Midlands Voices: Carbon tax would provide biggest gains for farmers

The writer, of Omaha, is a water resource engineer who holds a master’s degree in sustainability from Harvard University.

Over the past year, I have heard concerns from farmers that cap-and-trade legislation would increase energy costs. I grew up on a farm, and my family still depends on farming for income. So I share these concerns.

But, as a sustainability professional, I view the threat of increased energy costs as a ploy by energy companies to enlist American agriculture to oppose climate legislation. Any increases in energy costs would be recovered through increases in commodity prices, just as fuel and corn prices increased in 2007.

Energy companies do not want an emissions program, but if they must have one, cap-and-trade is the one they should want. It would allow them to lobby for insignificant caps on emissions and then trade emission credits among themselves. Cap-and-trade is rigged to benefit the energy companies while doing little to curb climate change.

The fact is that cap-and-trade would not make any payments to those who actually remove carbon from the atmosphere. Farmers and ranchers who implement no-till crop production, plant trees or allow the growth of grasslands would be left out.

Cap-and-trade would create a market where only energy companies could play, leaving farmers and ranchers to do the heavy lifting of carbon sequestration for free.

We have a lot to lose by weak cap-and-trade legislation. As states dependent upon climate conditions for agricultural production, Nebraska and Iowa are more susceptible to the effects of climate change than others. And, although we may have been able to weather the current financial crisis better than others, we are unlikely to weather a climate crisis so easily.

The only solution to climate change is to reduce the total amount of carbon in the atmosphere. This is achieved by capturing more carbon than we emit. Cap-and-trade would not reduce our emissions below the Earth’s carbon sequestration capacity. Even with cap-and-trade, the amount of atmospheric carbon would continue to rise.

From an environmental point of view, cap-and-trade is the equivalent of simply slowing the bleeding, whereas we need a system that not only stops the bleeding but also repairs the damage.

An environmental market that is accessible only to the few is not a solution. We all must participate in the carbon market. The best way to promote an inclusive market would be to establish a carbon tax on emissions.

As we have seen with the current financial crisis, when people do not understand the system, the system fails. Cap-and-trade is complicated and will have the potential to turn into the next financial bubble.

A carbon tax is simple. It taxes carbon emissions. Energy companies could reduce their tax burden by reducing emissions or paying others to sequester their carbon.

Due to our large capacity to sequester carbon in soil and plant matter, Nebraska and Iowa need a market that pays farmers and ranchers for the environmental services they are already providing. Rather than paying energy companies to trade paper among themselves, farmers and ranchers should be paid by energy companies to sequester their carbon emissions.

A carbon tax would be a huge economic driver for Nebraska and Iowa. It would spark enormous growth in renewable energy. It would provide new sources of revenue for farmers and ranchers who sequester carbon in their fields, forests and pastures. And ultimately, it would provide greater security to agriculture and reshape the economic capacity of Nebraska and Iowa.

Future economic growth for our states cannot be achieved through the continued import of western coal for energy. Instead, we must promote our ability to generate renewable energy and to sequester the carbon emissions of others. We must create the conditions for our farmers and ranchers to benefit from carbon markets and receive payments for the environmental services they are providing.

I am not against climate legislation — only legislation that would not curb climate change or create an open market. Our representatives in Washington should stop using agricultural energy costs as a means to advocate for energy companies.

Rather than labeling all climate legislation as bad, our representatives should be writing legislation that promotes our natural capacities. We need forward thinking, not complacent opposition.