fuels that drive the economy becomes harder to get to market unless the Matt Simmons Ammonia Fuel idea becomes widespread a common fertilizer may just not be an option.

Now one could claim this is not all bad, as trees and the water cycling they do tend to keep desertification at bay. And one can find theories about human management of forests for human benefit was done by the Indian populations of the America's. Trees have deep root systems like Alfalfa and can bring sub-soil minerals to the surface in the form of leaf litter.

But I'm guessing permaculture forests are not what will be planted.


Permaculture: A Designers' Manual
Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability

Biochar in US policy

posted by rough ashlar (28 comments total)

Trees can also be used directly to shade houses and streets and their leaves transpire water.
posted by Brian B. at 8:00 AM on January 2, 2010

I'm slightly vexed that neither this post nor the Tom Vilsack article mentions the word "fruit". Maybe the Washington Times fired the writer or editor before he could get around to that.

Rough Ashlar, maybe you can fill in the post a bit? I'm not going to buy some damn books on permaculture unless there is _zero_ non-book writeup on the subject.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:07 AM on January 2, 2010

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.

And yet, what is the percentage change in farm production as a direct result of climate change?
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 8:13 AM on January 2, 2010

Terra preta may underlie significant portions of the Amazon rain forest.

And one can find theories about human management of forests for human benefit was done by the Indian populations of the America's.

Charles Mann's book 1491 discusses this theory in detail.
posted by b1tr0t at 8:16 AM on January 2, 2010 [2 favorites]

I will never in a million years understand why the media cannot present important stories in an informative way. This is a mess:

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.

We have 3 layers of information here, presented backwards. How about:

The climate legislation supported by President Obama would make planting trees more lucrative than producing food, according to a computerized forecasting model. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has ordered his staff to revise that model.

Despite what they may have told you in journamalism school, periods help understand, they don't impede it.
posted by DU at 8:28 AM on January 2, 2010 [16 favorites]

Can someone explain to me how advantaging more trees over more farming is going to hurt the country's economy in the long run?

It may suck for the farmers, but isn't the entire population better off in the end?

(please explain, I am genuinely curious)
posted by knz at 8:31 AM on January 2, 2010

HFC stocks may become depleted!
posted by Artw at 8:33 AM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hmm. I thought that planting trees turned out not to be that good at reducing CO₂ in the air (Unless they are in the tropics, or something like that) Eventually the trees die, decompose, and re-release their CO₂. So they are no substitute for reducing emissions over the long term. Over the short term, though, I guess they might soak some up.

But ultimately the problem is you can't just "have forests" you have to increase the amount of land covered by them. Obviously you can't do that forever.

--
I'm not exactly sure why this forecast is a problem. Presumably farmers would be the ones making money planting trees.

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.

Ah, I see. We'd just be giving free money to rich people under this scenario.
posted by delmoi at 8:35 AM on January 2, 2010

Oh noes! Something might change! And Obama supports it, so it must be bad!
posted by kcds at 8:36 AM on January 2, 2010 [2 favorites]

I will never in a million years understand why the media cannot present important stories in an informative way. This is a mess:

Because the story is about Vilsack's reaction to the climate legislation, not about the climate legislation itself.
posted by delmoi at 8:36 AM on January 2, 2010

Thanks DU for the clarification.
posted by intermod at 8:41 AM on January 2, 2010

It may suck for the farmers, but isn't the entire population better off in the end?

Maybe better off, maybe hungry and rioting. It all depends on whether the labyrinth of subsidies and penalties ends up being a reflection of real externalities or just of misaimed good intentions and inaccurate forecasts. I'm pessimistic, but it is reassuring to hear someone mention the idea of "unintended consequences" before they occur this time.
posted by roystgnr at 8:45 AM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

knz-

This will could increase the cost of food, since it is produced by corporations whose goal is to make money first. Give them an excuse to flip some portions of their land to make more money off it (by planting trees), and also reducing their own food, to increase margin and profit, and they will take it. We can see that this already happened with biofuels, because instead of planting new farmland fuel corn, they just replanted existing corn fields, since they could make more money that way (no new equipment purchase, no new staff changes, just swap out the seeds in the planter, and make three times as much per harvest).

Of course, in situations where the land is owned by a separate party, they could just go and plant trees on it, and make more money than have to deal with and negotiate with agribusiness to let them plant food on it. So now the growers feel constrained, because they have less land to grow on, and the land that they will have to use will cost more, since why should a landowner, whose incentive is to make the most money off their land, rent it / lease it to a grower for less than what they can make planting trees on it.

In all, it upsets the status quo on how farming is done in the majority of the US. Now if we had a more local and sustainable agricultural model, it might not be too much of an issue, but getting to that point would require an even bigger upheaval of the status quo.
posted by mrzarquon at 8:51 AM on January 2, 2010

This will could increase the cost of food, since it is produced by corporations whose goal is to make money first.

I that really true? I understood so far that farmers were subsidized to produce and then destroy excess crops, wouldn't the situation then allow the excess crops to be sold for the same price?
posted by knz at 9:07 AM on January 2, 2010

A computerized forecasting model? You don't say! Scientists are doing the darnedest things with computers these days.
posted by pracowity at 9:09 AM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

This article is in the idiom of the manufactured controversy over stolen climate researchers' e-mails two months ago: You find a phrase or two in a letter or a press release, take it out of context, and hype it as a coverup conspiracy.

