Minnesota farmers' support for climate-change bill waning

St. Paul Pioneer Press
June 18, 2009
By Tom Webb

Email this page

Minnesota farmers thought they'd be wearing the white hats. When the climate-change debate began, many growers were intrigued. They control millions of green acres, the dawn of carbon credits promised new revenue and biofuels showed green could be profitable.

"We are the ones that are growing the crops, and we are the ones that have control over the carbon capture," said Doug Albin, a corn and soybean farmer near Clarkfield. "So we were trying to figure out if there's anything we could do to help."

It hasn't worked out that way. As global-warming legislation is being rushed through Congress, nearly every farm group in America now opposes it. Even the Farmers Union, which remains gung-ho about carbon-credit trading, said it would "very much like to support climate-change legislation." But it won't, as written.

A pair of bruising battles has hardened the lines. First came a fight over measuring the carbon footprint of corn-based ethanol. It's not part of the cap-and-trade bill, but it was a big part of the climate-change debate. When regulators took a hard line against ethanol, the once-hopeful farm sector soured.

"That backlash against biofuels has helped reduce that sense of optimism," said Jim Kleinschmit of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a Minneapolis-based policy group. "That certainly increased the skepticism that it's not a policy that's going to benefit farmers."

Then came cap-and-trade legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The actual bill hardly mentions agriculture. But rural interests recoiled after hearing forecasts of higher costs for farm inputs such as diesel fuel and nitrogen fertilizer and higher transportation costs — coupled with increased clout for environmental regulators.

Complained Albin, who is president of the state corn-growers group, "People weren't looking to make the world better, but put the advantage to them."

Minnesota farmers last year produced $9 billion in crops, $6 billion in livestock and more than $1 billion of ethanol, so the economic stakes are big. Their bounty supports a range of secondary businesses here, including food processors, shippers, suppliers and exporters, who employ people in every county in Minnesota.

Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat from northwest Minnesota who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, has been the loudest critic of the process. Peterson and his bipartisan aggies have emerged as the biggest obstacle to the bill's passage in the House.

Among Peterson's gripes: the Environmental Protection Agency would be in charge of overseeing climate-change efforts on farms and ranches. Last month, EPA drew the bipartisan group's ire for wanting to include indirect land-use changes as it rated ethanol's environmental benefits but use a different yardstick for petroleum.

"I will not support any kind of climate-change bill — even if you fix this — because I don't trust anybody anymore," Peterson said angrily in May. "I've had it."

Steve Taff, a University of Minnesota economist, notes that both sides talk about sound science in measuring environmental effects, but ultimately, "it's a political exercise as much as a scientific exercise." What gets measured matters immensely, as worried ethanol interests are learning. "There's a chance that ethanol might not be considered a renewable fuel under a particular law, which essentially mandates renewable fuels throughout the country, and they will fall from grace," Taff said.

As farm and green groups grow apart, it worries those in the middle, who point out how deeply both sides need each other. If climate-change is to be successfully addressed, it will need the stewards of vast stretches of farmland, grassland and forest. And if it isn't, experts predict farmers will reap the whirlwind: deeper droughts, more violent storms, hotter summers, livelihoods ruined.

"The crux is, this community will be the most affected by climate change," Kleinschmit said. "For agriculture, what they're seeing of climate policy is only the costs, and not much opportunity for them. But we do think there's a way forward, with low-input agriculture systems and crops."

The House is considering a vote on the Waxman-Markey bill early next week. Unhappy farm interests are still hoping to mold the bill more to their liking or stop it in its tracks. Kleinschmit thinks a compromise is likely.

"We so desperately need the rural community and the rural legislators," he said. "There has to be some agreement."

Tom Webb can be reached at 651-228-5428 .

NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes.

Subscribe via rss

Global Food Challenge
IATP explains the policies that have caused the food crisis and the solutions we need.

Green Chemistry
The Green Chemistry revolution is making safer products and protecting human health and the environment.

Local Foods
IATP analyzes the key policy and marketplace issues driving local food systems.

NAFTA
NAFTA leaves a huge footprint on the U.S. and the world. As Washington gears up for the debate, IATP analyzes what's at stake.

Water
From ethanol to privatization, water is a hot issue in trade and agriculture worldwide. Trade Observatory has document and headline collections dedicated to water issues.

Think Forward
by IATP staff

Profiles of over 90 agribusiness companies, including their products, management, corporate geneaology and profit margins.