Over the past decade, climate change has increasingly hurt American farmers, but many farmers and farm groups have tried to ignore or downplay its role. So University of Tennessee agricultural economists Harwood D. Schaffer and Daryll E. Ray were hopeful when the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently announced a new five-year blueprint with sections that appeared to address sustainable agriculture and adaptation to climate change.
However, the document had "nothing about sustainable practices. Not once did the paper give any sense that research in ag sustainability or sustainable practices were given serious attention. There were no items that suggested that sustainable practices might play a role in reducing agriculture’s contribution to global climate change," Schaffer and Ray write. "We would have thought that agriculture’s role in climate mitigation would have been mentioned alongside Ag Climate Adaptation. But we were wrong."
Though they believe many USDA scientists take climate change seriously, the economists are troubled by the administration's official stance that denies humans' role in climate change and ignores the need for all Americans to help reduce it. That puts "conscientious scientists in a bind when they apply for USDA grants," they write. "Though the results of their research may play a significant role in mitigating climate change, they need to hide that fact when they write their grant proposals. Given the recent dismissals of military and diplomatic officials by the White House, we are concerned that scientists who acknowledge the impact of their research on climate change could see their consideration for future grants limited. That would not be in the interest of farmers who want to use the latest research to reduce or eliminate the impact of their agricultural operations on the climate. It would also not be in the best interest of our children, grandchildren and all future generations."
Why have farmers, so close to nature, resisted action against climate change? "Either because they do not believe that humans are playing a significant role in climate change or more likely they are opposed to any regulations that might force them to change their agricultural production practices," write in their latest "Policy Pennings" column.
However, the document had "nothing about sustainable practices. Not once did the paper give any sense that research in ag sustainability or sustainable practices were given serious attention. There were no items that suggested that sustainable practices might play a role in reducing agriculture’s contribution to global climate change," Schaffer and Ray write. "We would have thought that agriculture’s role in climate mitigation would have been mentioned alongside Ag Climate Adaptation. But we were wrong."
Though they believe many USDA scientists take climate change seriously, the economists are troubled by the administration's official stance that denies humans' role in climate change and ignores the need for all Americans to help reduce it. That puts "conscientious scientists in a bind when they apply for USDA grants," they write. "Though the results of their research may play a significant role in mitigating climate change, they need to hide that fact when they write their grant proposals. Given the recent dismissals of military and diplomatic officials by the White House, we are concerned that scientists who acknowledge the impact of their research on climate change could see their consideration for future grants limited. That would not be in the interest of farmers who want to use the latest research to reduce or eliminate the impact of their agricultural operations on the climate. It would also not be in the best interest of our children, grandchildren and all future generations."
Why have farmers, so close to nature, resisted action against climate change? "Either because they do not believe that humans are playing a significant role in climate change or more likely they are opposed to any regulations that might force them to change their agricultural production practices," write in their latest "Policy Pennings" column.
No comments:
Post a Comment