Guest essay by Eric Worrall
What could be better than owning a large woodland estate, and making a steady income from harvesting timber? Harvesting an additional tithe of taxpayer’s money, of course.
According to the Huffington Post;
America’s Family Forests: Our Climate Change Solution
Last weekend, 195 nations reached a landmark agreement that will commit the world to limiting its greenhouse gas emissions. Throughout the two weeks of negotiations, we saw significant discussion about how investing in forests can be a low cost climate solution. Unfortunately, these discussions often focused on international forests, and assumed that U.S. forests’ ability to sequester carbon will remain the same without any special action.
That’s why today, the American Forest Foundation and The Trust for Public Land, co-chairs of the Forest Climate Working Group, a coalition of landowners, conservation organizations, forestry advocates, forest products companies and scientists delivered a letter to President Obama calling for increased recognition of the critical role American that forests must play in meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed to in Paris.
…
If we can continue to create incentives that encourage planting trees, managing existing forests, and increasing the demand for wood products, we can ensure we continue to have the necessary carbon sink needed to combat climate change.
We must keep our forests healthy if we are going to meet our emission reduction goals, and America’s forest owners are ready to be part of the climate solution.
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-martin/americas-family-forests-o_b_8842240.html
Those selfless forest plantation owners are prepared to do their bit – to increase production, to help solve the climate “crisis”, if taxpayers provide “incentives” to help them maintain their plantations, and help them market and sell their products.
Just what America needs – more welfare payments for the already wealthy.
Update – my apology to land owners who are decent, hard working people who have never demanded a government handout, if you felt this post targeted you. That was not the intention.
The reference to “landed gentry” was intended as a critique of those members of the named organisations, who seem to expect the state and taxpayers to provide them with special consideration, because they own a bit of forest. I compared this demand, to the arrogant entitlements of the landed gentry of medieval times, receiving state enforced tithes from the peasants.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let’s see now, years ago greenies wanted everything to go digital and avoid cutting down trees. Now they want to pay people for using wood. They assume that wood being used will not end up in an incinerator, producing CO2. Is this their plan? I suppose simply building another nuclear plant that could acheive everything this tree program could ever acheive would be too complicated.
Canada wanted to use their forests sequestering capabilities to help meet Kyoto targets but was rejected:
http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/Torpedoing%20Kyoto%20Will%20Canada's%20Approach%20to%20Forest%20Sequestration%20Sink%20the%20Kyoto%20Protocol.pdf
Now the greenies want sustainable forestry practices to control CO2 and fight CAGW. How nice.
The same greenies go absolutely ballistic whenever anybody mentions logging. They are utterly unaware that the two are really one and the same. Worse, they cannot be educated because any mention of forest harvesting provokes such an overpowering emotional response that they cannot think coherently, much less engage in rational discourse. One might think that the poor greenie had been subjected to an extremely detailed and comprehensive program of “brainwashing” and mind control to elicit such a response.
…Paved With Good Intentions:
In my neck of the woods, environmentalists are largely urban creatures. This means Boston and the whole of urbanized eastern Massachusetts. The water supply for Boston and area cities (MWRA, google it) comes from the Quabbin Reservoir, a wonderful resource, and a truly pristine area. The water quality is pure and clean almost beyond belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quabbin_Reservoir
As was standard practice when the watershed was established, vast acreage was planted with millions of pine trees. The plan was that as the forests matured, they would be harvested and replanted, so the reservation would provide forestry products and wildlife habitat as well as water. As I recall, the first harvests were scheduled for the late ’80s and ’90s. Well the urban greenies went wild and shut everything down with a well funded Lawfare campaign. In some areas, the forests have aged past their prime and are now beset by Pine Beatles. As a consequence, the forests are primed for destruction by fire. We are not talking about a ground level brush fire, either. What will happen is a forest floor to tree crown firestorm which will destroy everything. The heat will destroy and sterilize even the soil itself. The ash and fire debris combined with huge silt runoff ending up in the reservoir will utterly trash the water quality, possibly even for a hundred years or more. Not to mention the damage to the watershed itself.
But We Meant Well:
Several months after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 I visited recreational area at the southern end. To my surprise, the whole place had been closed off and secured against terrorist attack. Conversation with the State Police guarding the entrance revealed that they were from Eastern Mass. and previous to this assignment, has no idea that such a place existed. They further acknowledged that a terrorist attack would be an exercise in absurdity. Even the largest truck bomb imaginable would hardly scratch a structure such as Winsor Dam. All they really had to do was watch out for trucks, and visitors with nothing larger than a picnic basket were probably OK. But rules are rules.
