Tall trees, high prices?

Saturday, Aug. 22, 2009 | 2:06 a.m.

“I think that I shall never see, a poem lovely as a tree,” poet Joyce Kilmer wrote. Trees are indeed lovely, and more than that, they are invaluable because they absorb carbon dioxide, the worst offender among climate-changing emissions.

So it is not surprising that a House climate bill passed in June included a financial incentive for large landowners to plant trees. The House might not have realized, however, just how many trees might be planted.

An analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency, released this week and reported by USA Today, says about 18 million acres of new trees would be growing by 2020.

This is because the House bill proposes a cap-and-trade program. Large companies that can now pollute at will would have their emissions capped. If they wanted or needed to produce higher emissions, they could work a trade with companies whose emissions are lower than their own assigned cap.

Or, the House bill says, companies could offset their excess emissions by paying to reduce an equal amount of carbon dioxide some other way, some other place. Expressly allowed under this provision is paying owners of large parcels of land to plant thousands of trees.

USA Today reported that some senators, who are drafting another climate bill, are worried that massive tree planting could cause food prices to rise. This is because most owners of large plots of land are farmers and ranchers who would be among those most likely to see tree planting as a business opportunity.

The point about food is well taken. Prices rose significantly in 2007 after the supply of corn diminished because so much of it was being used to make ethanol, a gasoline substitute. If land for crops and cattle is diminished because so much of it is being used for trees, the same thing could happen again.

We support a strong climate bill, but Congress should put safeguards into the tree-planting provision. Trees will lose their loveliness if they take food away from families.