Back To Main Page
The 2000 Elections: What's At Stake
White House Committed to "Strong Progress"
View From Captial Hill: Kyoto Is Not The Answer
The Presidential Candidates Sound Off
Americans Support Strong Action On Warming
Debating The Effects On Agriculture
Does Climate Change Cause More Extreme Weather
Advertising Information And Contributors
"Learning to Shop for Utilities" with Martha Hamilton. Online Discussion
NEI Viewpoint Discussion on Global Climate Change with Maureen T. Koetz
By Dean Kleckner,
President
American Farm Bureau Federation
Weather and climate are issues of paramount importance to U.S. farmers. Our livelihood is shaped by the weather so we are very sensitive to the debate regarding global warming, a highly controversial issue that is far from being settled in the scientific community.
Opinions among respected scientists range from complete rejection of the concept of global warming to acceptance that human-induced increases in greenhouse gases are likely to cause higher temperatures in future decades. However, global climate models that were the basis for the Kyoto Protocol have consistently predicted temperatures higher than subsequent actual data. Moreover, temperature data from satellites suggests that over the past couple of decades world temperatures actually have declined slightly.
In spite of the uncertainty surrounding the issue of global warming, the Clinton Administration agreed to the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The protocol does little if anything to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and poses a threat to America's economy and food security.
If ratified by the Senate, the treaty would force reductions of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States by more than 35 percent by 2010. Such a move would cripple the American economy while leaving other nations, many of them direct competitors with American agriculture, exempt from reductions in emissions.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and other agricultural groups sponsored a study to determine the potential impact of the Kyoto Protocol on America's family farmers and ranchers. The findings were deeply troubling. Because of higher costs for energy, fertilizer and other inputs along with a loss of markets to nations that would not conform with the Protocol, American agriculture would face a reduction in income of over 50 percent from 1997 levels. This would ultimately lead to a loss of family farms and the rural communities they support.
Carbon Credits Won't Deliver as Promised
With the scientific community far from consensus about whether or not there actually is "human-induced global warming," we need to think long and hard about endorsing the prescriptive actions of the Kyoto Protocol, which would be harmful to both farmers and consumers. As farmers and ranchers, we are willing to do our part to address any proven problem with global climate change, but we will not abandon our ability to feed this nation and others around the world.
Lack of Consensus Calls for Caution The Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol but failed to submit it to the Senate. It is obvious why. A wide spectrum of industry, labor and consumer groups strongly opposes the ratification, and so do most senators. If the Kyoto Protocol were a good deal for America, this issue would have received the public debate it deserves in the Senate. That must happen before any commitment is made to an international treaty.
As plants grow, they remove carbon from the air and store it in the ground. Much has been made of the possibility that farmers could sell "emissions credits" for "sequestering" carbon in the soil. But those who promise a windfall for agriculture from carbon sequestration fail to address several points:
Until there is a consensus on the part of the scientific community, we will urge this and future Administrations to approach any proposed international agreement with great caution. Unless all other nations agree to abide by the same rules that U.S. farmers and the agriculture industry are being asked to follow, the U.S. should not even consider participating in the Kyoto Protocol. If we are to solve this global problem, there needs to be a global answer.
By Eric G. Hurley,
Soil Conservationist
National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames, Iowa
American agriculture has a tremendous opportunity to take the initiative in responding to the problem of global warming. In the process, it can improve agricultural production, environmental quality and long-term sustainability. Unfortunately, many in the agricultural community have focused on a few premature predictions of dire economic consequences from reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while failing to consider the costs of inaction or the potential economic opportunities of finding solutions.
The rush to judgement occurred after more than 160 nations, including the United States, agreed to limit global warming pollution in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. The American Farm Bureau and various industry groups predicted that the Kyoto Protocol could increase expenses for U.S. farm production by as much as $10 to $20 billion per year, causing annual farm income to decline by 24 to 48 percent. Presumably, these losses would result from higher prices for fuel and motor oil, fertilizer, pesticides, and other "inputs" derived from fossil fuels. So it is easy to understand why the agricultural community was concerned about this perceived threat to its livelihood. Fortunately, the initial fears appear unwarranted.
The USDA Weighs In The USDA estimates that, even without new profit opportunities from provisions in the Kyoto Protocol, annual farm income in the United States would drop by only $371 million, or about 0.5 percent. As a frame of reference, the value of U.S. food crops exceeds $100 billion annually.
According to the USDA analysis, costs of farm production will rise by approximately $821 million, or 0.6 percent, as a result of the Protocol, while the value of production will increase by $450 million, or 0.2 percent. There will be some slight production declines, ranging from a low of 0.1 percent for soybeans and 0.2 percent for wheat and corn to 0.9 percent for rice. Livestock production and prices would see similar negligible changes. Declining productivity will lead to some modest increases in prices, accounting for the increased value of production.
Unlike other analyses, the USDA study assumes that when American farmers are faced with increases in fossil fuel prices, they will adapt by utilizing more efficient tillage practices, switching crops, rotating crops, reducing the use of inputs, and otherwise boosting energy efficiencies. USDA economists also used a more recent estimate of how much fossil fuel costs will increase due to the treaty.
New Opportunities Farmers also can grow crops that, like fossil fuels, can produce energy. Firewood and ethanol are common biofuels, though there are potentially many others. Biofuels do not contribute to net global warming because they constantly recycle atmospheric carbon dioxide. In a market designed to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, biofuels will have a competitive advantage.
If we do nothing, global climate change poses an uncertain future for agriculture. Any changes in growing season, precipitation, and severity of weather such as flooding, drought or heat stress-as well as subsequent changes in pests, pathogens and ocean levels-will increase the costs and risks of agriculture dramatically. Crops, cultivars, agronomic practices, water management, agricultural services, and infrastructure will need to change and adapt to the new environment. Some farmland and communities may be abandoned and, if land were available, new areas would be developed. To avoid such large-scale upheavals, it is in agriculture's best interest to have a relatively stable global climate.
American agriculture is rich in people, land, capital and technology. We can innovate, reduce fossil fuel use, sequester existing atmospheric carbon and produce biofuels. We can lead the world in slowing the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide and reducing the risk of catastrophic global temperature change.
The USDA's analysis of the Kyoto Protocol provides quantifiable assurances that the economic impacts on American agriculture will not be drastic as first predicted-indeed, they will be almost negligible. And the American agricultural community can only benefit if we resist attempts to demonize the climate treaty and seize this golden opportunity.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released its "Economic Analysis of U.S. Agriculture and the Kyoto Protocol," which presents a far more encouraging analysis of the Kyoto climate treaty. It calculates a very slight negative economic impact on agriculture, with the potential of providing some farmers with opportunities to increase their profits.
Fortunately, the Kyoto Protocol provides some new opportunities for farmers to profit-opportunities that are not even included in the USDA's economic analysis. By modifying agronomic practices, for example, carbon dioxide can be fixed from the atmosphere and sequestered in the soil or in trees, where it does not contribute to global warming. Under the treaty, farmers could receive credits for these types of "carbon storage" practices. These credits could then be sold to utilities and large manufacturers, allowing them to offset their global warming emissions. Eventually, the amount of carbon sequestered agriculturally will decline, so this is a short-term, though potentially lucrative, opportunity for farmers.