If I have a moment I might type up my notes from this conference as well - but in the meantime here’s Chris Green’s coverage of the event from Harris News. (Reprinted in full.)
Experts discuss climate change’s effects on agriculture
MANHATTAN — For Kansas farmers and ranchers, global climate change represents both a threat to their livelihoods and a financial opportunity.
That’s according to a series of experts speaking Tuesday at Kansas State University during a special session for K-State Research and Extension’s annual conference.
“The climate is changing,” said Chuck Rice, a soil microbiologist and professor in the K-State Department of Agronomy. “The question is, ‘how can we adapt?’ And ‘how we can mitigate it?’”
The build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from human activities would lengthen the state’s growing season, said Johannes Feddema, a professor in the University of Kansas geography department.
While some might see that as potential benefit, it’s one that comes with a number of costly downsides. said Feddema, who, along with Rice, was a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Global warming, he said, would also result in decreased rainfall amounts over the next 30 to 70 years, particularly in western Kansas, produce a more erratic climate and generate more intense events of severe weather.
Jerry Hatfield, laboratory director for the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service National Soil Tilth Lab in Ames, Iowa, acknowledged that plants love CO2.
But he said any benefits of increased carbon dioxide would be offset by increased climate variability and temperature increases, which would actually reduce the yield of crops.
That’s because higher temperatures and a more unstable climate could keep crops from hitting optimal temperatures during the reproductive phase of their growth, Hatfield said. Global warming will also make it harder to deal with weeds, insects and disease.
However, crops aren’t the only segment of agriculture that will be affected by global warming, Hatfield said. Livestock could also face increased stress from rising temperatures, including reduced conception rates.
“Animals are one of the forgotten pieces of the puzzle,” Hatfield said.
In the coming years, climate changes will force farmers and ranchers to adjust their practices, he said, including increasing the water efficiency of crops and providing more water and shelter for animals to survive more extreme bouts of weather.
But one option the nation has in trying to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could represent an economic opportunity for farmers.
Several speakers said the use of no-till agriculture represents an immediate and cheap way of sequestering carbon under ground while more advanced and expensive methods could be developed.
In fact, Kansas farmers and ranchers can already earn credit for using no-till or strip-till farming practices or by planting new grassland, said Steve Swaffar, the director of natural resources division at Kansas Farm Bureau.
Those credits can be sold by aggregators to companies, such as Ford Motor Co. or Motorola, that are voluntarily trying to decrease their carbon footprints through a pilot program, he said.
The price for offsetting a metric ton of carbon has fluctuated widely on the Chicago Climate Exchange, from a recent high $7.50 to down below $1.50 this month. But Swaffar said that with a $4 carbon price, a farmer with 250 acres in no-till could make $3,024 or $12.10 over the life of a five- to six-year contract for participating.
If the price of carbon hits $8, $10 or higher, Swaffar said farmers would be looking at earning significantly more sums of money.
But others cautioned that the use of no-till agriculture to capture CO2 wouldn’t be widespread unless there’s a system mandating its use. That would involve a national effort to limit carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system, proposals for which speakers expected to soon re-emerge in the U.S. Congress.
But Ray Hammarlund, director of the energy programs division at the Kansas Corporation Commission, said some critics don’t think agricultural offsets should be a part of such a system.
That’s because sequestering carbon by not disturbing soil is considered a temporary mitigation measure, he said. The soil becomes saturated with carbon in just a couple decades and some doubters question giving farmers credit for something some may already be doing.
Supporters of no-till and other agricultural ways of remedying CO2 will have to fight to ensure that it becomes an option as part of a cap-and-trade system, Hammarlund said.
“Do not assume for a minute that agricultural offsets are a done deal,” Hammarlund said.
Plus, Hammerlund said that even though agriculture’s own carbon footprint would be difficult to measure or limit, some farmers he talks to are wary of any system that might pay for them to make up for others’ carbon emission.
They fear that such a initiative might also charge them for the greenhouse gases they produce while farming, he said.
Leave a Reply