|
|
|
AdvertisementFeed the starving treesI certainly had an interesting audience in Bismarck, N.D. on Oct. 7. In fact, the writer for the Bismarck Tribune asked me after my presentation, "Why do you think that the coal people want to hear from a rancher?" Yes, I was speaking to the Lignite Energy Council and the answer to his question was actually quite evident. Cows, corn, and coal all face the same challenges today and even more similar ones tomorrow. Honestly, I thought I addressed that parallel in my speech, but the reporter must not have been paying attention. Truth be told, I did spend more time thinking about what I should share with this group of energy producers than I normally do before a speech. Lets face it, I have not spent any time in a coalfield and I haven't even been to a coal-burning power plant. But I very quickly realized that building and operating a CAFO are not much different in the eyes of the outsiders. The similarities in challenges faced by animal agriculture and coal burning energy production are glaring, when you stop to think about it. There was one other similarity that I noticed early on and never thought about before I spent some time with these folks. They were all talking about clean-burning coal. I fully understand that millions of dollars have been invested in reducing the carbon emissions. In fact, it was stated that for every pound of coal burned 1.4 pounds of carbon is released. In no way shape or form am I saying that we should just pollute without thought, but when I heard so many talking about clean coal, it hit me. "Clean coal" versus "dirty coal" is just another divide-and-conquer wartime strategy implemented by our enemies. I would be willing to bet that term started somewhere other than the United States. With each passing day, I see the whole "cap-and-trade," "carbon sequestration" and "carbon management" buzz as just another way for global interests to penalize the United States for our lead in providing reasonably priced food, fiber and fuel. To me, this is absolutely no different than the division we have witnessed in the dairy industry with the utilization of technologies such as rBST, organic vs. conventional, or even confined versus free-range. I think far too often we latch onto these buzzwords thinking it will give us a niche and they end up giving us only a headache. I am reminded of a trip I took to West Virginia in June. I was reading some state information reporting that W.V. has been a tremendous coal-producing state for 80 years. Surely those mountains are running low on coal by now? Wrong. Eighty years ago W.V. had 117 million tons of recoverable coal. After mining day after day for the past 8 decades, they now have only 110 million tons of recoverable coal. Wow, really in short supply, huh? In America, we use just over a billion tons of coal per year to produce 50 percent of our electricity. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) we have 263 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves within our borders. This translates into a 220-year supply which--I remind you--is just about how long we have been the United States. The "green radicals" first said we needed alternative energy sources because fossil fuels are finite and we will soon run out. When that argument didn't hold water they had to find a new one, and greenhouse gases seemed like the logical next step. I am not saying for a minute that we should not look for alternative energy sources. In fact, we must continue to research and explore because wind and solar power alone are not going to fill the bill. I have absolutely nothing against either one--but look at the facts. The EIA reports today, these energy sources account for 1 percent of our nation's electricity and indicates that by 2030 they will only account for 3 percent. Coal will continue to play a growing role in meeting U.S. energy needs because America's coal-based electricity providers have invested close to $100 billion in technologies to reduce emissions. In fact, so much interest is being placed on reducing carbon emissions that I predict that in my lifetime we will need to start increasing carbon production. Far too many people have lost sight of the fact that carbon is a necessary ingredient for healthy living in plants. Every business and organization is planting a million trees today. Who will provide the carbon to feed these trees in the future? Editor's note: Trent Loos is a sixth generation United States farmer, host of the daily radio show, Loos Tales, and founder of Faces of Agriculture, a non-profit organization putting the human element back into the production of food. Get more information at www.FacesOfAg.com, or e-mail Trent at trent@loostales.com. Advertisement
1
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2009. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
Market Snapshot Inside Futures |
60747