Climate Change And Carbon Credits: Sorting Out The Confusion

...To mitigate greenhouse gases, Tweeten says one solution is to impose a $26 per ton tax at a coal mine or oil well that is designed to offset the $26 cost per ton of carbon dioxide that society has to pay. While no one wants the cost of energy to rise, Tweeten says a cap and trade policy is becoming a popular alternative which would allow heavy energy users to pay for a permit to emit more than their share of greenhouse gases. Following the issuance of permits by governments, a market would develop for the trading of them. But he says the purpose would be to raise the cost of carbon-based fuels to the point that alternative source of energy would be preferred. Tweeten says agriculture would have a difficult time slowing the momentum, because food production accounts for only 13% of manmade sources of greenhouse gases, and biofuels contribute only minor positive results in the limitation of greenhouse gases. He says a gallon of ethanol requires nearly a gallon of fossil fuel equivalent in the form of motor fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, transportation, and processing. However, he says agriculture would have a modest role by supplying only 300 million tons of carbon credits, which means one ton of carbon stored in the soil for perpetuity. He calculates a farmer could break even by spending up to $1.30 per acre annually to retain the carbon, but would lose money if he has to sacrifice more than one-half bushel of corn to hold or sequester the carbon. He says that means no-till production can be the most profitable enterprise, but then again, it requires more carbon-based chemicals to control weeds. Farmers would have the option of selling their carbon capture enterprise to industry, but the result would be minimal compared to the overall cost. Tweeten says authorities project a $50 billion cost to control the climate in the year 2035, but carbon credits sold by farmers for $26 per ton would net agriculture only $390 million. While that is only the US, Tweeten says the world’s nations acting individually would be too small to have any positive impact, and many times they have other priorities, such as poverty, disease, conflict, or food insecurity...AgNetwork