9

Farmers differ on climate change path

Mark Hines' farm field, with a neighbor's farm in the background.

To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.

Get Adobe Flash player

A machine shed and fuel pump on Mark Hines' farm in Downs, Ill.

TEXT OF STORY

Kai Ryssdal: Assuming they finish financial reform this week -- and yes, we know that's quite an assumption -- next up on the Senate's agenda is a climate change bill. It could be introduced as soon as Monday. Details are sketchy, even at this late date. But we can safely say it's going to extract some kind of a price from industrial America for burning fossil fuels that are linked to global warming.

Thing is, industry means different things depending on where you are in this country. A fact not lost on Congress in its deal making. Today, we're going to look at the farming industry.

Jay Field reports from the Marketplace Sustainability Desk.


JAY FIELD: The story of agriculture and climate change is really a tale about two farmers. Both farm corn and soybeans. Both come from families that have farmed for generations. But spend time with each, and you hear two very different takes on global warming and what cutting carbon emissions would do to farming.

Mark Hines: The truck to the left is a semi we use to haul grain to the elevator in the fall.

Mark Hines and I are talking climate change next to an eighteen-wheeler on his farm in Downs, a small town in Central Illinois. No matter how the legislation shapes up, the price of fuel will rise. Hines doesn't like that idea one bit.

Hines: I mean everything from natural gas, which is used to make fertilizer, LP Gas which we use to dry grain, the diesel fuel we use to run our equipment. All those things should be appreciably higher.

It costs Hines about $14,000 a year just to run his tractors, semis, and other machines. The last thing he wants is to pay even more to fight global warming, a problem he doesn't believe is worth worrying about right now.

Hines: Maybe 100 years out there will be a larger effect, but I don't see any problem with it in the near future.

Lots of farmers feel like Hines does and for them the fight over climate change is a fight for survival.

Rick Krause: Our costs are going to increase.

That's Rick Krause, chief congressional lobbyist for The American Farm Bureau Federation, the largest organization representing farmers in the U.S.

Krause: We're kind of put at a disadvantage in world markets because our costs are higher, and we can't sell our products.

But sources in Washington say lawmakers know a quick transition to a clean economy is impossible. So, they're offering farmers some financial help. Congress plans to limit carbon emissions. That means big polluters will have to have permits. But these polluters will also be able to cancel out some of their emissions by, say, paying farmers to burn switch grass instead of coal in their boilers or swap out some cropland for trees.

Rick Krause at the Farm Bureau says those proposals aren't good enough.

Krause: While they might help people, they are not really going to fully defray all of the cost increases that we are going to see.

Dan Esty: The stakes for agriculture are not as high as they have sometimes suggested.

Dan Esty runs the Yale Center for Law and Environmental Policy. He says some industries will need more of a cushion than others in making a gradual transition away from fossil fuels. But he says farmers who've gotten generous federal subsidies for years are well-positioned to make the switch.

Esty: And I think it's really critical that agriculture be asked to play a role, as everyone else is, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Which brings us to the second farmer in our story.

Jaran Rundahl: My name is Jaran Rundahl. And I'm 83 years old. I'll be 84 the 14th of June.

Rundahl and his sons farm more than 2,000 acres in Coon Valley, a small town in Southwestern Wisconsin, not far from the Mississippi River. Rundahl has a very different view from Mark Hines down in Illinois. Rundahl believes the science on climate change and says America is the biggest polluter in the world. He knows a bill to cut carbon emissions means higher fuel prices. He's not thrilled about it. But...

Rundahl: If you do nothing, things get worse. And if there is a real problem, whether it's my problem or my neighbor's problem, we have to work on it.

It's something Rundahl has been trying to do for years now.

Rundahl: We're no-till farmers. So we don't till the soil. We just go in and plant. Fertilize, plant. Then put in our herbicides, then go back in and harvest.

The method traps carbon in the ground instead of releasing it into the air.

Rundahl: A number of years ago, my son said there's something called carbon credits. So I said, "I'll check that."

Rundahl called the Chicago Climate Exchange, where polluters can volunteer to cut greenhouse gases by a certain amount. If they fall short, they buy credits from farmers like Rundahl who get paid for their no-till planting.

