How Farmers Can (Be Forced By Government) To Fight Climate Apocalypse Or Something

It’s always great when people who aren’t anywhere close to being experts, or even amateurs, in a field like to tell the experts how to do their jobs

How farmers could fight climate change (and make a profit)

Agriculture has never been a principal focus of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. But farm emissions — which make up about 10% of the U.S. total — are coming under increasing scrutiny as Democrats take the reins of agricultural policy and farmers themselves awaken to the threats of climate change. One strategy in particular is getting attention this year: encouraging farmers to view emissions reduction and carbon sequestration as potential sources of income.

The idea is fairly straightforward. Farmers would take steps to reduce their carbon output, such as reducing tillage to avoid releasing soil carbon, planting cover crops to hold carbon in the soil, applying manure treatments and “digesters” to limit emissions of methane, and using nitrogen fertilizer more precisely to lower nitrous-oxide emissions. In return, they could sell credits to companies looking to reduce their own climate footprint. Private markets for such credits are already springing up, and Congress took measures to encourage similar exchanges in the 2008 Farm Bill.

So, Democrats are going to use government force to “encourage” farmers to not use their fields to grow food, and to use older, less safe processes like spraying shit instead of modern treatments on the growing food. And the farmers will somehow make money by selling credits on these mythical private markets for credits, which are really backed by and mandated by Government.

But much about this concept has yet to be worked out, notably the basic question of how to measure the climate value of various farming practices. Here the U.S. Department of Agriculture could help. A Senate bill introduced last year would direct the USDA to create standards for measuring the effectiveness of climate-protection measures on farms, certify people to help farmers take such measurements and verify their value, and work with the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor private carbon-credit markets.

More government interference and control of the agriculture sector. Which means cost increases for food. All for a mythical problem.

Such exchanges could go a long way toward encouraging farmers to reduce emissions and sequester carbon. But they won’t work unless regulators can ensure that they’ll actually bring substantial climate benefits. The danger is that a carbon-credit system might instead mainly enable airlines, investment funds, energy firms, agribusinesses and other companies to excuse their own greenhouse-gas emissions by purchasing inexpensive and largely meaningless offsets.

It won’t make a difference in the climate at all. It will make farmers, who are independent spirits, resist like heck.

By setting standards for measurement and verification, and monitoring the private markets, the USDA can maximize the potential of “carbon farming.” It can also extend the benefits beyond the big operations, which can most easily demonstrate emissions reductions, to smaller farms — by helping them participate in collective efforts. If such measurements proved reliable, the Biden administration’s proposal to create a government “carbon bank” — which would buy credits from farmers for a guaranteed price per ton — might act as a powerful incentive for farmers big and small.

Sure sounds less like a private market and more like government dominance, eh?

That said, carbon trading does hold significant promise for limiting emissions on the farm — so long as it’s based on verifiable practices that will allow markets to accurately value the credits. The first step is to get the right data.

I suggest that would start implementing these types of carbon trading schemes on credentialed news outlets, print, TV, and even Internet, let’s see if they’re good with trading schemes when they apply to their own industry. No? They’d be mad? Huh.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

2 Responses to “How Farmers Can (Be Forced By Government) To Fight Climate Apocalypse Or Something”

  1. Kye says:

    As the late great Milton Friedman once quipped: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand”. Do we really want to do that to our food supply? Already the illegal Xiden Junta has begun destroying out energy independence and limiting viable sources which within a few years will cause huge price rises and shortages, do we need these illicit carpetbaggers and pretenders fuking with our food too?

    The demofascists have destroyed 25% (or more) of our small businesses with their crazy response to a flu, how about now we turn them loose on our farmers too?

    If the fascists who have illegally conquered DC let in all these Red Chinese Democommie Flu illegal immigrants at the borders and “relocate” (leftist talk for “hide”) them all across America then screw with the food supply we can expect food shortages sooner than a few years. But that’s good for Demofascists, creates more gov. dependents, more Dem voters (not that they need them any more with fixed elections and no legal recourse for us victims.

