Another carbon trading scheme dies

Carbon trading is again a failure. First we had the Chicago Climate Exchange die, now another scheme is dying per Google/Associated Press in their article titled ‘Carbon credits programs fail without climate bill.’

A national program that paid farmers millions of dollars for reducing greenhouse gasses has fizzled amid uncertainty about U.S. climate legislation

It seems they’re finding out the hard way what Al Gore and CCX already have discovered.

But carbon credits that fetched up to $7 a metric ton a few years ago are now nearly worthless, said Robert Carlson, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union. The group has 6 million tons worth of credits that have gone unsold, and while it will continue to try to sell those, no new credits will be issued after this year, Carlson said.

They earn credits to do certain things,  which is not necessarily as it should be in my opinion.

Farmers, ranchers and landowners earned credits by growing grasses and trees or using no-till farming practices, in which seeds are injected into the soil to reduce the amount of dirt turned over and carbon released.

The article seems to leave some things amiss, which is the fact that good farmers generally already practice good farming practices anyway. It’s the way they make their living. Screwing up their land to the point where it’s unplantable isn’t going to make them any return on their investment.

It is not such a terrific idea to pay someone for something they already do. Based upon first-hand experience via my brother-in-law, who is a farmer in Kansas he already does much of this, as do his neighbors. He’s practiced no-till farming for at least the past 10 years and Kansas as it keeps the soil from blowing away ala the dust-bowl in 1930’s Oklahoma.

States like Kansas and even the USDA already have Conservation Reserve Programs that pay farmers to rotate crops, plant conservation type crops that reduce erosion/runoff/sedimentation, and there are programs where farmers get paid to let sections of their land go wild so hunters have places to hunt. which not only reduces erosion/runoff/sedimentation, but also reduces dust and use of fuel/fertilizer while providing more natural habitat for wild animals to live on.

While I’m not adverse to farmers making money, I do resent paying them (via higher crop prices) to do what they already do, or already should be doing, regardless if they get carbon credit money or not. Why? Because no matter what type of business you’re in, good business practices should prevail, that’s why.

Source: Google/Associated Press


Filed under Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Financial

5 responses to “Another carbon trading scheme dies

  1. earnest crist

    Um–you really don’t know what you are talking about. Carbon credits require ADDITIONAL activity–to qualify under the CCX, you would have had to convert to, say no-till, AFTER 1999. This means you have to be doing something relatively new that is sequestering carbon that wasn’t being sequesterd before. When you figure we have lost 70 to 80% of all organic carbon out of our soils in the mid-west that was there at the time of original plow-up in the 1800’s, we have a hell of a big carbon sink out there to fill.

    As far as CRP is concerned–it is a land retirement program. Credits are targeted more toward working lands. the cost-share assistance you are thinking about for land treatment are generally the farm bill conservation programs administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) not the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP ground would not qualify for a credit unless it was ground that was newly enrolled. In fact, CRP ground doesn’t sequester as much carbon as say grass that is grazed or no-till crop land because while CRP does provide a permenant cover of grass, when you harvest grass either through haying or gazing, you get significant re-growth which means more photo-sythensis is occuring and more carbon is being sequestered. Also, when you no-till, the crop is providing more photosythesis than grass that as basically just growing there.

    Carbon Credits would be a good way not only to encourage carbon sequestration, but when producers switch to no-till or take marginal land out of crop production and put it to grass you are not only reducing co2, you are also protecting water by reducing run-off and erosion, you are improving wildlife habitat, you are reducing fuel use (it takes 3 to 4 fewer gallons of diesel to grow a crop with no-till than it does with conventional till) you are conserving water (it is the equivalent of a 3 inch rain when you no-till due to better rain obsorption and less evaperation) and because of this water conservation, you allow producers in the dryer areas of the southern plains a greater ability to grow a summer crop, some of which can be used for bio-diesel, helping fuel enconomy even more while avoiding the whole food versus fuel arguement since this land without that three inches of moisture currently can’t grow a summer crop.

    Carbon credits could be of multiple benifit, not only to ag producers but to all taxpayers due to their multiple positive effects–but once again ideology trumps good policy.

    I would ask, however, if you attack something like carbon credits, you at least know what they are and how they work. At least learn what farm programs you are trying to talk about before you throw out terms like CRP.

  2. joyce

    I heard the same thing I can’t imagine this is an acurate statement maybe a decimal point was misplaced. Even it was $1.50 total it would be toomuch to the U>N> and even worse for global warming myth.

  3. joyce

    Therre is a huge difference between a Conservsation Reserve Program that has pracitcal applications in a developing country and supporting the Global Warming myth,CO2 as a pollutant, and the cap and trade debacle.