Submitted on June 30, 2009 to The Washington Post

Dear Editor:

Steve Pearlstein is right to conclude it would be a nightmare to regulate carbon from each farm ("For the Farm Lobby, Too Much Is Never Enough," June 26, 2009). Since only 7% of greenhouse gases are attributable to US agriculture, it would also be a waste of time and money.

But anybody who knows the two authors of the climate change bill knows better than to believe Pearlstein when he suggests the pair would consent to agriculture's participation in a carbon offset program for reasons other than that agriculture can sequester carbon.

That said, eligibility to participate in an offset program hardly translates into a cash cow. Most farmers and ranchers see increased production costs far outstripping any benefits.

To this, Pearlstein says the farmer is no different than anybody else. But, an estimated $175 per year in increased household costs can hardly be compared to as much as a $150 per acre in increased costs to the farmer. That's the difference between a week's grocery bill and going out of business

Pearlstein also takes issue with a moratorium on analysis claiming US biofuels affect foreign land use by causing foreign producers to plow under pastureland and forests in response to higher crop prices and demand.

Ironically, employing the same kind of analysis, we might just as easily reach the same conclusion about climate change legislation itself, as sharply increased US production costs could lead to attrition in US agriculture production, causing foreign producers to respond by breaking virgin ground. This is especially true if the US effort to curb climate change is met with the same response as our effort toward free trade by countries like China, India, and Brazil.

In any event, it suffices it to say that empirical evidence indicates the indirect land use analysis against biofuels should be scrapped, not suspended.

Today, US support of farmers makes up less than 0.25% of the federal budget, and the US ranks near the bottom in providing tariffs or subsidies. Yet, Americans continue to be fed, clothed, and fueled by US producers in a manner unrivaled in history.

So, next time you see a farmer, shake Elmer's hand.

Mark Williams
Farwell, TX
President, Southwest Council of Agribusiness