    I still can’t get over those huge “insurrections” that occurred all over DC yesterday just as The Elwood predicted the White Supremacists, Qanon and the Proud Boys ransacked DC killing the men and raping the women as they pillaged and looted the city.

    Shut up The Elwood, you don’t know shit from Shinola. As I told you repeatedly after the protest, direct from my son who was there,: there was no insurrection. The entering of the Capitol was done by Antifa and BLT infiltrators and had nothing to do with the regular folks there to protest the stealing of a national election by the fascist now in charge.

    They are now banning Dr. Seuss for shit sakes! Dr. Seuss!!!!!

    I’m looking over the 189-page results of a recent Harvard-Harris poll of 1,778 voters conducted last week, and there are some interesting findings to pass along:

    Andrew Cuomo: Very Favorable/Favorable— 31%; Unfavorable/Very Unfavorable—42%
    (Note: the poll finished on Feb. 25, before most of the sexual harassment stories hit the media.)
    This question is interesting for its even split: “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The 2020 election was unfair because big tech companies, Hollywood, big corporations, and the media worked together to hold back information from voters and change the rules against Donald Trump, or were their actions fair?”
    Agree: 49%; Disagree: 51%

    Now here’s where it starts to get interesting: “Which do you find more concerning—the violence that occurred in American cities over the summer of 2020, or the incident at the U.S. Capitol on January 6?”
    Violence in American cities: 55%; Incident at the Capitol on Jan. 6: 45%.

    More: “Do you think the perpetrators of violence in American cities over the summer are being looked for and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?” Yes: 48%; No: 52%.

    “Do you think Antifa is a domestic terrorist group or not a domestic terrorist group?”
    Terrorist group: 71%; Not a terrorist group: 29%.

    “Do you think that the events at the U.S. Capitol are being used by politicians to suppress legitimate political movements or do you think there is no such suppression of legitimate movements?
    Being used to suppress legitimate movements: 64%; Not being used to suppress: 36%

    “Do you think the riots are being used as an excuse to silence political voices on the right or is the reaction to them a legitimate response to the violence?”
    Being used to silence the right: 59%; Legitimate response, 41%.

    There are several immigration questions that suggest huge vulnerabilities for Democrats. Start with: “Do you think that coming into the United States without any documentation should be a crime or not a crime?”
    Crime: 65%; Not a crime, 35%.

    “Do you think that any holes in the border wall with Mexico should be patched, or should be left open?”
    Patched: 73%; Left open, 27%.

    “Should the hundreds of miles of border wall that have been constructed over the last few years be left in place or dismantled?”
    Left in place: 79%; Dismantled, 21%. Score one for Trump.

  2. Est1950 says:

    The new FAKE MEAT which supposedly tastes like a Hamburger produces 63 unknown enzymes and proteins as unintended. It is filled with soy and chemicals and we are going to shove those in our mouths. In addition they are seriously lacking in nutrition despite what the industry is telling you.

    This from independent labs and leaked memos from the industry itself.

    Oh and incidently the creation of the fake burger actually creates CO2 as opposed to A NON GMO Farm which raises cows turns out to be NET ZERO. This study was conducted by the same group contracted to study the chemical burgers vs a well run non GMO Organic farm which raised cows for the same purpose.

    In short the new industry put together by leftists is a chemical VAPING SYSTEM designed to replace cows and when the left gets their mind around an idea they won’t let it go.

    Cows are toast. There goes another 10,000 ranchers lost. Anyone who knows anything about farming knows that ranches are typically in places where its likely impossible to grow food. So NO, ranchers will not replace cows with Wheat, Soy or Alfalfa. They will simply sell their land to the government who will then place windmills, solar panels and carbon capture plants on them.

    What should happen in this world is that AGW should be deemed a terrorist organization and the billionaires sponsoring the activity should be rounded up and stripped entirely of their wealth and given to WHITE PEOPLE who are being discriminated against with hate speech. A crime in an of itself.

Pirate's Cove