I found that the lack of awareness of the place demonstrated by the officers to be strictly the norm in eastern Mass. I very much doubt that any of the people who protested the operations of the Quabbin have ever visited the place, or know anything about it, other than in the abstract.
Cool water in the Quabbin when I lived there…
The Holocene has ended we are 30 years into the Idiocene (alias the idiot scene). The Holocene abruptly ended with the appearance of “The Modern Climate Opium, cAGW”.
I am with John Whitman, above.
“US Landed Gentry” makes less than no sense in America. We don’t do royalty here, and we don’t do a “Gentry” class here either, landed or otherwise.
A “large woodland estate” would be any rural or semi-rural homeowner with a few acres to a few hundred. A lot of these people are already farmers, or live on what used to be farmland. Gentry indeed.
Are you sure? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/does-the-president-have-unconstrained-power-to-send-billions-to-the-un-for-climate/
TonyL,
I agree, what you said was the thrust of my issue with “US Landed Gentry” concept.
The financial capability of an average American to achieve that dream to own such land is being undermined by stupid socially motivated collectivist ideas in all aspects of our culture.
Hope you and yours have a happy holiday season.
John
“TonyL
December 22, 2015 at 10:26 am
We don’t do royalty here,…”
Surely you jest. Gore, Mann, Kardashian, Oprah, Obama?
We don’t have “official” royalty. On the other hand look how we treat celebrities and politicians.
America will be denuded of its forests if fossil fuels are banned. Gotta keep warm somehow.
That’s one way to solve the problem of what to do with all our trees.
@ur momisugly H.R., 10.28 am : That is exactly what is happening in countries like Nepal and others in those regions from the Black Sea throughout the South side of the Himalayas, in all regions wood ( and dung of which there is less and less because a lack of energy prevents proper agriculture) is the main source of energy, One answer would be small propane stoves and heaters but nooo, that would be against the Green’s agenda. And @ur momisugly John Whitham, I agree with your standpoint there are many times I read a headline and just pass on that and then go straight to comments and if there are reactions to the headline I may read the article just to see as to why how people reacted to it the way they did, nothing wrong with that at all it does save a lot of time!! .
Peta in Cumbria and John Whitman make good points. We are initially upset that big landowners and corporations seem to be getting “free money” here; but the details of the transactions are quite different than the appearance. First, people who work within government are happy to administer these “handouts” as it provides meaning to their employment and a sense of power. However, they do not like anyone to be seemingly making money off these subsidies so they mandate all sorts of unproductive record-keeping, and economic inflexibilities, the opportunity costs of which are sometimes worth more than the subsidies. I know about this after having been involved in U.S.D.A. grain programs at various times. Amazingly enough the farmers involved in these programs, because they do not understand opportunity costs very well, always thought they were getting “free money” and were thus in favor of the programs too. There is also no point in complaining about “corporate” forests or farms–they are corporations alright, but most are family corporations, and others are public corporations that many people do not even know they own through pensions.
Second, there is wide disdain for the “wealthy”, but recall that most of these people pay taxes out of proportion to their share of income, take large risks, give large amounts of money to charity, and sit as volunteers on boards and commissions that make a lot of America function. Most of these people are not cronies, and many are reasonable enough and well educated enough to become allies. There is not much sense in putting them on the other side of the battle right from the git-go.
Third, no doubt there are people who will become rich from subsidies by exploring the margins of these programs and exploiting program oversights of design. These people typically would be labelled “political cronies”. Political cronies often use their wealth against the rest of us. They are not always simple to identify, as I discussed above, but they are those who should bear the brunt of everyone’s ire. And the programs themselves should be scrutinized and then opposed if they make no sense. Let’s not paint everyone with a broad brush.
Kevin Kilty on December 22, 2015 at 11:08 am
– – – – – – –
Kevin Kilty,
Circumspect review. Thanks.
I would add a question to your review. Why would a person expect another person with more wealth than himself or herself think the wealthier person needs to apologize for being wealthier? That is a kind of intellectual sickness. It is a trap for fools set by fools.
Hope you and yours have a happy holiday season.
John
They want Feudalism.
Another farm subsidy – this time for wood.
It’s all part of the Climate Hustle. There’s dough available, and possibly more coming. Those without moral scruples are busy elbowing their way in, to grab their “share”.
Eric,
I take it then that you’d fully support the US ending it’s $20-30 billion/year fossil fuel subsidy?
The IMF claim of a ” Fossil Fuel Subsidy ” is even more unbelievable than than the ” Hockey Stick ” rubbish .
They added up things like the cost of the Gulf war , road accidents & the cost of sea defences against rising sea levels to arrive at their subsidy figure .
So I guess you forgot the ” Sarc ” tag , as nobody could be stupid enough to believe in that .
