From DTN News: NAWG Reverses Policy on Climate Change
A statement Friday from Karl Scronce, National Association of Wheat Growers president and a wheat producer from Klamath Falls, Ore.:
“The NAWG Board of Directors met this morning via conference call and voted 26 to 2 to approve a new resolution regarding greenhouse gas regulation. The Board also voted 24 to zero to remove existing resolutions relating to greenhouse gas regulation and an agriculture cap-and-trade program.
“The new resolution reads:
“’NAWG is opposed to greenhouse gas legislation or regulation that has a negative impact on production agriculture. NAWG will strive for a net economic benefit to farmers, agriculture and food production. We believe neither greenhouse gas regulation nor legislation should take effect until the major carbon emitting countries of the world have agreed to regulate their own greenhouse gases in a like manner to ours. NAWG urges USDA to do a detailed economic analysis of any legislation or regulation before it becomes law. Furthermore, NAWG will oppose EPA regulation and will work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling.’
NAWG staff and grower-leaders plan to continue to work on this issue to achieve an outcome that the Board feels is in the best interest of our grower-members. “
Here is the official NAWG resolution statement at the NAGW website
h/t to WUWT reader “CuriousGeorge)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
All,
Nowhere in this discussion did I see a mention that the carbon tax will increase fuel prices. Somehow the ground has to be tilled, the crop planted, fertilizer and other stuff added, harvested, transported, prepared and such. All through this process is the buring of fuel. For the citified in the crowd, sometimes that means many miles between field and elevator because the farms that produce this stuff run to the hundreds of acres – um a whole bunch of city blocks!
Do yourselves a favor and get out of your pollution and come to the country – the real country with growing plants, cows, pigs and such. For a real kick tour a feed lot to see what happens. Ya know, that produce did one time have dirt on it – that steak had legs and mooed (sp?) it doesn’t just appear in the grocers case by magic.
And yup, (takes wheat stalk out of mouth and spits) I agree, there’s lots o smart farmers around – they have to be, takes smart people to feed most of the world!
Mike
H chance
I do know that taxes will increase fuel prices
Bentley
All,
Nowhere in this discussion did I see a mention that the carbon tax will increase fuel prices. Somehow the ground has to be tilled, the crop planted, fertilizer and other stuff added, harvested, transported, prepared and such
I mentioned fuel costs. Last year Nitrogen hit 1,000 dollars a ton mid 2008
I saw a lot of acres in CRP which is a crop subsidy for idling land. If the liberals tried to raise crops, we would become like russia and be a food importer very soon.
RW… thrown a firecracker and then disappeared? Afraid to debate? Afraid to think again? Afraid to look at the real science that’s been offered you?
NAWG “We believe neither greenhouse gas regulation nor legislation should take effect until the major carbon emitting countries of the world have agreed to regulate their own greenhouse gases in a like manner to ours” seems like the sensible thing to say, policy-wise – it doesn’t mean they don’t see through the science scam.
It is a big mistake for any person or organization not to question the science behind the CO2 hoax.
The simple statement that CO2 is not a climate driver but an essential gas that supports all life on this planet should do it. End of discussion.
The same goes for AGW.
What AGW?
There has not been any rise in temperature on the Southern Hemisphere and the temperature rise in the Northers Hemisphere stopped ten years ago and reversed into cooling.
The failure to address the basic science will cost us dearly as long as long as the subject stays on the negotiating table.
In the end it will bite us in the ass because any negotiable subject ends up as a compromise agreement.
If the “problem” is off the table there is no room for any dealing and no compromise can be made.
I know I am not a diplomat or a politician but I think that organizations like th NAWG should be as clear as some of their members who stated that Global Warming was nothing more but “a bunch of Hog Wash” and he did not accept any Carbon subsidies
because he new who in the end would have to pay the bill.
I don’t know what you think about this view but in my opinion it’s the kind of clear common sense we need to get out of this mess.
No compromise.
Henry,
Oops! missed that in my read through, sorry!
Even so, I wanted to lay out why fuel is so important to a large group that has never seen a farm. I think some believe the farmer hops in his pickup, drives to the field and pulls the already wrapped and priced product from some natural freezer.
One of the most enlightening trips I’ve taken was to Jamaca and a banana plantation. opened my eyes!
