NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE REGULATIONS
Support Farmers, Ranchers and North Carolina’s Food Supply
The United States government’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry last year declared, “A lot of people have no clue that agriculture contributes about 33 percent of all the emissions of the world. We can’t get to net zero, we don’t get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution.”
Mr. Kerry did not reveal his basis for blaming agriculture as being a full third culprit in causing what was called “global warming,” “climate change, “then “climate chaos,” then “climate crisis.” Shortly after Mr. Kerry’s remarks, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres referred to the phenomenon as “global boiling.” Mr. Kerry also said nothing to dispel the view that he has never planted a field nor had to bring a crop in on time.
Shortly after Mr. Kerry’s proclamation, while not a farmer, but someone who does produce things like electric cars and spaceships, responded, ““Important to note that what happens on Earth’s surface (eg farming) has no meaningful impact on climate change.” — Tweet by Elon Musk
These statements serve to highlight the recent increased focus by climate change activists on agriculture as a way of life and business that must be brought regulated in order to save the planet from the pernicious effects arising from manmade climate change. This article will not recite the record of whether the dire climate-related predictions of the past 30 or so years have come true or not, rather, it will focus on North Carolina agriculture and related climate issues. The reader will not find a recommendation that the truth lies somewhere between Kerry and Musk or that agriculture just needs to make a few compromises.
This article makes the following points:
(1) North Carolina’s climate has not been adversely or abnormally affecting North Carolina agriculture; in fact, NC ag is thriving.
(2) North Carolina agriculture is not causing any climate abnormalities.
(3) North Carolina has not experienced any significant, enduring and unprecedented change in its climate.
(4) North Carolina agriculture (as well as ag in other states and countries) is being subjected to a gradual roll-out of incentive programs and the threat of regulations which pose a risk to food production and the ability of farmers and ranchers to survive.
(5) While government agencies and state employees who deal with farmers and ranchers are under political, career and peer pressure to take a “we can all work through this together” approach, in the long run this approach will have a gradual adverse effect on agriculture.
If the above points sound like they are “pro-ag,” well, they are. Agriculture in North Carolina is thriving and not adversely affected by a climate catastrophe promoted by some. While there are those in government and academia who would counsel farmers and ranchers of the need to gradually adopt various agricultural practices in order to combat climate change, related regulations and programs will gradually turn up the heat on North Carolina agriculture. Like the apologue which has a pot of water heating so gradually that the frog within does not notice it until it is too late and boils to its demise, the one regulation there, the required program here, the elimination of a resource, increasing prices, conditions on government aid, etc… slowly build up until the average farmer is no longer able to make a go of it.
One issue to put to the side is that this article does not address regulations dealing with pollutants and practices affecting our water, soil and air quality. Farmers and ranchers generally are protectors of our water, soil and air and want to do everything they can to protect the environment. It is in their interests and our interests to do so. Instead, this article focuses on the existence, and threat of further, regulatory pressure to deal with the much more nebulous so-called greenhouse gas emissions which are not environmental pollutants which affect the quality of our air.
Lastly, this article will proceed in a question-and-answer format between me and a composite of farmers and ranchers with whom I have communicated and read about to gather background information for this article. The fictional “Farmer” also acts as a literary muse to pose questions in order to advance the dialogue.
Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows
As for me, I am from a farming community in the San Joaquin Valley of California. While I also have never had to bring a crop in on time (at least not to make a living) I spent three and half decades learning how to analyze and dissect opinions from experts in areas of science and am a product of a State University program which trained me how to find and provide research-based horticultural information to the public. While my approach to studying the North Carolina climate does not employ algorithms or computer models, it nonetheless is self-learned (with gratefully received guidance from representatives of the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA)), transparent and hopefully employs that virtue possessed by many of those who work the land — common sense. And, if that is not sufficient by way of bona fides, then just consider me a commoner pointing out an emperor who is missing some clothes.
As for the farmers and ranchers making up the composite, they grow vines, trees, row crops and raise animals. One of their common questions is along the lines of “Why all of sudden us? We thought we were the good guys.” They feel threatened and anxious about what may be to come by way of programs and increased regulation in the name of “climate.” They fear that while agricultural practices that are now suggested or part of incentive programs, will, under different political circumstances, become imposed on them, as they have in other countries. They are apprehensive that while government officials now say that of course they want to support agriculture, under different future administrations, they will take the position that it is time that the “agriculture industry” (even though the burden would be felt the most by family farms) “just go along to get along” and make untenable sacrifices “for the good of the planet.”
Let’s start the conversation.
Me: Has your farm or ranch in North Carolina been affected by any unusual changes in the climate in the past 30 years?
