The cost of "winning"...

There is a real possibility that farm-state lawmakers will be successful in their efforts to exclude farmers from any participation other than getting checks from the government in efforts to combat global climate change.

The two powerful House Democrats said Thursday that they had made "good progress" in their talks on the climate bill, H.R. 2454 (pdf), following an hourlong meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). But Waxman said yesterday that he has not spoken to Peterson since that session as the congressmen handed the negotiations over to their staffs.
Waxman declined to comment on the details of the climate talks, though the farm state lawmakers have not been shy in stating their problems with provisions in the bill that give U.S. EPA the principal oversight role for the carbon offset market. Peterson also is against a draft EPA regulation that would hold the ethanol industry accountable for "indirect land use," such as crop conversion in other countries.
House Democratic leaders are working behind the scenes to shore up support among the farm state lawmakers through language that could be added to the bill in a manager's amendment package. It is unclear, though, if those changes will be enough. [More]

Rep. Collin Peterson has been remarkably capable in this effort, and here's how:

Meanwhile, the fact of the matter is that in recent years plenty of incumbent Republicans have been brought down by primary challenges from the right and as best I know zero Democrats have been brought down by primary challenges from the left. This has been a huge advantage for the Democrats in terms of winning elections—it’s an important part of the reason Democrats have these majorities. But it also means that when it comes to policymaking, Republicans have a lot of solidarity but Democratic leaders have little leverage over individual members. In other words, nobody thinks that Collin Peterson (D-MN) is going to lose his seat over badly watering down Waxman-Markey and that matters a lot more than airy considerations of capital. [More]

In fact,  Peterson bluntly points out global warming might be good for his constituents, regardless of who else it harms.  In fairness, I think this accurately reflects most farmer opinions of climate change (if they buy the idea at all).  But he could be securing a place in history as the poster child of parochial interest over national (and international) well-being.  In short, this legislative "win" may prove to be more costly that anyone currently imagines.

On Tuesday, the White House released a report based on the work of government scientists that said climate change will cause more frequent and intense heat waves in the U.S. and more severe and frequent flooding that will increasingly swallow up coastal lands.

For agriculture, the report found that higher temperatures will mean a longer growing season for crops that do well in heat such as melons, okra and sweet potatoes, but a shorter growing season for crops such as lettuce and broccoli that are more suited to cooler conditions. The report said higher temperatures also will cause plants to use more water to keep cool.

In an effort to highlight what they see as the stake that U.S. farmers have in combating climate change, members of the Obama administration -- including the administrator of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Jane Lubchenco -- were expected to participate in a conference call on Wednesday to discuss the report's findings on agriculture.

But Mr. Peterson, when asked by reporters Tuesday about the report's findings, said they run counter to what many in his region are experiencing.

"We've just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we've ever had," he said. "They're saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it's going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that's a good thing since they'll be able to grow more corn."

He added that the measure proposed by Messrs. Waxman and Markey would penalize farmers in the Midwest who rely on coal-burning electric cooperatives. [More]

But Peterson might want to read that latest government report on climate change more closely before blithely touting "benefits" for corn growers. Making long range predictions based on the weather last year also strikes me as singularly non-scientific.

The report is here.  It is a whopping PDF download and to tempt you to wade through it (it is very readable), I excerpt these charming graphs. [Click each to enlarge]

And the one that definitely caught my eye:

To be sure, MN does seem to be a "winner" as annual precip and temps improve.  But MN agriculture will also cope with new pests, diseases, and even larger rain events as well.  But don't listen to me, the report has separate sections for parts of the country.

The immediate cries of unprovable nonsense will greet this report, I am sure, including many voices from farm country. Reading the report, noting the quantity and quality of the research and researchers, and the care with which the results are communicated certainly goes a long way to addressing the challenges of scoffers.

This is one issue I would prefer to have been seen by future generations as too easily alarmed than callously self-interested.  However, I am not all that optimistic meaningful mitigation will be begun until the effects are more clear to more people.  So I'm working on the adaptation strategy, while hoping for emissions reduction sooner than later.

It's also why we are investing more in drainage tile than machinery.

Take my carbon. Please...

When last we visited the subject of global climate change, several readers had shared their points of view on the seriousness of the problem and whether it indeed exists. You can read all the posts and comments by clicking on "global warming" in the Labels section below.