Mike
My advice to climate nuts: If they feel over-exited and mentally disturbed by not achieving their dream climate change/ global warming/cap & trade/ communist phantasies, it is because they are over-oxygenated (hyper-ventilated) so the best procedure for them to relax is, everytime they feel this way, to take a paper bag, put it over your mouth and nose, and breath and exhale in it: The CO2 intake will alcalinize their blood and make these sympthoms disappear.
Just cool it down!
@ur momisugly Michael J. Bentley (15:56:35) : You make a good point. The issue of fuel (and electricity ) in farming is pretty well known in general terms I think, although the details of those and other “inputs” such as INPK (Industrial fertilizers from mining & natural gas, etc. ) isn’t generally known among consumers, other than thru the price they pay at the grocery or the bag of fertilizer they buy for their lawn or garden. It’s been rather thoroughly covered at farming websites such as the DTN/Progressive Farmer site among others including govt. and university studies. Not sure it would be worthwhile to reiterate all that here. Farms ( for the “city folk” ) also us a heck of a lot of electricity to run the business.
Of course, it doesn’t stop at the farm as I’m sure you know, but trickles down thru the entire economy any time a staple commodity is impacted, including non-farm wages, welfare and food stamp costs and so on.
@ur momisugly Lucy Skywalker (16:24:59) : NAWG is making the point with that statement that they are concerned about unfair foreign competition , and letting the politicians know they expect a level playing field. Think cotton, citrus, etc., also. NAWG is only the latest in a string of ag groups who have problems with this bill and other similar bills and regulations. Secretary Vilsack has taken a beating from many of these groups.
Why in the Hell would these guys have EVER been against something that clearly helps their product (wheat) grow significantly better???
Ron de Haan (16:48:22) :
No compromises. Put the Wheat Ears back on the penny, not on G&H trading stamps.
MattN (17:45:51) :
Ask Bernie Madeoff how he managed to con so many for so long. You mix one part Truth with 1 part con, stir thoroughly and serve with a reassuring smile.
MattN (17:45:51) :
Id wager as an educated guess, that with AGW, comes bio fuels, which increases demand on their product, and generally pushes up land and commodity prices, supply and demand and all that eh…. they stood to gain out of it on face value.;-)
Good on the farmers and it’s representative organization. They have denounced the politics and policies of reducing CO2 and refuse to participate in perpetrating economic suicide. They also need to state an anti AGW position using several scientists papers and conclusions that cast doubt on the AGW Hypothesis as well.
The bad science of the AGW hypothesis needs more attention.
The yield per acre of wheat must be going down. Lack of sunspots anyone?
>> RW (12:19:26) :
Ray, I think you’ve been taken in by the “CO2 is plant food” propaganda. CO2 is no more plant food than O2 is human food. <<
I recall a famous experiment performed several centuries ago (but I had to look it up). Jan Baptist van Helmont (1580-1644) performed the famous experiment. The experiment was incorrectly conceived, incorrectly executed, and incorrectly analyzed, but it led to other experiments demonstrating that plants obtain all but a few percent of their mass from the air. Essentially your botany knowledge is about 400 years behind the times.
Jim
Henry chancre (16/17/07)
“I saw a lot of acres in CRP which is a crop subsidy for idling land. If the liberals tried to raise crops, we would become like russia and be a food importer very soon.”
Care to explain how paying landowners to NOT grow food increases food production?
“God gave us farmers two strong hands so we could grab all we can get.” Thanks to J. Heller
All together now
Farm subsidies good, other subsidies bad(evil communism)
Farm subsidies good, other subsidies bad
Farm subsidies good, other subsidies bad
Ah, now I feel better.
Rw’s statement is what I believe is called a Narrow Semantic Quibble in Philosophy circles(but I could be wrong).
rbateman (17:49:29) :
Ron de Haan (16:48:22) :
“No compromises. Put the Wheat Ears back on the penny, not on G&H trading stamps”.
Yes, that’s the idea.
in the mean time the Third World needs modern coal plants, an electric grid and free trade without intervention of subsidized food products that are flushed into their home markets and kill their local businesses.
There is so much opportunity and progress to be made if we lift the Third World out of poverty. We can do it at a fraction of the costs of the current “Development Budgets” distributed via the UN and related NGO’s.
