Agriculture’s Role in Climate Change

According to this New York Times blog post, the cattle feed provided for the 1.5 million cows located in the Central Valley of California has been linked to the considerably poor air quality that settles over the area. I was a student in the Central Valley for 4 years before coming to the University of Kansas and experienced this pollution first hand. Who would have thought that tail-pipe emissions are not as detrimental to local air quality as are the chemicals released by cattle feed?

I come from a farming background (revealed in greater detail here) and my family runs a Western Nebraska farm corporation. I share this example because while the agricultural industry is not often considered a significant polluter, farming communities will have a huge stake in the upcoming climate change legislation debate. According to the EPA’s U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report in 2008, the agricultural sector was responsible for emissions of 427.5 teragrams of CO2 equivalents (Tg CO2 Eq.), or 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The fact that cattle feed is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions has a major impact on the State of Kansas.  At the beginning of 2006, Kansas was ranked second behind Texas in total cattle numbers with 6.6 million total head of cattle. Sixteen of the 25 largest cattle feeders in the U.S. have facilities in Kansas and represent a major market for Kansas feed grains. The financial well-being of Kansas citizens is critically dependent upon the profitability and growth of the beef cattle industry.

However, one should not overlook the many positive environmental benefits of agriculture. For example, agricultural practices that conserve soil and improve soil quality also increase the amount of carbon-rich organic matter in soils, thereby providing a global depository for carbon dioxide drawn from the atmosphere by growing plants. The same farming practices that promote soil conservation also decrease the amount of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere and threatening global warming.

According to the Agricultural Marketing Research Center, if federal and state governments create incentives for lowering greenhouse gas emissions farmers in the State of Kansas will be uniquely positioned to take advantage of these by: 

1)   Sequestering carbon in agricultural soils by reducing tillage,  
2)   Reducing nitrous oxide emissions through more efficient use of nitrogen fertilizer,  
3)   Developing viable technologies for creating ammonia (nitrogen fertilizer) from feedstocks other than natural gas.  
4)   Capturing methane emissions from anaerobic manure handling facilities,  
5)   Substituting renewable fuels for gasoline, diesel fuel and natural gas used on the farm,  
6)   Increasing the generation of electricity from wind and other renewable sources,  
7)   Expanding the use of practices like managed shelterbelts and forested riparian zones, 
8)   Other changes not yet thought of.  

Kansans need to be prepared for climate change regulations. Agricultural communities need to start exploring the above opportunities more seriously in order to reduce their own impacts, help others mitigate theirs, and develop new sectors of the economy supported by agriculture. Organizations like the Kansas Rural Center and the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition are committed to economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially sustainable rural culture. In addition, here is an excellent and simple explanation from the American Farmland Trust for agriculture’s role in the cap-and-trade system.

-Joshua Foster

Who will pay for Cap-and-Trade?

The politics of the Cap-and-Trade system and climate legislation were on full display this week as Senator Lindsey Graham pulled his support for the Senate climate bill that has been sitting on the shelf for almost a year now. Senator Graham, along with Senators Kerry and Lieberman, began writing the Senate version of the climate bill to match the house version passed in June of 2009 – the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act (H.R. 2454).

This legislation, otherwise known as the Waxman-Markey bill passed last year, set up the framework for a cap-and-trade system to combat the greenhouse gas emissions billowing from the smoke stacks of US industry giants. But more recently, even before Senator Graham pulled his support, senate legislation was foundering as opponents labeled it as a form of “cap-and-tax”.  If the US government auctions off the pollution permits then they are, in a sense, collecting a tax while limiting GHG emissions. However, a provision within ACES provides the permits to US industries for free before auctioning off the permits in later years. This allows the regulated industries to earn windfall profits from the sale of the excess permits. A provision like this that eases the transition for firms makes passing climate legislation more feasible amid the significant lobbying and special interest forces that push and pull in Washington.

When thinking about climate legislation, one must first ask the question that while we can agree that air pollution can be detrimental to human health and our surrounding environment who is left to pay for cleaning it up? Pollution is a negative externality. Through the consumption of energy and materials, driving instead of walking or turning up the heat when a wearing a sweater would suffice, the general public, not just US industries, emit greenhouse gases without directly assuming the costs inflicted on third parties. The goal of legislation as a way of changing consumer behavior is to put a price on emissions that gets incorporated into everything we purchase in order to properly reflect the costs on the environment. Rather than making US industries assume all the cost (which, if one has studied economics, we know will eventually be passed on to the consumer) we must all share the cost of cleaning up our country, if not only for the fact that we have all contributed to its dirtification.

Thomas L. Friedman, an Op-Ed columnist with the New York Times, wrote about how a failure to complete climate change legislation is not an option. He says it best (and this is in part why he has millions of weekly readers, including myself) when he suggests what he thinks President Obama should say to Congress –

[He]’d love to see the president come out, guns blazing with this message:

“Yes, if we pass this energy legislation, a small price on carbon will likely show up on your gasoline or electricity bill. I’m not going to lie. But it is an investment that will pay off in so many ways. It will spur innovation in energy efficiency that will actually lower the total amount you pay for driving, heating or cooling. It will reduce carbon pollution in the air we breathe and make us healthier as a country. It will reduce the money we are sending to nations that crush democracy and promote intolerance. It will strengthen the dollar. It will make us more energy secure, environmentally secure and strategically secure. Sure, our opponents will scream ‘carbon tax!’ Well, what do you think you’re paying now to OPEC? The only difference between me and my opponents is that I want to keep any revenue we generate here to build American schools, American highways, American high-speed rail, American research labs and American economic strength. It’s just a little tick I have: I like to see our spending build our country. They don’t care. They are perfectly happy to see all the money you spend to fill your tank or heat your home go overseas, so we end up funding both sides in the war on terrorism — our military and their extremists.”

