By James Dontje



All of us who hope for a useful health care reform effort, and many others who are just plain tired of the topic, are waiting to see what the sausage grinder of congressional politics will deliver. But while we wait, those of us in farm country ought to be paying closer attention to what our legislators and other elected officials are doing with the other “heavy lift” in Washington — climate change policy.

If you have been listening to what Minnesota politicians have said about climate change legislation, you will know that a loud voice has been that of Seventh District House Rep. Collin Peterson. From his chairmanship of the House Agriculture Committee, Peterson orchestrated a highly visible effort to modify the House Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill. As Rep. Peterson explains in an op-ed piece on his Web site, he acted to make “it more farm-friendly.”

While Rep. Peterson may have done a fine job of using his parliamentary position to protect agriculture as a special interest, he has not led the charge to protect Minnesota agriculture as a public interest, nor to protect Minnesota citizens who depend on the farm economy, from the threat of climate change.

To be clear, rapid climate change is happening now, and based on our society’s best scientific assessment, the cause of that climate change is the increase of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere from a wide variety of human activities, most notably fossil fuel burning and land clearing activities. The airwaves and blogosphere echo with climate skepticism right now, but the scientific consensus is clear and becoming stronger, not weaker. Leading indicators of climate change, like rapid warming in northern latitudes and disappearance of the Arctic ice cover, are happening faster than the scientists expected.

Agriculture everywhere, and no less so in Minnesota, depends on a predictable climate. The expected average changes in store for Minnesota (more winter and spring precipitation, and drier summers) may cause a mismatch between where we have the most favorable weather and where we have our best agricultural lands. More extreme weather events that reduce agricultural production, including storms, floods and droughts, are also likely. As a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency summary of what climate change has and will bring to Minnesota puts it, we face “increasing challenges to managing crops, livestock, and forests.”

In light of how climate change will challenge Minnesota agriculture, politicians claiming to represent the best interests of Minnesota should be making the strongest effort possible to create a good bill. The first question they should be asking is, “Will this bill reduce greenhouse gas emissions soon?”

Instead of leading the charge to make this bill more effective in its primary purpose — reducing greenhouse gas emissions and shifting us away from fossil fuel dependence — Peterson is proud of the exemptions he won for agriculture and forestry from green house gas emission caps. Notably, he pushed for provisions that limit how agriculture will be accountable for net greenhouse gas emissions from biofuel production.

Recent reports in the journal Science, both before and after Peterson’s vote on Waxman-Markey, however, make it clear that we must account for the net emissions from biofuels if those same biofuels are to be an effective tool for combating climate change. Instead of facing up to these scientific results, Peterson kicked the can down the road by insisting on a five-year delay for further study of this issue.

If enacted, Peterson’s provision will further extend the perception that biofuels, particularly corn ethanol, are merely a highly subsidized cash cow for agriculture. That perception makes the rest of the nation skeptical towards biofuels and less likely to adopt them. More importantly, it will delay the day when biofuels live up to their potential to combat climate change.

Some of the best tools we have for combating climate change are ones we can implement right here in Minnesota farm country: Energy efficiency, solar energy, and wind power save us money and reduce carbon emissions. And done right, farming can capture carbon and produce carbon neutral energy.

These tools will become drivers of economic vitality in our region. But they won’t live up to that potential if our political leaders settle for protecting the status quo. The draft Senate version of climate change legislation, known as Kerry-Boxer, has now been made public and is headed into the hearing process this week. Initial indications are that the Senate bill’s ag provisions are less about maintaining the status quo, and more about protecting all of us from climate change.

Peterson should reconsider his past positions and re-enter the public debate as a strong supporter of a good climate bill — a bill that protects agriculture from the threat of climate change and reaps the full benefits for Minnesota. In doing so, he will truly be representing Minnesota’s agricultural regions.



James Dontje the director of the Johnson Center for Environmental Innovation at Gustavus Adolphus College where he also teaches environmental studies courses and supports sustainability projects on and off-campus. He grew up on a farm in northern Iowa just south of Blue Earth. He can be reached at jdontje@gustavus.edu