Cussin’ and the weather

E-mail this story

Print this story

Share

Ask a farmer to cuss nowadays, and instead of the traditional folksy “dad-gum it” or the more serious “dagnabit,” the words you hear him mutter might sound suspiciously like “Waxman-Markey.”

Yes, “Waxman-Markey,” so-named because of its sponsors Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D), and otherwise known as the climate change bill.

Everyone from environmentalists to small business owners are weighing in on the virtues or faults of the bill, which passed the House of Representatives on June 26. The bill, which if approved by the Senate, promises to drastically reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases over the next four decades, changing the country’s economic and industrial landscape in the process.

Passage of the bill was a defeat for ag groups, which had protested mightily.

Perhaps typical of the protests was the one mounted by the American Farm Bureau Federation. In a letter sent to all the members of the House, AFBF President Bob Stallman said the bill would “unquestionably impose enormous costs on the American economy, including agriculture.” An AFBF economic analysis showed that at a minimum, net farm income would decline by $5 billion annually by the year 2020.

The final bill could have been even worse, from agriculture’s perspective, if an amendment introduced by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) wasn’t part of the final bill. The so-named Peterson amendment would establish an agricultural offset program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture; provide for a list of eligible agricultural offsets; correct the misuse of indirect land use calculations in evaluating the use of biofuels; and alter the definition of biomass.

Although the bill passed the House, it faces another fight on the Senate floor, and another fight gives farmers an additional opportunity to make their voices heard.

On Tuesday, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack testified to a Senate committee on the role that rural America can play in addressing climate change.

“Climate change is one of the great challenges facing the United States and the world,” Vilsack said. “The science is clear that the planet is already warming. While climate change will affect us all, there are particular vulnerabilities and challenges for farmers, ranchers and those who make a living off the land.

In January, I attended a tillage seminar in Princeton, and I heard Jerry Hatfield explain just what impact climate change would have on area farmers.

Let the politicians and the scientists debate who, or what, is causing climate change. What farmers need to worry about is just what it will mean to them.

Hatfield said the climate pattern the planet is in will require farming systems that can better manage water availability. He said the climate is showing increased variation in precipitation, both amount and frequency, and in wild temperature swings, which have a negative impact on plant growth, soil microbial systems, and, yep, you got it, yield.

Farmers have a vital interest in climate change, and if Waxman-Markey is what they’ve got, they need to continue to make their voices heard about ways the problems can be minimized while keeping an excessive amount of the cost off their backs.

“This issue is too important for agriculture ... to sit on the sidelines,” Vilsack said.

Vilsack was right.

Barb Kromphardt is a staff writer for the Bureau County Republican. She can be reached at bkromphardt@bcrnews.com.