Image: Exclusive to iStockphotoExclusive iStockphoto
In the rolling foothills of the madison range in southwestern Montana, a cabin-style house sits beside a washboard dirt road. A few horses loiter in a corral outside, and spotted ranch dogs bark and jump at the fence. James Stuart, manager of Sun Ranch, lives here with his wife and three kids. Christian, the oldest at four years, just got his first pony.
Stuart, who comes from a long line of rugged Scots who settled this region, has auburn hair and eyes lined from squinting—or smiling—in bright sunlight. He loves this land. You can hear it in his voice as he rattles off the creeks and canyons of the 26,000 acres he’s surveying from the cab of his silver Dodge pickup. We’re parked on an overlook in the middle of the ranch as Stuart’s gloved hand traces the outlines of the landscape around us. “We have Wolf Creek to the north, we have Moose Creek coming down out of this big canyon....” His voice trails off as our line of vision ends at the hilly horizon.
See what we're tweeting about
22 Comments
Add CommentTrading carbon credits for cattle ranches is ecologically inadequate. We must also take into account the considerable Methane emissions of cattle and sheep...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn industry built on nothing at all, creating nothing and having no effect on anything except the transfer of money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo they have to give the money back when the grass dies and the CO2 is released?
I agree with silvrhairdevil. It makes no sense to try and balance the release of long carbon cycle CO2 with the short carbon cycle. Unless the carbon is somehow sequestered in a stable way, the CO2 will just end up back in the system when the plant dies. I would be interested in knowing the scientific basis of the carbon credit system. I must say though, I do like the idea of being able to make money by not mowing my lawn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA bottomless pit of a ponzi scheme, backed by freshly minted dollars which will have a minimal if even percievable effect on climate....perfect! Now when do I get some money for burrying logs in my back yard?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe carbon is sequestered in the soil. Even if the plant dies it stays in the soil until it is released through tillage. There should be a clause that keeps farmers/ranchers from tilling the soil for x amount of years after the initial 5 year period as a sort of carbon depository. Tillage is the main culprit to releasing carbon from farm ground the plants are just the ones that deposit it into the soil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what keeps people from selling credits that have no land (or double selling)? That's right I represent 100,000,000 sq miles of phytoplankton in the ocean. I have an International Consortium of Carbon Credit (ICCC) brokerage license # 1287736435221.11 I am accepting bids for the credits now: www.professionaladventurer.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is scientific about a scheme to reduce a trace greenhouse gas by giving money indirectly taken from consumers and ratepayers to a rancher who does nothing other than fill out paperwork? Nothing against the rancher for taking advantage of stupidity, but scientific doesn't describe anything that is discussed in this article. It's a playground game for six year olds at best. But six year olds are apparently in charge of all this. I can only hope we collectively grow up and start thinking functionally and scentifically again in this country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, I'm all for alternatives to oil, but only when and if it's cheaper without subsidizing it. And it will come if we let the market produce it.
The great Dr. Hansen has recently admitted that carbon trading is a fraud designed only to create more millionaires on Wall Street.� What does his friend and accomplice Al Gore say about this?� Incidentally, if you believe the postulate that more CO2 leads to milder climate than you must also believe that CO2 drives human population.� This is because, based on the historical record, humanity has thrived during mild climatic conditions and done poorly during harsh climatic conditions such as the ice ages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we don't get some sunspots soon, these guys could get paid to mow it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, you haven't grasped the half of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAside from it very much being yet another scheme to monetize the intangible, which our economic system must continually do in order to keep from imploding (Yes, the ENTIRE economy IS a Ponzi scheme, we don't use real money anymore, we use debt, as money), the other 'facet' of all this is from a legal, or rather a 'legality', standpoint.
In effect, all these lands and activities that were once within the constitutional intrastate confines will now fall squarely under the federal Commerce Clause, for one thing. This allows not just federal regulation, but exponentially expanded federal regulation of lands, and the lives and Rights of the people on them, to be absconded from the proper territorial & legislative jurisdiction of the several states.
On the other hand, with the nefarious treaties our feckless "leaders" are entering on "our" behalf, now these lands & activities, and to a great extent the lives and Rights of the people on them, will fall under the dictates of International Law.
We, actually no, NOT We the People, are having OUR Government, OUR Constitution and OUR Land & Lives, taken from from us one piece at a time. They are destroying OUR Nation, and using/abusing OUR Constitution and our own pre-occupied ignorance, to do it.
And, as ALWAYS, the greatest benefits will go to those who already enjoy the greatest benefits of society, and the masses will without question and without fail, be robbed blind, do ALL the real work, AND left to pick up the bill.
There are People all over the world who can explain what a travesty and a shame it is to trade one's Liberty, one's birthright, and one's posterity, for a few handfuls of trinkets and beads.
Hopefully, articles like this one will cause ordinary people who still believe in using common sense to speak up rather than blindly following the "experts" who claim sequestration nonsense like this is going to save the planet. Cap & Trade is being promoted by the same geniuses who created the securitized mortgage market which brought great benefits to the capital markets but has also resulted in a tremendous amount of corruption and financial destruction. Wall Street will love to see this stuff trade as the market inefficiencies will allow good traders to make a fortune, and they'll do it while making us all feel good by saying that they're helping to save our environment. Ain't America great?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPay attention, folks, carbon trading is the next big scam to be perpetrated on us by the ruling class and other "smartest men in the room".
