Pittsburgh: Death as a Cure

Pittsburgh: Death as a Cure

The debate over "global warming" boils down to this old saw: Is the "cure" worse than the "disease"? Two recent studies involving farming and global warming suggest that could be the case.

A study released last week by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change concludes global warming likely will throw U.S. farming off-balance, changing what crops are grown where. But researchers say it will not result in a food shortage in the United States.

"We believe that the United States will be able to feed itself but we are convinced that there will be regional changes," the Pew Center's Eileen Claussen told Reuters news service. Such as:

The Midwest's Corn Belt could feature more soybeans, taking advantage of a longer growing season and warmer weather.
Beef and pork production could shift northward as fertile grazing areas shift.
Productivity could increase and consumer food prices could fall.

Contrast that with The Heartland Institute's assessment of the effect of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. agriculture. That's the international deal to curb global warming, signed by the Clinton administration but pending ratification by the Senate. An October study found that the protocol, "all by itself, could cost the average farmer between one-quarter and one-half of his or her annual income."

Some other projections of Kyoto's fallout:

Consumer prices would rise, agricultural exports and investments would fall.
Proposals to tax fossil fuels or cap carbon dioxide emissions would increase the cost of the energy-intensive enterprise that farming is, from fuel and motor oil to chemicals and fertilizers.
A 25 cents-per-gallon tax on gasoline would reduce U.S. farmers' net profit to $76.70 per acre, and a 50 cents-per-gallon tax would lower net profit to $52.50.

The average farmer would see operating expenses increase by between 3.70 percent for milk to 15.53 percent for corn with the 25-cent increase; the 50-cent tax increase would result in 7.49- and 31.66-percent increases, respectively.

The scientific evidence doesn't confirm global warming's existence. Yet if that changes, what's worse? Adjusting to a climate change that's shown to be part of this planet's natural, cyclical pattern; one that very well could benefit man? Or Kyoto-based "solutions" that give every indication of destroying farming and imperiling man? It's a no-brainer.