Climate change debate running hot and cold
In the same article, Kyle Swanson with the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, states, “This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950. Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Niñas. This current cooling doesn’t have one.”Carbon Offset Program Won’t Offset Farmers’ Lost Income from Cap and Trade » The Foundry
Even scientists who believe in man-made climate change agree that something strange is happening. Isaac Held of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that warming might possibly slow down or even stagnate for a few years before rapid warming commences again. He said the cooling trend could last for up to 30 years.
Held falls short of being a climate change denier, however. “When the climate kicks out of this state, we’ll have explosive warming. Thirty years of (greenhouse gas) will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.”
But earth going through 30 years of global cooling despite an increasing percentage of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is hardly a mandate for wholesale regulation of agricultural practices. Truth be known, the global climate is proving to be a lot like one of our southern springs — it runs hot and cold.
Farmers use a lot of electricity, a lot of diesel fuel, and a lot of natural gas-derived chemicals and fertilizers to grow crops and maintain their farm. So it shouldn’t be surprising a cap and trade program that artificially drives up the cost of energy will unfavorably affect farmers. What may be surprising is how unfavorable these effects are, causing expected farm income to drop $8 billion in 2012, $25 billion in 2024, and over $50 billion in 2035. These are decreases of 28%, 60% and 94%, respectively.Carbon Footprint | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
To compensate, politicians are promising farmers more income generated through offsets. If a company believes it’s cheaper not to reduce its carbon footprint, it can pay someone else to do so. For instance, a company could pay a logger not to cut down trees or they could pay someone to grow trees since trees absorb carbon. (The Onion lays it out nicely here.) It’s just as fraudulent and manipulative as The Onion claims it to be. A country can build a cleaner coal plant saying they were going to build a dirtier one meanwhile cashing a check from a developed country for the alleged carbon offset.