Rundahl: We were the first in Wisconsin to sign up for carbon credits.

That was in 2006. The farm made several thousand dollars that first year. Rundahl welcomes a financial carrot to help him in his transition to a carbon-free world. Some believe the free market was the cause of all this pollution in the first place. And they also believe the free market can play a role in cleaning it up.

In Coon Valley, Wis., I'm Jay Field for Marketplace.

Samuel Gorton's picture
Samuel Gorton - Jun 8, 2010

Often neglected in the energy-climate-agriculture talks is that carbon is an essential nutrient for farms. Our current agricultural practices are not only contributing to global warming (over which there is considerable debate) but they are also depleting our soil carbon and our civilization's long-term ability to produce its own food (the original biofuel). Global warming is only part of the picture, farmers need to be encouraged (like the rest of us and industry) to conserve energy, but they also need to adopt practices that conserve and restore soils. Thanks Mr. Rundahl for doing your part.

Kris Maccubbin's picture
Kris Maccubbin - Apr 22, 2010

So take global warming out of the equation and they still need to weening themselves off of oil. As long as India and China keep growing, the price of oil is going to skyrocket. It's simple supply and demand. And few business will want to do anything about it until they are in a complete crisis. They need to make the investments now or risk waiting until the price of oil is so high they have no profits to invest in new infrastructure. Yet another example of the epidemic of short-sightedness that dominates the thinking across industries.

Sam Mandke's picture
Sam Mandke - Apr 22, 2010

Kudos to Mr. Rundahl in Wisconsin for trying to address global warming so that his grandchildren may still be able to farm from the land in their time.

D Backer's picture
D Backer - Apr 22, 2010

The Farmer concerned about the cost of fuels going up should be reminded at every car sold with electric drive helps to push the cost of oil DOWN. Our biggest problem with CO2 is that as we move to lower carbon, oil will actually get "too cheap".

LAWRENCE PREVITI's picture
LAWRENCE PREVITI - Apr 22, 2010

Where applicable, why can the farmers not capture and utilize any homebrewed biogas from their animals?

Douglass McConnell's picture
Douglass McConnell - Apr 22, 2010

As professional forest managers, our firm worked with several of our clients to enroll their pine plantations in a carbon offset program to sell carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange. The coordinating firm, AgraGate, in Des Moines, Iowa, failed to complete the necessary steps with the CCX to enroll several thousands of acres of forestland in the carbon offset program that they, AgraGate, promoted aggressively. Near term results of this failure and fraud by AgraGate are several tens of thousands of dollars costs paid by family landowners; long term is a distrust of the efficacy of carbon offset projects for forest owners.

Sandii Campbell's picture
Sandii Campbell - Apr 22, 2010

Aside from the issue of climate change; Mr. Krause's claim that American farmers are at a disadvantage would be news to the Mexican farmers who used to grow corn, but were run out of business because they couldn't compete with our subsidized corn, or the African cotton farmers who face similar challenges. Farmers, especially big farmers, have been protected for years with subsidies and tariffs.

Greg Wiberg's picture
Greg Wiberg - Apr 22, 2010

I just drives me nuts when reporters ask non-scientists for their "opinions" on global warming. Your Jay Field is the latest culprit, leaving the unscientific and incorrect musings of one of his interviewee farmers in yesterday's report to hang out there as credible without correcting them.

Providing "balance" from another farmer who accepts the science (as Field did) is NOT a substitute for clearly reporting the overwhelming scientific consensus that carbon-based human activities are warming our planet. People's opinions and peer-reviewed research are not interchangeable. It is a reporter's job to report facts, especially scientific facts, when people's opinions about these facts conflict.

Jonathan Lovelace's picture
Jonathan Lovelace - Apr 21, 2010

Your second farmer said, "And if there's a real problem ..." That's a big if, and after over a decade of hysteria with the media never giving the slightest impression that there might be some room for doubt, there's actually stronger evidence that this whole "anthropogenic global warming" thing is a fraud than that it's actually occurring. And the media was pushing the idea that "if you do nothing, things get worse" thirty years ago and more, when the problem du jour was global cooling.