The Agriculture and Food Policy institute at Texas A&M released a study last month saying what those of us in ag suspected all along.
Carbon offset credits available to agriculture will not provide a significant source of income to farmers and ranchers. And the increasing costs of fuel and fertilizer will create a negative impact to the bottom line of many.
Shocking I know--none of us dreamed it could be so.
A summary paragraph of the report says: "Given the assumptions in this study, for some farms such as rice and the cattle ranches, no level of carbon prices would make them as well off as the Baseline. While a few farms would be as well off as the Baseline with only slightly higher carbon prices each year, there are also several farms that would need carbon prices of $80 per ton per year or more to make them as well off as the Baseline."
Thank Saxby Chambliss (R., GA) for asking A&M to do the research on this subject and for looking out for farmers across the country.
"The study indicated that the benefits are predominantly the result of increased revenue from higher prices -- a result of fewer acres planted to these crops, not from payments under an offset program. In other words, geographic disparities would exist as a result of the Waxman-Markey bill," Chambliss explained.
"This is in direct contrast to what Agriculture Secretary (Tom) Vilsack said while testifying before the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing in July, at which he stated that all agriculture would benefit from this plan," Chambliss added.
"Payments from a carbon offset program provide some benefit to some producers but are not a significant factor in the profitability of farms in the analysis," he noted.
Read the report
Read further analysis at Feedstuffs.com
Why Does Science Matter? - This summer I put myself through 8 weeks of Organic Chemistry. As an Animal Science major, I am required to take several chemistry, biology, and any other ...