Ag Policy Blog

Reports from the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and others say the Obama administration will propose coal plants reduce their emissions 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.

How will this proposal affect agriculture? That is, how will the EPA regulations play out following the political denunciation, appropriation riders, stoppage of all congressional floor activity until the end of the year and the repeated vetoes by President Obama and eventual rule going into effect sometime following a Supreme Court decision?

A primer by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions shows a region of the Plains and Midwest states are the most dependent on coal and would face the biggest challenge changing their energy mix. The eastern Corn Belt gets about 56% of its power from coal while states to from Mississippi River to the Dakotas get 68% of their power from coal plants. http://dld.bz/…

The Washington Post states the EPA "rule would give states and utilities four options of how to meet the new standard, with different emphases on energy efficiency, shifting from coal to natural gas, investing in renewable energy and discounts to encourage consumers to move to off-peak hours."

Other articles throughout the past week indicate EPA would revive the cap-and-trade proposal for states to consider as well.

Agricultural groups rejected a voluntary cap-and-trade in Congress in 2009. How will they consider cap-and-trade programs and other emission reduction efforts pushed by EPA but run by the states? Will the flight to natural gas in the power-generation industry raise new complaints about fertilizer prices?

Can landowners gain some windfalls from investments in renewable energy? Windmills across the Midwest landscape and state renewable-energy portfolios would suggest so.

Can USDA and EPA make "ecosystem services" work for a wide swath of farmers? USDA has certainly embraced tenets of soil health through no-till or minimum-tillage practices. The Natural Resources Conservation Services is doing more to promote cover crops as are a growing number of state programs that are meant to improve water quality.

The cap-and-trade program as pitched earlier would pay farmers for certain conservation practices. A few regional or specific offset programs exist, usually pegged to water-quality improvement. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., is one of the biggest critics of any federal action on climate change. Yet, Oklahoma has a carbon-offset program that includes partners such as a rural electric cooperative.

Is it possible to meld programs into USDA's eight critical conservation areas to offset carbon emissions while achieving the goals of those different regions? The eight conservation areas under the Regional Conservation Partnership Program are the California Bay Delta, Chesapeake Bay, Colorado River basin, Columbia River Basin, Great Lakes, Longleaf Pine Range in the Southeast, the Mississippi River basin and Prairie Grasslands in the plains.

Rest assured, the possibilities of marrying climate initiatives with agricultural conservation won't come quickly. It also likely will not come without a lot of political and legal fits and starts.

Chris Clayton can be reached at chris.clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.