The Washington Times gives us another reason not to like the cap and trade bill passed by the House of Representatives this summer. 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.
However, the Climategate Scandal calls into question the veracity of man-made global warming. As for higher crop prices--of course that means higher food prices.
Technorati tags:
Congress 
climate change 
environment 
global warming 
cap and trade 
economy 
news 
farming 
business 
agriculture 
Vilsack
No comments:
Post a Comment