Turning Farms into Forests for Profit

Turning Farms into Forests for Profit: "

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.

Mr. Vilsack, in a little-noticed statement issued with the
report earlier this month, said the department's forecasts 'have caused
considerable concern' among farmers and ranchers.

'If landowners plant trees to the extent the model suggests, this would
be disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country,' he said.

He said the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model
(FASOM), created by researchers at Texas A&M University, does not
take into account other provisions in the House-passed bill, which
would boost farmers' income while they continue to produce food. Those
omissions, he said, cause the model to overestimate the potential for
increased forest planting.

Mr. Vilsack said he has directed his chief economist to work
with the EPA to 'undertake a review of the assumptions in the FASOM
model, to update the model and to develop options on how best to avoid
unintended consequences for agriculture that might result from climate
change legislation.'

The legislation would give free emissions credits, known as
offsets, to farmers and landowners who plant forests and adopt
low-carbon farm and ranching practices. Farmers and ranchers could sell
the credits to help major emitters of greenhouse gases comply with the
legislation. That revenue would help the farmers deal with an expected
rise in fuel and fertilizer costs.

But the economic forecast predicts that nearly 80 percent of
the offsets would be earned through the planting of trees, mostly in
the Midwest, the South and the Plains states.

The American Farm Bureau Federation and some farm-state
Republican lawmakers have complained that the offsets program would
push landowners to plant trees and terminate their leases with farmers.

The model projects that reduced farm production will cause food
prices to rise by 4.5 percent by 2050 compared with a scenario in which
no legislation is passed, the department found.

A department spokesman declined to comment about how quickly
the review would take place or whether Mr. Vilsack would revise the
department's economic-impact projections.

The Senate has not taken action on climate legislation,
although the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a
bill similar to the House's last month. That measure did not include
agriculture provisions.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Democrat and chairman of the
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, has said she will hold
hearings on climate provisions but has not indicated when those will
take place.

The ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss
of Georgia, and his counterpart on the House Agriculture Committee,
ranking Republican Rep. Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma, wrote to Mr.
Vilsack and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson earlier this month to ask
for new economic analyses of the House and Senate bills.

'EPA's analysis was often cited during debate in the House of
Representatives and the study had a great impact on the final vote. If
there was a flaw in the analysis, then it would be prudent to correct
the model and perform a more current and complete analysis on both
[bills],' they wrote.

In a statement, the EPA said: 'EPA looks forward to working
with USDA and the designer of this particular computer model to
continue improving the analytical tools that all of [us] use to predict
the ways that different climate policies would affect agriculture.'

Allison Specht, an economist at the American Farm Bureau
Federation, said other studies have largely confirmed the results of
the EPA and Agriculture Department analysis.

'That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The
biggest bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees,' she
said.

Source: The Washington Times

"