Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Visit The English Countryside
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
For those who suggest that American agriculture surrender willingly to the invented scare of man-made climate change and accept the gracious economic opportunities of carbon sequestration – this newest development from England might want us to reconsider. Having accepted the notion of participation English farmers now get to also deal with the on-going revelations that their sins are actually greater than first thought and that only through more involvement can they hope to be part of the solution society expects.
One has to wonder as the agricultural producers on the island of England valiantly work to get rid of their livestock and plant trees and meadows (which likely won’t be capable of being sold for the support of their enterprises or for food for other Englishman to eat) – what degree of accomplishment will be realized? Does their shrinking carbon foot print cause temperatures to decline?
If the United States follows suit, probably forced into compliance by an action by our U.S. Senate or through a regulatory mandate of the Environmental Bureau of Control (EPA) – since voluntary participation doesn’t seem too likely – then what? Other than higher taxes, higher energy costs, higher food prices…will we be able to go outside and see that there is less carbon in the air? Won’t we probably have to rely on scientists, funded by a grant from the U.S. government, to tell us that they have a model which indicates…oh golly, it seems that the problem is worse than we thought – you’ll have to do just a little more.
Given the wonderful opportunity that cap and trade has to offer, especially for agricultural producers who will be able to cash in on the revenue to be realized in the form of payments for their service as infusing carbon into their soil – why not jump on board and accept the gracious benefits to come our way? Since alternative energy from windmills and solar panels is so much better than anything that can come from an oil well, gas field or coal mine – why aren’t there lines of people waiting for that form of energy…unconcerned over the higher costs that they will need to pay?
For some reason centralized government planning which commands and controls us into social changes that only the truly gifted can recognize as being appropriate might not be a voluntarily selected alternative. That’s why we need to be forced to go along with the program that our elected leaders or the un-elected bureaucrats have in store.
It’s either that or doing what it takes to get a different group of elected leaders who aren’t as dedicated to higher taxes and a more controlling government. That approach should also deal with clearing away the un-elected bureaucrats who have their own designs for inflicting control.
For those who suggest that American agriculture surrender willingly to the invented scare of man-made climate change and accept the gracious economic opportunities of carbon sequestration – this newest development from England might want us to reconsider. Having accepted the notion of participation English farmers now get to also deal with the on-going revelations that their sins are actually greater than first thought and that only through more involvement can they hope to be part of the solution society expects.
One has to wonder as the agricultural producers on the island of England valiantly work to get rid of their livestock and plant trees and meadows (which likely won’t be capable of being sold for the support of their enterprises or for food for other Englishman to eat) – what degree of accomplishment will be realized? Does their shrinking carbon foot print cause temperatures to decline?
If the United States follows suit, probably forced into compliance by an action by our U.S. Senate or through a regulatory mandate of the Environmental Bureau of Control (EPA) – since voluntary participation doesn’t seem too likely – then what? Other than higher taxes, higher energy costs, higher food prices…will we be able to go outside and see that there is less carbon in the air? Won’t we probably have to rely on scientists, funded by a grant from the U.S. government, to tell us that they have a model which indicates…oh golly, it seems that the problem is worse than we thought – you’ll have to do just a little more.
Given the wonderful opportunity that cap and trade has to offer, especially for agricultural producers who will be able to cash in on the revenue to be realized in the form of payments for their service as infusing carbon into their soil – why not jump on board and accept the gracious benefits to come our way? Since alternative energy from windmills and solar panels is so much better than anything that can come from an oil well, gas field or coal mine – why aren’t there lines of people waiting for that form of energy…unconcerned over the higher costs that they will need to pay?
For some reason centralized government planning which commands and controls us into social changes that only the truly gifted can recognize as being appropriate might not be a voluntarily selected alternative. That’s why we need to be forced to go along with the program that our elected leaders or the un-elected bureaucrats have in store.
It’s either that or doing what it takes to get a different group of elected leaders who aren’t as dedicated to higher taxes and a more controlling government. That approach should also deal with clearing away the un-elected bureaucrats who have their own designs for inflicting control.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 1/18/2010 10:09 AM 
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: Cap and Trade Animal Agricultural Production Climate Change
Categories: Global Warming
Tags: Cap and Trade Animal Agricultural Production Climate Change
Comments