Suffice it to say at this point I accept the argument that greenhouse gases (GHG) are contributing significantly to climate change. The question now becomes: What if anything can or should we do about it?

The answer has been reduced to two primary options: emissions trading and carbon taxes.

Policymakers and businesses are now trying to figure out the best way to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, which is produced by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Why impose limits? Because accumulating scientific evidence indicates that the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is causing average temperatures to rise globally. This increase could trigger significant disruption of the world’s climate by the end of this century. Although there remain serious uncertainties about the magnitude of the human role in climate change, there is a growing consensus that emissions need to be reduced. [If you only read one link - read this one]

At first glance, most would likely opt for the one that does not include the word "taxes". But another way of looking at carbon taxes is pricing energy with all the externalities included. Rather than a government revenue scheme, carbon emitters (energy users) would no longer be subsidized by future generations who will experience the downstream costs of our energy consumption.

How? With a carbon tax that assesses fuels according to how much they pollute. Coal, having the highest carbon content, would be taxed the most, followed by oil and natural gas. The higher prices for the most damaging fuels would encourage people and companies to use them less and more of other types of energy, including nuclear, solar, wind and biofuels. This approach also would affect all sources -- not just cars, which account for only one-fifth of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. [More]

Such a tax is termed a Pigovian tax after economist Arthur Pigou. One of the strongest proponents of the carbon tax has been economist Greg Mankiw. One powerful reason he cites is the importance of switching to consumption taxes.

Economic growth. Public finance experts have long preached that consumption taxes are better than income taxes for long-run economic growth, because income taxes discourage saving and investment. Gas is a component of consumption. An increased reliance on gas taxes over income taxes would make the tax code more favorable to growth. It would also encourage firms to devote more R&D spending to the search for gasoline substitutes. [More]

Emissions markets seem to solve the problem without making us actually, well, do anything. And for the most part, the European experiment in emissions trading was handled just that way - the governments simply handed out emissions allowances until they were worthless. Nonetheless, for many farmers sporadic articles describing how we could suddenly get a payment for sequestering carbon by simply doing what we do is tempting compared to paying $5 for diesel.

On the whole, going at GHG reduction via trading schemes strikes me as incredibly complicated and inefficient, since vast bureaucracies for measuring, allocating, and administering caps and credits would be required. Of course, this is one reason such plans are popular with legislators and government planners.

One big challenge is how we will get corn residues to breakdown and release nitrogen without releasing carbon - another complicating factor for all-corn cropping strategies.

Tillage will decompose the residue faster by mixing oxygen into the soil system, but the carbon and nitrogen release from the residue will be rapid, far before the crop needs the nutrients. A legume cover crop could reduce some of this nitrogen penalty by providing some biological diversity. [More]

I favor the carbon tax. By making it revenue neutral via lower income taxes and capital gains taxes (which would go a long way to ending 1031 problems and estate hassles), we could shift our taxing structure and discourage fossil fuel consumption. Since the wealthy consume more energy, they would pay most of the taxes, and progressive rebating via lower income taxes would mitigate the burden on low earners while still encouraging consumption changes.

But the even bigger reason is this: ethanol/biofuels would likely not be subject to a carbon tax - it is not a fossil fuel, and hence, carbon-neutral. Taxes would have been paid for the coal or natural gas needed to power the plant, but the result would still be a wider spread between ethanol and gasoline than without the tax. This pricing advantage would lower the need for other legislative protections for biofuels. A carbon tax would solidify the future of biofuels more securely than mandates, credits, and tariffs.

A gradually increasing carbon tax would make energy expensive, and perhaps finally make lower consumption via changing our lifestyles more imaginable to more Americans. To be sure, our world will change, but perhaps in a better way.

Seeing is deceiving...

I ran across this photo on Neatorama, captioned "Pollution - what pollution?"



Exactly correct. These are cooling towers, perhaps for the Ferrybridge Power Station in West Yorkshire, England. Cooling towers have water running through them and by evaporation and conduction provide the heat sink necessary to run the steam cycle for steam turbines. There are no combustion products, stack gases, or smoke emitted from cooling towers. (The actual "smokestacks" can be seen just to the right, I think.)

In fairness, heat could be seen as a type of pollution, but even the most stringent definition would hardly place water vapor in that category.

Cooling towers have become iconic for nuclear power and the mythical risks associated with them. Ironically, they could be the least hazardous part.