Climate change — Mid-South business
Sep 29, 2009 10:12 AM, By David Bennett, Farm Press Editorial Staff
“In order to scale for carbon sequestration projects, economic incentives must be in place. Regulations must be such that there is a beneficial, easy path for the landowners.
“As for the pending legislation, if the landowner is restricted too much it’ll be very difficult to achieve scale. We’re not such a proponent that we’re saying ‘trees are good and agriculture is bad.’ It’s always a choice of the best use.
“Our focus is on a lot of the frequently flooded and marginal land — there’s a lot of it in the Delta that should go back to trees. That’s the area that’s ripe for their legislation to scale great pools of carbon sequestration practices that benefits everyone — but first it has to benefit the landowner.
“We want to see the landowner engage in smart farming and that entails keeping soils in crop production. Where possible, fields could maybe be squared off for efficiency of tractor and diesel use.
“Areas that flood or have marginal soil composition could go into biomass production or reforestation programs that yield better benefits and a diversified income stream coming into the farm.”
On the House climate legislation…
Van Voorhis: “On the policy side, you have to remember that most of the folks involved in the debate — or writing it — probably 95 percent writing the ag side have probably never been on a farm. From our side, we try to inject what we’re hearing from landowners, what’s practical. A lot of times what’s represented on the Hill, regardless of which side of the aisle, comes from an institutional land bias, not producer/landowner.
“We try to inject a unique perspective and make sure what is written has an equitable reach across all types of landowners.
“That said, specifically, we saw a lot of wrangling at the last minute on the agriculture titles. At one point, the environmental groups pushed for EPA to regulate the offset market. We fought that tooth and nail and felt that was a bad use of their infrastructure and knowledge base; that USDA had better infrastructure and knowledge on this, which won out at the end of the day.
“The carve-outs that (House Agriculture Committee chairman Collin) Peterson had done over what (House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry) Waxman was proposing were positive for agriculture and forestry.
“Among the remaining issues is the fact that so much of the volume is being given away to the international market. Obviously, we want to see more of that balance moving to the U.S. domestic market. Of the 2 billion tons that could come in annually for offsets, the House bill allows 1 billion to come from the international market and 1 billion from the domestic market.”
On other outstanding issues…
Van Voorhis: “In the weeds, there are rules on how long the rules of engagement will be. California’s CAR (Climate Action Registry) is pushing 100-year (terms) as the minimal threshold entry into the market. There’s a big push for (federal rules on carbon programs to be) 100 years. We fundamentally believe that’s wrong.
“At the same time, EPA believes there will be 18 million acres that (will accept those terms). We dispute that. We believe the longer the (terms) the fewer acres will go into such programs.
On the Hill, we’ve been pushing to create three levels of offsets: a five-year level, a 20-year or 30-year level, as well as the 100 years. Our thought is very few people will pick 100 years and you’ll see more opting for something like Wetland Reserve Program’s 30-year instrument.
“I told someone on the Hill, we need ‘to create multiple entry points that a landowner may participate in. Then, let the market decide the price of each instrument and let the landowner choose what level he wants to participate at.’”
