Reuters news reported yesterday that, “The lion’s share of revenue earned by U.S. farmers for controlling greenhouse gases under a House-passed climate bill would be paid for growing trees, analysts told an Agriculture subcommittee on Thursday.
“‘The primary source of agricultural offsets would be carbon sequestration through afforestation of crop and pastureland,’ said Joe Glauber, Agriculture Department chief economist.
“Some 85 percent of revenue from agricultural offsets from 2015-2050 would arise from creation of woodlands, said Glauber. The Congressional Budget Office estimated forestry would account for 90 percent of agricultural offsets in 2030.�
The Reuters article added that, “[Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia)] said a projection of 59 million acres of new woodland by 2050 was ‘stunning’ and would mean higher feed costs for livestock and dairy farmers because of less pasture and cropland. USDA said the land conversions could start at 8 million acres, mostly pastureland, in 2015 with a carbon price of $13 per tonne and expand as carbon prices rise.
“‘I’m being told this baseline is not right or realistic,’ said Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, who asked if additional studies were available. ‘We’d be more comfortable if we had another baseline,’ he said.�
( Note: To listen to the entire discussion between Chairman Peterson and Dr. Glauber from yesterday’s hearing, just click on this FarmPolicy.com audio link (MP3-6:37)).
DTN Ag Policy Editor Chris Clayton reported yesterday (link requires subscription) that, “Most of the carbon offset benefits under a House climate bill would be focused on forests, potentially leading to millions of acres shifting from cropland to afforested land, a USDA analysis shows.
“Under the bill, almost all of the carbon benefits would be through tree planting, and most of the income from offsets would go to forestry. According to USDA, the amount of offsets from agriculture would be 59 million tons of carbon by 2015, rising to 422 million tons by 2050. At the highest level, that would generate almost $30 billion a year in offset revenues.�
Mr. Clayton noted that, “USDA Chief Economist Joe Glauber said in testimony that providing offsets through afforestation has ‘clear land-use implications,’ depending on the price of carbon over time.
“‘If afforestation is the primary source of carbon offsets, cropland and pastureland would be converted to forests which would raise farm prices and increase farm income, but also result in higher food prices for both domestic and foreign consumers.’�
Meanwhile, in executive branch perspective on climate legislation, Roll Call writer Keith Koffler reported yesterday that, “President Barack Obama on Thursday used a jobs summit at the White House to make a pitch for cap-and-trade energy legislation, suggesting a trove of green jobs exists but the environmental industry needs a higher, set ‘price’ on carbon to help it succeed.
“‘Coal is going to be cheaper for the foreseeable future until we have a price for carbon,’ Obama said. ‘We’re not going to be able to maximize the benefits of clean energy investments until we get settled on cap-and-trade and the price of carbon.’
“The president, who spoke toward the end of the White House session that sought to amass job creation ideas from academics, business leaders, government officials and others, acknowledged that the cap-and-trade bill cannot now pass the Senate. ‘If you all have 60 votes in the Senate, let me know,’ he said.�
With respect to climate developments in the Senate, Reuters news reported yesterday that, “Negotiators in the U.S. Senate are nowhere close to writing details of a compromise climate change bill requiring reductions in greenhouse gas pollution, Senator Joseph Lieberman said on Thursday.
“Lieberman, an independent, has joined forces in recent weeks with Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican, to try to come up with legislation that could win enough support to secure passage in the deeply divided Senate.�
The article added that, “Lieberman noted that at least two key Senate committees, Finance and Agriculture, have not yet worked on their portions of a climate change bill. Until then, a compromise bill will not be drafted, he said. The healthcare debate consuming Capitol Hill is contributing to the delays, he added.�
Meanwhile, Lisa Lerer reported yesterday at Politico.com that, “A group of nine centrist Democratssent a letter to the Obama administration Thursday laying out their goals for international climate talks in Copenhagen.