Farmer: Each year is different. We haven’t had a significant drought since 2007 or so. There have been some hurricanes, but we’ve always had hurricanes in North Carolina. What do the experts say about our weather?
Me: Well, in the first place, they say you are supposed to refer to it as “climate,” not “weather.”
Farmer: I’ll try to remember that.
Me: There was a research study done by two scientists from the State Climate Office of North Carolina in 2002. It was entitled Analysis of Climate Trends in North Carolina (1949–1998) and published in the Environmental International journal. This study started off by noting that North Carolina has one of the most complex climates in the country and that most of the climate trends found were local, not statewide. The study found on a statewide basis that while temperatures in the last 10 years of the study were warmer than usual, they were not warmer than the temperatures experienced in the 1950’s. Maximum temperatures had remained fairly constant and there was no widespread pattern showing increasing minimum temperatures across the state. What is significant about this study is how the authors acknowledge the inherent problems in assessing the statewide climate in North Carolina, including the complex topography, problems with individual weather stations and lack of density of stations statewide, all of which adds to the credibility of their conclusions.
Farmer: Ok, that gets us up to about the turn of the century.
Me: Next up is a report by the State Climate Office of North Carolina which looked at a much longer time period, investigating records back to the late 1800’s. The report found no warming trend in the 113-year study period starting from 1895 through 2008. While there was some warming since the mid-1970’s, it was found to be not unprecedented and similar to the warming observed from 1910–1950. The report was on the State Climate Office website as late as 2015 and probably into 2016 and concluded that in North Carolina there is “no meaningful trend that is associated with global warming.”
Farmer: So, no global warming in North Carolina as of just a few years ago?
Me: Right, although it should be noted that the State Climate Office has since changed Directors.
Farmer: What next?
Me: A 2020 report on North Carolina’s climate through 2018. Unlike the first two studies, this one was commissioned per the order of the newly elected Democratic governor of North Carolina as part of his “Commitment to Address Climate Change and Transition to a Clean Energy Economy.” The report returned to him generally concluded that there has been statewide warming since 1895 and provided predictions based on computer models that in 60–80 years there will be various climate calamities.
Farmer: So, if this report found there was climate change happening in North Carolina, how did it deal with the prior two studies?
Me: It didn’t. The prior studies are not mentioned in the report.
Farmer: Why would the existence of these prior studies not be included in this report which was delivered to the Governor and made available to the public?
Me: Good question.
Farmer: Wasn’t the 2015/16 study still up on the State Climate Office site when the 2020 study was done?
Me: Apparently not. The office’s Director when the prior study was done left for another position in 2016. Somewhere along the line the 2015/16 report was removed from the State Climate Office website.
Farmer: How did you find it?
Me: This 2015 “no global warming occurring in North Carolina” report can only be found on an internet archive service, see: https://web.archive.org/web/20150420025024/http://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/climate_change
Farmer: Hmm. Well, in any event did the 2020 report find significant, enduring and unprecedented warming in North Carolina?
Me: No.
Farmer: What do you mean? I thought this report is being used to support the notion that our weather, er, climate, is warming in North Carolina.
Me: It is, but when you sit down and read the lengthy 2020 report you can see it found that statewide there was less than 1°of warming since 1895. The report inexactly concludes that there has been “almost” 1° of warming, but never discloses how much above zero degrees it is. For all we know, it could be 0.0001, or it could be 0.9999, or somewhere in between. It stands to reason that less than 1° Fahrenheit warming over the course of 123 years does not constitute a significant and enduring change in our state’s climate.
Farmer: Well, whatever warming they did find, can you tell from the report if it was unprecedented?
Me: No, because while there were decades of significant higher than normal average temperatures in the 1920’s — 1940’s, the 2020 study only compared a single 10-year time-period from 2009–2018 with another single decade, 1930–39, and found a difference of “about 0.6°” but then moved on without further comparisons with other prior temperature phases in the 1800’s or the first half of the 1900’s. Also, in focusing on just a 10-year period, the report ignored a basic tenet endorsed by the NOAA that at least 30 years of temperature history need to be examined when making comparisons like this.
Farmer: Why is it important to look back into history to determine if current climate patterns are unprecedented?
Me: Two reasons, the first and most basic is that if something has happened before, such as similar warming periods in our climate, then the current climate is not some type of unusual phenomenon, but instead is reflective of the natural ebbs and flows of our climate. Second, historical climate records through the 1950’s are deemed significant by the climatic research community as they occurred during a “pre-industrial” period reflective of natural (that is, non-manmade) climate conditions, see here.
Farmer: This is starting to get a bit technical for me, but to wrap things up, is there anything else to comment on about the 2020 report?
