When I was young and caught a cold, my mother would bring out the Vicks VapoRub and lather this horrible smelling, greasy goo all over my chest. When I complained, which I did quite loudly, she would tell me that “it was good for me.”

When I developed a cough, she would bring out the Vicks Formula 44 cough syrup. This thick, black, evil-smelling stuff tasted even worse than it smelled. When I told her I would rather die than take that stuff, she would just smile and say, “Open up; it is good for you.”

The Obama Administration seems to be telling American farmers the same thing when it comes to climate change. The head of USDA told farmers last week to just accept the proposed cap-and-trade system because, “It is good for you.”

The occasion was a briefing for reporters on the final USDA analysis of the impact of climate change legislation on agriculture. The study not surprisingly showed the legislation, supported by the administration, would be beneficial for American agriculture. The report was conveniently released just days before the President left to attend an international climate change meeting in Copenhagen.
According to USDA analysts, farmers would only see minor increases in energy and fertilizer costs, and food prices would show “minuscule” increases. In addition, farmers would be able to obtain new income sources by trading carbon offsets.

While in my opinion this report is a total whitewash and has as much credibility as recent statements made by Tiger Woods, it was the do it because it is good for you attitude that really honked me off. When questioned about farmer opposition to the administration’s plans, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack launched into a long discourse about how those who oppose cap-and-trade are stick in the muds refusing to accept change and adopt new innovation.
He cited the adoption of mechanized farm equipment, hybrid seeds and biotechnology by farmers as evidence of how innovation has improved agriculture. He used this as justification for the adoption of new farming methods that lessen agriculture’s carbon footprint.
The problem with the Secretary’s comparison is that the major innovations in agriculture were not mandated by the government but developed by private industry and made acceptable by the marketplace.

Farmers bought tractors, used hybrid seed, and adopted biotech practices because they allowed them to work faster, produce more and increase profits. The changes proposed for agriculture as part of the ciliate change legislation involve government mandates, increased costs and higher taxes.

Vilsack also implied that those who do not see the same vision of climate change that he does are in favor of the status quo. This is simply not the case. Farmers are very concerned about the environment and are more than willing to adopt technology that lessens the environmental impact of agricultural production.
Farmers, however, are skeptical of legislation developed by environmentalists and regulators - most of which have never been to a farm, planted a crop or raised livestock. They also resent politically appointed bureaucrats, even if they are from Iowa, lecturing them on farming.

If the administration really wants American agriculture to participate in its grand scheme to lessen greenhouse gases, then provide farmers an incentive to adopt proven technology. Give them time to evolve this technology gradually and adapt it to the many different regions of the nation.

Private enterprise and market capitalism will produce the changes desired more quickly, more efficiently, and at less cost than any mandated government legislation.

Finally, don’t insult the intelligence of the American farmer by telling him to just do it because the government said it will be good for him.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write in care of this publication.