“The letter — signed by moderate rural- and Rust Belt-state Democrats — details 10 principles that the administration should include in any international agreement or domestic legislation.�
The article indicated that, “The lawmakers stress the need for the administration to get binding, verifiable emissions reduction commitments from emerging economies like China and India. They argue that the U.S. should not commit to binding cuts unless other major economies agree to ‘ambitious, quantifiable, measureable, reportable and verifiable’ reduction.�
With respect to India, Jim Yardley reported in today’s New York Times that, “With international talks on climate change starting next week in Copenhagen, India staked out its early position on Thursday by announcing that it would slow the growth of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, while also leaving open the possibility of taking bolder steps if an ‘equitable’ deal can be reached during the negotiations.
“The Indian initiative, presented in Parliament by the country’s top environmental official, means that India has now joined the United States, China, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa in making a domestic emissions pledge before the Copenhagen talks. Like China, its approach is focused on improving energy efficiency rather than accepting mandatory limits on emissions.�
Reuters news reported yesterday’s on India’s climate announcement and noted that, “‘This means that all of the world’s biggest emitters have reacted to the deadline in Copenhagen. It is very good news that India has brought numbers to the table,’ said Connie Hedegaard, Denmark’s Environment Minister who will preside at the talks.
“India’s goal will let emissions rise, albeit at a slower rate than gross domestic product growth (GDP).
“‘Under this intensity target…the absolute level of Indian carbon emissions might still rise by around 90-95 percent between 2005 and 2020, according to our GDP growth model estimates,’ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP said in a statement.
“Still, it called the target ‘very encouraging.’�
And the AP reported yesterday that, “The [Indian] plan is less aggressive than those announced by the U.S. and China in the last two weeks, and one critic called it nothing more than a reiteration of the status quo.
“But the pledges gave momentum to negotiations on emission limits, which had been snagged for months while three of the largest emitting countries waited for each other to make the first move.�
Beyond climate proposals to reduce greenhouse gasses sits the important issue of how to pay for any new initiatives.
Charles Forelle, writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, reported that, “In the weeks leading up to the Copenhagen climate conference, countries from China to Singapore have pledged cuts to their greenhouse-gas emissions.
“One question still lurks unanswered: Who is going to pay for it?
The Journal article explained that, “The discord over what’s known as ‘climate financing’ indicates how difficult it will be for the nations of the world to strike a comprehensive deal at the Copenhagen summit, which begins Dec. 7.
“The world’s current climate accord — the Kyoto Protocol — puts limits on the emissions of rich countries; developing nations have no obligation, but they can get paid if they choose to make cuts. The goal of the Copenhagen summit is a new treaty that obliges developing countries to at least slow their emissions growth and rich countries to make steeper cuts.�
Trade issues are also a potential concern with some climate proposals.
Reuters news reported yesterday that, “Border measures to protect domestic manufacturers from unfair foreign competition as part of climate change legislation could run foul of global trade rules, a Brussels think tank said on Thursday.
“Such border measures could also be economically unworkable, said Fredrik Erixon, director of the ECIPE research institute.
“‘Many countries are going to think twice because they know they are going to unleash quite hard responses, very likely retaliation, from other countries,’ Erixon told a conference call about a study on trade and climate.
“‘It is difficult to see how they are going to be squared with basic rules,’ he said.�
Yesterday’s Reuters article pointed out that, “The WTO’s GATT agreement does include a general exemption to its fair-trade rules, allowing countries to restrict commerce to preserve natural resources, protect public morals, and the like.
“But that exemption, known as Article XX, provides a waiver for environmental not competitive reasons, so any legislation imposing costs on imports would have to be drafted to show that it promotes environmental protection rather than helps domestic companies compete, Erixon said.�
In other climate related news, ClimateWire has reported that, “belief in global warming in the United States has slipped to the lowest point in 12 years of measuring, according to a poll from New York-based Harris Interactive Inc.;� while Reuters news indicated yesterday that, “Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 2.2 percent in 2008 from the year before to 7,053 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent, the Energy Information Administration said on Thursday.�
The Financial Times reported yesterday that, “Governments around the world could make rapid, substantial and relatively cheap cuts to carbon emissions by pursuing energy efficiency in place of more ambitious, but expensive, technological solutions, says a new study.
“The analysis, based on data provided to the Financial Times by McKinsey, the consultancy, identifies more energy-efficient cars, lighting and buildings as the ‘low-hanging fruit’ in the global warming battle.�
