Ag Policy Blog

Climate Change and Political Differences

Chris Clayton
By  Chris Clayton , DTN Ag Policy Editor
Connect with Chris:

From Friday's Washington Insider column:

Climate change and the political storms that surround this issue are increasingly in the spotlight these days. For example, the Federal Emergency Management Agency recently required states to submit climate risk mitigation plans beginning next year that consider the effects of long-term changes in weather patterns. If they don't, the feds say, they will lose U.S. funds to help them prepare for disasters.

This is seen as hard news for the governors who question the science of climate change, and Louisiana's Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal weighed in quickly. "This preparation saves lives . . . [and] the White House should not use it for political leverage to force acquiescence to their left-wing ideology," he said.

California Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown took the other side. He interrupted a drought discussion by calling U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, "absolutely unfit" to run for president because of his dismissive stance on climate change. Cruz, in turn, charged Brown with ignoring data he claims show little or no warming over the last 17 years. However climate scientists say Cruz's statistics are cherry-picked and don't represent long-term trends, according to Politifact and the Washington Post.

Press reports indicate that some states are beginning to address effects of a rise in sea level, in spite of the politics involved. In Florida, for example, even though the governor is said to have clamped down on the words used to describe what they are doing, state environmental staffers say that climate change is on their minds. Emergency management division spokesman, Aaron Gallaher, told the press, "If FEMA requires more climate change analysis in the next plan due in 2018, Florida will comply."

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting notes that state agencies are studying how to accommodate sea-level rise in future road plans, modeling sea-level rise projections, managing damage to the coasts and monitoring saltwater incursions into freshwater aquifers.

Other states like Vermont who were hard hit by flooding rains from Hurricane Irene in 2011 are weighing a resolution to recognize "that climate change is real, that human activities make a substantive contribution to climate change, and that it is imperative the state take steps now to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels."

So, it will be important to note what the state reports now being aggregated indicate about state and local planning.

On the international scene, the president has submitted an outline of his plan to curb carbon dioxide emissions, as have other governments including the European Union, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland and Russia. The administration's formal plan would cut greenhouse gases nearly 30 percent by 2025 and would ratchet up pressure on other countries — including Australia, Canada and India — that haven't yet spelled out concrete plans.

The United States, the second-biggest carbon emitter after China, has taken a leading role in recent months in negotiations with nearly 200 nations to strike an agreement through the United Nations to rein in gases blamed for global warming. And Republicans are using these efforts to amplify criticism of the president's federal emissions rules. For example, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., took the unusual step of warning other countries that Congress could stand in the way of promises the White House makes in the climate negotiations.

The administration's announcement is an effort to keep the climate talks on track as countries work toward a deal in Paris in December. The cuts that the White House is offering rely on previously announced rules for power-plant emissions, vehicle efficiency and building standards. The power-plant rules are expected to be completed this summer and to target cuts from that sector by 30 percent between 2005 and 2030. The administration also is planning new regulations for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles by next March and has programs to boost energy conservation in buildings and curb other gases.

The United States is backing a delicate balance concerning the legal framework of the Paris agreement; the deal is meant to have legal force in some areas but wouldn't be a formal treaty that would need support in the U.S. Senate, according to international experts. The goal of the current round of negotiations is to prevent global average temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels.

Other leading economies are expected to submit their national contributions to the cuts in the first half of this year. Officials plan to meet for rounds of negotiations before the high-level gathering in Paris.

So, the problem of what to do in response to catastrophic changes in climate that can threaten much of the nation remains almost completely intractable. It was expected earlier that it would take an enormous event to unify policymakers in efforts to agree on solutions, but even severe recent events appear to have fallen short of the kindling temperature needed to ignite a productive discussion.

Agriculture is on the front line in this fight, and faces changes no matter what — as do most industries, and as the current debates are pointing out in increasing detail. Certainly, this is a fight that involves all sectors and should be watched carefully as it evolves, Washington Insider believes.

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN.

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Jay Mcginnis
4/10/2015 | 7:53 AM CDT
You are WAY off base RJZ. Even if electric cars were powered 100% by coal (mine is 100% solar and most grids are a mixture of hydro, coal and nuke with growing wind and solar) the cars would be much cleaner then internal combustion engines. ICE's are only 30% efficient while electric motors are over 90%. 60% of the gasoline we burn in cars and monster trucks is given off as heat. Electric cars are in the model T phase now with amazing potential once there is an established market and big oil leaves them alone. Remember when solar panels were expensive, now over 150 installations are on my grid. the more that are made the cheaper they get. Of course big tractors won't run on electric now but remember when no one thought there would be a home computer let alone a phone that does what they do now? You guys lack vision and don't tell me what my finances are, I worked hard for what I have despite your stereotype of an environmentally conscience and progressive, liberal person who voted for Obama.
RJZ Peterson
4/9/2015 | 2:58 PM CDT
Man made climate change or not, I don't agree with our current white house admin's approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Who wants windmills scattered all over the landscape? Why should we tighten up regulations on power companies that pass the cost down to us so we ultimately use less because we cant afford it? Why should we sacrifice not using cheap energy sources when China and India are gobbling them up? Why can't we urge car makers to make vehicles specifically designed to run on ethanol, propane, and Natural gas efficiently not a "flexFuel" ethanol tolerant vehicle that guzzles fuel, or a multi fuel vehicle that does not burn alternative fuels efficiently? Why do our vehicles need emission control on them when all emission control does is reduce efficiency?(this includes our Farm machinery). By the way, remember vehicle emission control from the 90's when most cars and pickups had belt driven air pumps on them to pump fresh air into the exhaust just to meet tailpipe emission standards? I looked at a new Chevy diesel pickup the other day, they have a tailpipe extension that siphons fresh air into the exhaust just to meet tail pipe emission standards, a lot of good that does huh? Also, whoever thinks they are saving the environment by driving an electric car must be forgetting that electric car is fueled mostly by coal. What I'm getting at here is most of the ways we are approaching this climate change reduction strategy is just a bunch of hocus pocus. If we are really going to help this situation we are going to need a more drastic approach than just measuring emissions. Lets do it efficiently, for example, my old Dodge Cummins diesel from the 90's achieves much better fuel economy than my 2013 Dodge Cummins diesel does. Are we headed in the right direction? I don't think so.
CRAIG MOORE
4/7/2015 | 2:50 PM CDT
I firmly believe in climate change as it always has and always will. Right now the effect man has on it is a theory. The majority of the "scientists" that believe in climate change would have to be crazy to say there is no climate change, yet the majority of these scientist also have nothing to do with weather related research. Seeing as Mars, Venus and Jupiter are showing signs of temperature increase I think we need to be spending more money on creating crops that can grow in drier and hotter regions because that is where we are heading whether we clean up our act or not. And who are the Koche brothers? Oh, you probably meant Koch brothers. Don't even know who you are criticizing.
Jay Mcginnis
4/5/2015 | 8:41 PM CDT
Great plan, if you don't beleive in climate change enough to do something about it you won't need the funds! Maybe the Koche brothers will set up an emergency fund since they are the ones profiting the most from climate denial!
Curt Zingula
4/4/2015 | 6:43 AM CDT
The optimal level of atmospheric CO2 for plants is about 1500 ppm. We are at 390 ppm, up from the near extinction levels that occurred during the last ice age about 14,000 years ago. We must stop feeding our plants NOW! But I'm not worried, the Government is here to help!