Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Michigan debates if ‘green jobs’ enough

By KEVIN WALKER
Michigan Correspondent

LANSING, Mich. — An environmental group working with the state of Michigan has issued an analysis saying its fight against global warming could benefit the state’s economy.

The group, called the Center for Climate Strategies (CCS), has been working with the Michigan Climate Action Council (MCAC) to develop plans to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which some scientists and environmentalists believe are causing the Earth to warm up in an unnatural and potentially catastrophic manner. Last year the MCAC issued a report containing 54 recommendations to address the global warming problem.

Of the recommendations, 33 were analyzed to measure the amount of GHG reductions, costs or savings, environmental benefits and the feasibility of implementation.

If implemented, the CCS believes the changes would create 129,000 new jobs for the state by 2025 and save the state $10 billion between 2010 and 2025. It also claims that these recommendations, if implemented, would reduce energy costs for state residents by the following amounts: electricity, 1.39 percent; gasoline, 0.37 percent; fuel oil, 0.4 percent; and natural gas, 0.6 percent.

“Combined with actions already under way, (these) recommendations would reduce GHGs to more than 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and generate net savings of $10 billion from 2009 to 2025,” the CCS’ analysis reads.

Russ Harding, an analyst at the free market think tank Mackinac Center for Public Policy and former Michigan Department of Environmental Quality director under John Engler, disagrees with the CCS analysis. He said although the recommendations might create jobs, they would destroy more because of increased energy prices. He referred to a recent study out of the University of Spain.
“They found that for every green job created, they lost 2.2 jobs,” Harding said. “It’s a pretty well-done study.

“(Jennifer) Granholm bought into this when she became governor. The problem with all of these studies is they’re one side of a two-sided coin. This thing is a bad deal all around.”

Harding said environmentalists wanted to take a regional approach to global warming because people weren’t buying their message nationally.

After the new administration began, however, they thought cap-and-trade and other environmentalist agenda items would be implemented right away, so the Michigan Climate Action Plan got put on the “back burner.”

Harding thinks the CCS’ latest analysis may be an attempt to revive that.

Still, a number of recommendations may be of particular interest to farmers and the agricultural sector. These include expanded use of biomass feedstocks for electricity, heat or steam production; in-state liquid biofuel production; methane capture from manure and other biological waste; and expanded use of biobased materials.
Page 98 of the Michigan Climate Action Plan describes one recommendation that would “create a green retailers program with tax incentives for E85 and biodiesel sales, that rewards retail and wholesale outlets that attain benchmarks in the sale of biofuels.”
Under land use management, recommendations include increases in permanent cover areas, retention of land in conservation programs and retention and enhancement of wetlands. Other recommendations include agricultural land protection, forested land protection and peatlands protection. Under promotion of farming practices that achieve GHG benefits, recommendations include soil carbon management, nutrient efficiency, energy efficiency and local food.

The benefits of the local food recommendation weren’t measured.
Other, more general, recommendations for reducing GHGs include implementation of a renewable energy portfolio, more nuclear power, coal power plant efficiency and improvements and construction of high performance buildings for the public and private sectors.

Under the transportation category, recommendations include anti-idling technologies and practices, vehicle purchase incentives, including rebates, a shift from truck to rail transport and increased use of public transit.

Thirty states either have a climate action plan in place or are in the process of putting one together. Within the Farm World readership area, besides Michigan, only Illinois has a plan in place with Kentucky in the process of developing one.

2/4/2010