No. If American Fossil Fuel businesses are receiving preferential tax treatment, I would be in favour of extending the tax cuts to everyone else as well.
Eric,
Businesses may get some tax breaks, but much more money could be brought into federal coffers by just selling some of the land owned by the government:
The gov’t owns a lot more land than corporations:
http://www.state.sc.us/forest/fra3.jpg
Really, there’s no need for gov’t ownership of those vast tracts of land; individuals and corporations take much better care of land than the government.
Shocking, isn’t it? Makes you wonder how much of the US government debt could be retired if it was all sold.
dbstealey….The Government owns no land, just as they have no income, it all belongs to the taxpayer !!!
BS Brandon Gates, pure BS. That fossil fuel subsidy thing has been debunked numerous times. How is it that you don’t know that, or do you, but spout that nonsense anyway?
Smokey,
Much of the land on the map isn’t government owned. It’s owned by various Indian tribes. Osage County in northeastern Oklahoma on the map, for instance, is private land, even though a hundred years ago it was the Osage reserve.
db,
i mistrust that map, because it definitely has errors. I see one large area in my home state of Oklahoma that is colored red, (along state’s N border, NE) but is NOT US government owned. That is, Osage County, which happens to be owned by individual landowners and is also considered as the Osage Indian reservation, which you will see detailed on most published maps. The US gov’t. might own a parcel here or there, but any pretense they might have of ownership of the county is wrong.
I have to say that John Whitman and others have a point about class warfare and most landowners, farmers and ranchers.
OK S,
Sorry, I didn’t see your post (needed to refresh screen, I think.)
Osage county is still the Osage reservation. The Osage Nation owns all mineral and subsurface rights to County land, and there are other considerations, as well.
In an interesting climate/renewable energy fiasco that played out in recent years, a large “wind farm” was recently built in Osage County, which required large amounts of limestone for the concrete bases of the towers. Limestone mined in the County carries a small royalty fee/ton to the Osage Nation. The Wind purveyors did not pay and when sued by the Osage Nation, the judge ruled by saying (paraphrased) “it came out of the ground and they’re putting it right back in the ground, so I don’t see where they should pay”. Many locals suspect that the judge’s retirement fund was clandestinely increased. The wind company also made payments to area town councils for “beautification” and promised that at least one local school district would benefit from increased ad valorem taxes, but then promptly claimed ad valorem tax relief (no tax payments) as the project came online. It’s a dirty world.
Eric,
Thank you. Preferential tax treatment is the American Way, and I think likely to stay that way barring massive changes in campaign finance at the Federal level. We’ll make good on our COP21 commitments before that happens, alas.
I’m not opposed in principle to public support to critical industries like timber or energy, but how Washington decides what’s critical and what isn’t is … how shall I say this … a bit to prone to being influenced by industries who probably don’t need as much help as the politicians they’ve bought and paid for say they do.
In The Real World,
My source was Forbes, not the IMF: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2015/12/02/energy-subsidies-2-real-numbers/
One report described credible estimates for U.S. subsidies as being $10-52 billion annually, and gave their own number as $37 billion, of which $21 billion was for exploration and production (for the whole fossil fuel industry).
The “one report” is from http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ which is an activist site, not what I’d normally consider a credible secondary source, but it’s heavily referenced and … well Forbes calls it credible. I did do a little more digging and came up with this CBO report …
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf
… which puts the total tax preferences in 2011 at $20 bn, the vast majority being renewables. I can’t say I’m terribly upset by this finding.
Alan Robertson,
It’s pretty clear to me that the fossil fuel industry gets subsidies in the US. As with all such things gummint related, the multi-billion dollar question is “how much”.
So what if it’s from Forbes?
Regardless, why do you think allowing a company to depreciate it’s assets is a subsidy? That’s where the biggest chunk of that so called subsidy comes from?
How much money to whom ??
Another fool who thinks that any tax rate less than 100% is a subsidy.
How do you Americans feel about YOUR forests being chopped down to feed Drax power station in the UK?
Hey as long as you’re paying for it no problem. We can always grow more. Might even work out a trade agreement involving Scotch. For every acre cut the forage for deer, grouse (ruffed, not your kind) and turkeys improves. I’m sitting smack dab in the middle of one of the largest forest on the eastern half of the country and it does play holy hob with the area’s ground level ozone.
Last time I checked, it’s not my forest. It belongs to the person who owns the land.
Hmmm…does it help our balance of trade?
umm but doesn’t this “tree harvesting” fly in the face of the push years ago to “save the trees” that required stopping the us of plastic bags and other various wood products?? Also involved a spotted owl if I remember correctly. Make me wonder how many years before using wood would be evil again and the need to bring on the evil plastic bag would begin.. again… rinse repeat ad infinatum!