A fitting display of all the reasons we should enact guidelines to fight against climate change, pulling at the core ideals of conservative ideology by making such legislation seem patriotic. However, Friedman does state directly that, yes, we will all have to assume the cost of reduced emissions through the higher cost of gasoline and electricity – which will also increase the price of food and other goods – to achieve any potential positive net benefit. We cannot assume that a problem as large and important as climate change will fix itself for free. There will be a cost to US citizens but we will receive a series of benefits in return.

Today, we stand at an impasse where the political atmosphere, both highly charged and hardly moving, may not allow for a concrete discussion about climate legislation. If the US Senate were to vote today on whether to enact a bill curbing emissions, such legislation would almost certainly fail. It will take strong political will and steadfast contributions from both political parties to come up with a compromise that achieves significant GHG reductions through strict regulation while not slowing the down the economy. I believe this is possible and I am willing to pay my fare share of the cost.

-Joshua Foster

Taking a Holistic Approach to Climate Change Planning

We are bombarded by contradictory opinions about how much we must reduce emissions globally, on what time frame and what the worst case scenarios could be . The potential consequences of poor – or even worse – no planning for climate change and emissions reductions leaves many people with a sick feeling in their stomachs.

The enormous numbers and ambiguous statistics used to describe climate change are usually unfathomable to the average U.S. citizen. They may see the problem as a function of big coal plants or other large industry. This type of reaction can result in apathy and, no doubt, the feeling that we’re all headed to hell in hand-basket. One might assume that thinking about planning for climate change holistically may entangle us in complicated details and the problem would remain a Class A disaster; however, this may not be the case.

By approaching the problem of climate change from a holistic point-of-view, we can sort out details that are easier to visualize, accomplish and yes, even plan for in advance. Discovering what problems can be solved through which people, building partnerships, and finding ways to make the plan attractive to all stakeholders are all part of a holistic outlook that takes a more humanized scale to this enormous issue.

We can’t force people to work out solutions to emission reductions in their daily lives, but we can try to ascertain what makes the issue relevant to their work, family, etc. Climate planning does not rely solely on retooling policies and working collaboratively with resource managers, although these elements are one crucial aspect.

We must plan to utilize every human resource as well. People dislike being generalized, and a rubberstamp solution or “band-aid” approach is not the ultimate solution. Organization of climate plans that incorporate flexibility, evaluation and re-evaluation are also fundamental to this solution. We must instill in average citizens a change from the norm to a new norm that invites participation, evaluation and flexibility. We must focus our efforts on a holistic strategy that can be adapted to the creative solutions which are applicable to the average person and made relevant to their lives. This can come in many forms from transit oriented development to urban gardens to showers at work.

Being overwhelmed by the enormity of climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a scary prospect for many. The best way we can plan for climate change is to take a holistic approach that emphasizes flexibility, partnerships and support.

– Steph Mott

Buying Our Way Out

As the “green” movement gains popularity more and more products are entering the market for green consumers. Although there are more organic options (yeah!), I am left wondering if consumers will be able to really understand the concept of environmental responsibility and sustainability. There are several key problems that leave me questioning my purchases and ultimately making judgment calls that leave me feeling conflicted about items that are organic and/or local, and consumerism in general.

An apple may be organic, so many buyers, including myself, believe we are making a responsible choice in promoting the market for organic food options. However, in most cases there is no label identifying where the apple came from, or how it was transported. In light of the principles of sustainability, one way to alleviate this conflict is to think about the three common elements that are often associated with sustainability. Organic is environmentally more sound, local helps my community and economically both organic and local make the most sense. Often local farmers are not financially able to be USDA certified even though they may practice very environmentally sound production methods. Plus the non-local organic option isn’t as environmentally sound if one thinks about the emissions and other externalities resulting from long distance travel.

It may seem like a lot to think about just for an apple, but follow me in this thought process for anything we purchase. Topping this conflict of purchasing the best more affordable product, is the 500 pound gorilla in the room: good-old-fashioned-American-mass-unchecked-consumerism (dare I say, greed). America’s consumption patterns although filthy delicious fun, are at the core of the problems that have led us to our current situation with climate change, social inequity and economic stimulus checks.

It’s great there is a large market for “green” and organic, but for me, my community produce and other goods and services are more important and in my humble opinion more sustainable, even if they don’t have the all hailed “USDA Certified Organic” labeling or other green (often misleading) designations. I think by building a stronger community of local producers, we can be more independent of the impending oil crisis, reduce our ecological footprint and lead the way to a more sustainable future. So as we are bombarded with the mega-market pushing us all to “go green,” (ie buy because it’s green…not necessarily because we need it) let’s remember some of the basic tenents that will help sustain our community as well as our well-being AND keep our consumerist appetites in check.

– Steph

Editors Note: For more information on responsible purchasing, visit the Center for Sustainability “Living Green in Lawrence” guide.