Hey alot of ranches are going out of business, if they can find a way of keeping ranches alive, even if it's an excuse, I say good for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see if I understand this - we pay to sequester carbon on grassland and still graze it (not that it makes much difference, most of the carbon is going to be released anyway as it rots or burns if not grazed).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen we let or some actually encourage approximately a million acres of western forest to burn each year while prohibiting the use of any of even the best timber involved which would be sequestered carbon for 50-200 yrs. Aren't these huge smoke plumes reaching across the country loaded with various greenhouse gasses?
Then we worsen our balance of payments by importing another country's wood products, destroy our own wood products industry, put our people out of work, substitute imported steel studs & sheeting and worry about erosion on these forests when it rains or snows.
And we worry about cow farts; we must have our priorities right, I guess!
Have you ever heard so much Junk Science in your life? Sound like something a fifth grader would show at the science fair on a cheap cardboard display.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur farmers in New Zealand have no subsidies and yet compete on the world market.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe EU has just agreed to reinstate subsidies for all their farmers to help them through the credit crisis.
And yet we are proposing to tax our farmers for their methane emissions without taking into account the soil's contribution to carbon sequestration.
Now we find that US grass farmers can sell carbon credits.
Agriculture is our major export earner and yet we seem determined to kill it off in order to "do our bit" to save the planet. Stark raving mad.
So just a curiosity question, Does anyone know of any research done on carbon sequestration done by grazing cattle? It would seem the cattle grazing would be speeding up the process of carbon sequestration by the consuming cow who then deposits the carbon filled digested grass back onto the soil? Not to mention reduceing risk of severe carbon emmissions through range fires? Please feel free to educate me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea of carbon credits is a lot like the medieval custom of selling indulgences from sin. People who live carbon intensive lifestyles can buy away their sense of guilt, but it really doesn’t do much to change the conditions on the ground or in the air. Celebrities often buy the credits to keep their green image. I read that Al Gore is a big customer. But some good come from this scheme. They do encourage better stewardship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRural lands perform a variety of “ecological services” for the rest of society for which the owners get nothing. We could argue about the fairness of this, but it has the practical result of making options such as development more attractive. Carbon credit sales are helping offset this in a small way.
Many landowners are “cash poor” even if the land they own is worth a fortune. A major threat to rural land is subdivision and sale. Landowners may be forced to sell their properties to people who will divide it into dozens or hundreds of ranchettes, or maybe build a Wal-Mart. Most landowners love and understand their land a lot better than the city kids who like to tell them what to do, but they have to make practical choices. To the extent that carbon credits help them choose more sustainable solutions, they are good.
The idea of carbon credits is a lot like the medieval custom of selling indulgences from sin. People who live carbon intensive lifestyles can buy away their sense of guilt, but it really doesn’t do much to change the conditions on the ground or in the air. Celebrities often buy the credits to keep their green image. I read that Al Gore is a big customer. But some good come from this scheme.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRural lands perform a variety of “ecological services” for the rest of society for which the owners get nothing. We could argue about the fairness of this, but it has the practical result of making options such as development more attractive. Carbon credit sales are helping offset this in a small way.
Many landowners are “cash poor” even if the land they own is worth a fortune. A major threat to rural land is subdivision and sale. Landowners may be forced to sell their properties to people who will divide it into dozens or hundreds of ranchettes, or maybe build a Wal-Mart. Most landowners love and understand their land a lot better than the city kids who like to tell them what to do, but they have to make practical choices. To the extent that carbon credits help them choose more sustainable solutions, they are good.
When rural land sells for so much more than can be afforded by what it produces then it is in danger of being subdivided and developed into urban sprawl. This occurs even though its owners strongly object to the idea because a farming or ranching family cannot pay the estate taxes when a parent or major partner dies with such a valuable asset.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've seen many long-held family ranches broken up and portions sold to rich, out-of-state individuals or corporations (absentee owners) in order to pay off a death tax. This then leaves the remainder of the ranch out of balance and less productive and often leads to further sales of the same ranch eliminating a long time family agricultural enterprise. The effects on the land, local economy and local government are usually very bad!
Something needs to help here but carbon credits is a farce and not the answer.
Broadnax : Well said! Selling guilt indulgences was such a scandal that it eventually caused the reformation of christian religion. Loopholes in the Carbon credit system are so huge that the whole system is inefficient and open to widespread abuse. In Europe we used to have the 'Polluter - Payer' system, where polluters payed continuous fines until they cleaned up their act. The money was given to help firms invest in clean-up technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP J Howard : Supressing ruminants causes carbon capture when the land reverts to forest. We can reconcile meat-eaters by feeding them delicious kangaroo or ostrich meat which do not produce GHGs. Ostriches are the most efficient food converters per pound of meat produced. Both animals adapt to a wide variety of climates, as zoos proove.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are absolutely correct until your last sentence. Carbon credits are not a farce although they do have problems some of which have been noted in the comments. A much better system of dealing with the problem of CO2 emissions would be an international carbon tax. But politically everyone hates taxes, a fact that I find strange given that everyone likes roads.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this