Michael J. Bentley (15:56:35) : “All, (n)owhere in this discussion did I see a mention that the carbon tax will increase fuel prices.”
Nor that a major part of the price of water is pumping cost, which is related to energy and fuel prices. Ever try to farm without water?
My fellow countryman Hans Schreuder writes “clear language” in his letter about CO2 to Gordon Brown:
See: http://climaterealists.com/?id=3981
USDA Wheat Baseline, 2005-14
The U.S. wheat sector is facing challenges to its long-term profitability. Planted area in the United States has dropped as wheat loses its competitiveness to other U.S. crops, particularly soybeans and corn. Domestic food use of wheat has declined in recent years as a result of changing consumer preferences and improved bread preservation technology. Ukraine and Russia are competitive with the United States in foreign markets in years when their production is high. The effects of these and other changes on the U.S. wheat sector were evaluated in the preparation of USDA’s 10-year baseline projections.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Wheat/2005baseline.htm
So when are the Dems going to start talking about high tariffs to non carbon tax countries? Because that is another solution to the wheat farmers objections.
And it seems that the biofuel crops are also threatening our daily bread.
North Dakota wheat farmers know something is up with the entire AGW story – they are also in a race with the frost man this harvest.
http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=33539
Roger Sowell (14:42:42) :
A legal word here, on overturning U.S. Supreme Court decisions (they are not rulings, by the way). Only the U.S. Supreme Court can overturn its decisions. The Court does not like to do this, and seldom does. Generally, many years must pass before the Court will even hear another case that would have a chance of overturning a previous decision.
Congress may overturn a Supreme Court decision.
In the CO2 case, it may declare CO2 not a pollutant, or limit the EPA’s ability to regulate it.
Congress may also limit the Court’s jurisdiction per Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution –
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Given the rubber stamp composition of the current Congress, neither is likely.
I always knew CO2 was essential, but RW caused me to look a bit more, and I discover it really is the most essential compound of life. Thankd for that, RW!
Here’s what I discovered, although much of it is not ‘peer-reviewed’, I’ll wager, most of it seems to agree:
1. Below 150 ppm of CO2, plants will just die. That may be 100 ppm, depending on the plant.
2. Below 200 ppm plants will have restricted growth. That may be as high as 250 ppm, though.
3. Doubling CO2 levels (from normal) will increase plant growth by about 40% is all other resources are abundant.
4. Doubling CO2 levels if any other resources is limited can increase growth levels by as much as 100%.
That last one is the kicker. Anywhere there is a shortage of resources for plants, you could double plant growth by doubling CO2 levels. So all those poor countries, that are typically poor because of a lack of abundant food in the past, unlike Europe, would benefit MOST from increased CO2.
A fairly sobering thought.
The other thing that I considered is this: All of the carbon (well, to all intents and purposes) in a plant comes from CO2. All of the carbon in animals comes from plants or other animals, and therefore plants. Everything we (and all animals) are made of is, in essence, carbon, proteins being the building blocks of life, and carbohydrates the fuel or energy.
So all living things originated as CO2. CO2 is not just plant food, it IS life!
The American Farmer and Rancher feed more people than any one other group of
producers on earth.Wreck that, and people will starve.But then again that may be the
idea…
BTW, I know not ALL of us is carbon, there is water to keep it all in solution and chemical reactions happening (in fact almost all of the extraordinary properties of water are what makes life possible), and funny bits like calcium to build s skeleton.
I always used to think that if we designed a body (robot), we’d improve on nature by making the skeleton from hollow tubes of metal, light and strong. Then I discovered that calcium is a metal, and not only are bones hollow tubes, they are lighter, stronger and more flexible than much of what we make with metals.
It’s almost as if it were designed ….. No, let’s not go there!
RW (12:19:26) :
. . .CO2 is no more plant food than O2 is human food.
RW, ya gotta learn to follow my sterling example and save the goofy comments until last when the thread is losing followers. Unless, of course, you mistakenly thought you were posting on RealClimate.
The original Graybill (of Mannian hockey stick infamy) tree ring paper – LaMarche, et al, 1984 – proposed widened bristlecone pine tree rings were the result of CO2 fertilization, not global warming, so the roots of CO2 as tree fodder predate the current faddish notion CO2 as blanket.