Others argue payments should come directly from the government because industry would only pay for new sequestration. Some question why the discussion of carbon trading has become popular with some farmers and ag organizations. These farmers and groups do not readily accept the idea of global warming, which is the basis for the supposed need for the trading. Finally, there is no agreement on the real value of carbon and of whether ag practices should be considered permanent sequestration or whether they are really just temporary. Don t forget the Kyoto Protocol, which was developed in 1997, has not been approved and would not necessarily lead to such trading.
Trees are the only natural carbon sink recognized by many policy makers who worked on that protocol.
This could be very, very complicated as we put it into effect, said Cornelia Flora, director of the north central regional center for Rural Development at Iowa State University. Flora was one of the speakers at a recent conference on the subject. While many argued less tillage is better for the environment, some in the public and the environmental movement are more concerned about spraying than tillage. The environmental community needs to understand that we can improve the environment through the use of technology, explained David Dukes, a farmer and no-till advocate from Bedford. Tillage releases carbon.