Vilsack leads the Department of Agriculture, within which resides the National Forest Service. It's his job to be in the middle of formulating policy across these domains, and to be addressing constituents' concerns. The article contends that a "computerized forecasting model" indicates an incentive for a massive shift in land use ("up to" 59 million acres, or slightly larger than the state of Minnesota) from nontree crops to tree planting. It says that USDA forecasts "'have caused considerable concern' among farmers and ranchers" (as misrepresented by whom, Mr. Felker?). And then it implies that Vilsack is ordering a nefarious suppression of data so that Obama's secret trees-before-farmers plan can be accomplished.

All of which is horseshit, as should be transparently clear to anyone with even the vaguest notion of how huge, complicated policies like this get formulated and the slightest propensity to resist falling victim to sadassed paranoia propaganda.

How appropriate, then, that this appears to be the exclusive scoop of our old friend the Washington Times. Stay classy, guys!
posted by gum at 9:53 AM on January 2, 2010 [5 favorites]

Despite what they may have told you in journamalism school, periods help understand, they don't impede it.

Do they teach basic science in journamalism school these days? It seems like economic factors have driven the little buggers to learning basic grammar and to "teaching the controversy" instead of "critical thinking skills". (Exhibit A) It may sell papers, but it retards progress and improvement of the human condition.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:01 AM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

hype it as a coverup conspiracy.

I figured one could try to run with 'remember how the Bush II admistration changed the science to match policy' and try to equate the actions. Its not something I'd want to try and defend as true...but I'm sure somewhere on the Internet such an argument is being made.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:56 AM on January 2, 2010

Is the US short of food?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:57 AM on January 2, 2010

But ultimately the problem is you can't just "have forests" you have to increase the amount of land covered by them. Obviously you can't do that forever.

Precisely. I'd be concerned about where trees were being planted. Trees in general are only suitable in certain ecosystems - it's not a matter of 'trees = good'. Sure, it's fine if someone's cleared a field in New Hampshire and wants to put trees back on the land. But, most prairie grassland ecosystems have very limited tree coverage for a reason (lack of moisture, extreme temperatures etc) and this is where a significant proportion of farming in the US takes place.
posted by jimmythefish at 11:19 AM on January 2, 2010 [1 favorite]

One of the biggest benefits of a program like this would be reduced fertilizer load and erosion as row crop acreage declined. Lowered fertilizer usage decreases nutrient load in downstream waterways and means lower demand for fossil fuels used to make the fertilizers, and perennial ground cover soaks up more water year-round and helps control erosion.

At least in Iowa and other prairie states, though, I'd like to see more emphasis on perennial grasses/forbs and prairie restoration. Native prairie is generally a pretty good carbon sink, and perennial grasses can be grazed and harvested at least annually.

Like jimmythefish says, the Best Thing varies with soil and climate conditions and not just from region to region but from site to site and acre to acre. That article isn't telling us everything, and I don't trust the Farm Bureau at all, but to be effective I think this carbon sequestration farm policy is going to have to be a lot more nuanced and locale-specific than FASOM suggests.
posted by thirteenkiller at 11:47 AM on January 2, 2010

sebastienbailard, if you were to type "permaculture" into Wikipedia, and maybe scroll down to the "learning resources" section, I think this qualifies as non-book writeup.
(Mentioned because this appears to be an unusually comprehensive article.)

On the other hand, buying the books might support some authors we'd like to keep in business for a while.
posted by sneebler at 12:11 PM on January 2, 2010

Like trees, grass pulls carbon out of the air. The roots grow and die each season - multiple times if properly cut/grazed - thus locking up carbon in the soil, in the form of dead roots. Unlike trees, the carbon remains stable over time.
posted by stbalbach at 12:28 PM on January 2, 2010

Man, who pays for the gloabal warming conspiracy, and why? I mean, if George Sorros and Al Gore are paying for it, what do they get in return? Do they really hate economic development so much that they want to make something up to destroy the economy? Last I checked, neither of them work for the government ATM, so how would they benefit from higher taxes.

And where's my check, dammit? I've been fighting the good fight on Youtube comments, and I want compensation!
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:53 PM on January 2, 2010

if George Sorros and Al Gore are paying for it, what do they get in return?

Perhaps they have carbon trading operations like goldman sachs?
posted by rough ashlar at 1:29 PM on January 2, 2010

I've been told that for every pound of tree above ground, there is a pound of tree below ground. Having removed a stump with an axe before, I'm going to tend to believe that the carbon thus fixed is pretty stable.

Also, here's a radical idea. Every so often cut down a tree and use it to make things that we currently make out of metal or plastic! I can even imagine a thriving subculture where people will pay good money just to help keep this sequestered carbon out of the atmosphere.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 3:41 PM on January 2, 2010

I'm not going to read anything in the Washington Times, except perhaps for irony or humor. Is this "article" funny?
posted by neuron at 6:04 PM on January 2, 2010

Having removed a stump with an axe before, I'm going to tend to believe that the carbon thus fixed is pretty stable.

Not as fixed as char.
posted by rough ashlar at 4:24 PM on January 4, 2010