Cheers,
Joe
oops.. “use of paper bags” not “us of plastic”
Recycle all breadcrumbs! Save the wheat!
Joe C. :
Saving some of the very last old-growth Redwood forests in California (and on Earth, because they don’t grow in most other places), habitat of the spotted owl and where trees averaged around 2,000 years old, from clear cutting, is/was a different can o’ worms than just “saving trees” in general.
Many of the relatively sane forest management practices of today (like replanting and not clear cutting entire forests) were made in response to the devastation, including destruction of many salmon spawning streams that , back then, was commonplace after large corporations and a few could-care-less landowners were finished with “their” land.
Infamous US Interior Secretary James Watt (R) ,appointed and later “asked” to resign by Reagan, and notorious for mixing his own brand of religion with official government policy, was at his heyday then (and later slapped with multiple felony charges related to his HUD dealings).
Of course there have always been responsible forest harvesters too .
“Update – my apology to land owners who are decent, hard working people who have never demanded a government handout, if you felt this post targeted you. That was not the intention.” Oh political correctness and the fear of causing offense!
Harsh :-).
Your spin in the situation seems pretty accurate. I do think that there will be a plea for forest subsidies “to save the planet”, and likely from larger forest product corporations.
Even though I’ve planted some trees on property I owned over my lifetime, your article seemed somewhat tongue-in-cheek (or plain old sarcastic) in tone, and I certainly didn’t take it personally ,but apparently others missed this.
Frankly, I enjoy the spicy articles like yours here at WUWT, but I guess some others only like the bland stuff.
Your thinking that your thinking might have caused offense, is proof of the offense.
Just gotta change your thinking, …..we’ll get right on it.
What did you used to think you owned ?
And a Fool Politician and his Taxpayer’s money are soon parted…
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
And thus we see the true heart of the Green Movement: cronyism and rent-seeking at the expense of the public. The true believers are being played for suckers.
Thanks, Eric Worrall.
“more welfare payments for the already wealthy”, is very medieval, feudal.
Amusing. Where I grew up in Southern Ohio if you didn’t brush hog (mow) your so called pasture there would soon be a heavy crop of black locust (a tree) and blackberry canes. It was the standard protocol to do this every couple of years or there just wouldn’t be any grass for your cows. I am descendent of dry ridge farmers. Cows, did I say cows, well nobody keeps cattle very much there any more. The trees are back now and the black locust are followed on by hickory and white oaks. While there may be a few with some money, not many of my neighbors could be considered Landed Gentry, ha. But now, how exciting that you can make money by sitting back and doing jackchit. Ah, the wonders of a meddling government.
Now I know true hikers will laugh when I tell them I hiked out 6 miles, before the blisters became more than just a sore.
Then went another 3 miles, cus that lighthouse on the south shore of lake superior was doable.
There are all kinds of things that run thru your mind when limping home with blisters, mostly bears, wolves and cougars (no not that kind).
It was a learning experience to say the least.
Hearty Salute and “Thanks” to all our Christmas Tree farmers out there.
Actually, those forest owners should be paying a rental for the Co2 their trees are absorbing, and using. That CO2 belongs to the people as a whole, it’s not free for them to steal.
Eric:
I think you jumped to a conclusion regarding what this group is requesting. I did not read anywhere that they are demanding cash for keeping forests. I think rather this is just another case of an interest group tying what they want to do anyway to the latest policy fad.
In 1969 one night on the Tonight show with Johnny Carson he pulled out a bunch of newspaper ads for products associating them with the Apollo moon landing, no matter how tenuous; some were hysterical. The only one I can remember now had a picture of a US Navy ship and the banner:
Hucksterism: it’s not just for products.
I call what they are doing “Climate Carpetbagging”.
“Carbon-Bagging”?
Actually, I predict that a study will be published soon that claims marijuana sequesters more C02 per acre than wheat, corn or soy. The obvious solution to meeting the our NDC from COP21 is to shift farm acreage from corn to pot. Of course this will create a surplus of marijuana product so government regulation will be required to accelerate its market acceptance. Fortunately Bob Dylan foresaw exactly this situation years ago:
I have a friend who farms and ranches some 83,000 acres, of which he owns 67,000 and leases the rest. He started with a quarter section (160 acres) which he purchased with his small savings and a bank loan. If his first crop had failed, he would have been wiped out. Despite his obvious success, he is just as much at risk each year as he was when he started. I know some number of ranchers/farmers and while they may differ in approach, or success, they all have many irons in the fire and constantly experiment and innovate, always trying to learn and improve their operation… I could go on… my friend is also one of my heroes.