Me: Yes, but instead of nerding out on you and the readers of this article, just click here for three more observations.
Farmer: What about the long-range computer models in the study?
Me: It has become more common for climate scientists to put their prediction models out so far into the future that most of us now living will never know if the predictions come true or not. The predictions in the study go out to the end of the century. There is debate over the accuracy of computer models anyway, but even the State Climate Office of North Carolina has found that the United Nations had been predicting warming over a period of 50 years that never occurred and that, “Unfortunately, the best global climate models we have do not do a good job of simulating the temperature and precipitation patterns over the southeastern US, and NC in particular.”
Farmer: Are there any other North Carolina climate studies we should know about?
Me: Yes, a couple. The National Weather Service has designated six weather stations as Primary Local Climatological Data sites (PLCD) in North Carolina. They are located in Asheville, Charlotte, Greensboro, Raleigh, Wilmington and Hatteras, representing the breadth of the state from east to west. Their locations are depicted on this map.
These “primary” stations are what the National Weather Service also refers to as “First Order” stations and are the highest quality weather stations in the United States, being subject to the most stringent quality control measures.
I figured that with all of the warnings since at least the 1990’s of dire consequences of climate change and the earth declared to have “a fever,” that the temperatures at these six disparately located weather stations would show unprecedented warming in the three categories of average temperature, maximum temperature and minimum temperatures. However, the review (which can be found here) found that in only three out of 18 instances, or 16%, were there rises in average temperatures that also did not have a corresponding rise in the average temperature being measured in a 30-year period starting prior to 1950. In other words, in 84% of these weather stations, the temperatures were similar to those from the years pre-1950.
The second study focused on Wake County, North Carolina and can be found here (it is updated annually). Remember that one of the Primary Local Climatological Sites is located in Wake County. A wide range of elements of the climate were studied (temperatures, snow, humidity, hurricanes, drought and more) and found there were no recent significant, enduring and unprecedented changes in the climate patterns examined. The study also found that within the entire state there is not a problem pattern with drought and that hurricanes are decreasing in intensity and frequency.
Farmer: Ok, I’m studied out — what’s your point about agriculture in all of this.
Me: With recent claims that the sky basically is falling and that the North Carolina climate is in a crisis, agriculture should be taking it on the chin, right? Well, no, in fact, North Carolina agriculture is producing more, on less land, than ever.
Yep, North Carolina agriculture passed the $103.2 billion mark in 2023, its most productive year ever and up from $59 billion in 2005. Agriculture is North Carolina’s #1 industry, employing about one fifth of the state’s workforce. In terms of total agricultural production, the latest USDA figures show that North Carolina’s production rose 234% since 1960 to 2004.
I also am happy to report that it was a banner year for watermelons and giant pumpkins at the State Fair according to the NC Department of Agriculture.
With all the so-called boiling going on and with, as some have said, North Carolina being significantly affected by climate change, people should be avoiding the state and the economy should be declining. Instead, as we all know, North Carolina is a top state to which people from other states are moving and the state economy is quite healthy — in large part due to agriculture.
And, across the United States total agricultural output has tripled since 1948 according to the latest statistics from the USDA.
Around the world, things are dramatically improving. More than 1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty since 1990. Over the decades since 1961, there has been a consistent global uptrend in the per capita calorie supply. Global agricultural yields of crops have increased substantially in the past several decades.
Farmer: Ok, so NC ag is doing great, same for the U.S. and around the world, but what’s all this about agriculture being a major contributor to climate change?
Me: Well, first of all, you don’t have to believe Mr. Kerry. He also supported and pronounced predictions that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2014, which of course turned out not to be the case. Even my flight map on a recent trip reflected this:
He could have chosen a much lower number (instead of his one-third contributing figure), but his remarks reflect an unfamiliarity with agriculture such that he apparently views it as just another industry to be regulated. First, Mr. Kerry could have disclosed that even the United Nations has stated that over 50% of emissions attributed to agriculture involved activities that happen after the crops leave the farm, in other words, packaging, transportation, and waste management. However, he evidently didn’t care about this distinction, perhaps just that the headlines read: “Agriculture. One-Third Contributor. Climate Change.”
Mr. Kerry could have focused his comments on U.S. agriculture. Agricultural emissions are only really estimates, some would say guesses, anyway as sensors are not located around farms and ranches to collect emission data.
The International Energy Agency puts U.S. agricultural greenhouse gas emissions only at 8%. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that agriculture accounts for only 10.6% of emissions. In North Carolina, agriculture is estimated to account for only 9% of total emissions and which have been decreasing since 2005. These statistics must be taken with a grain of salt as, according to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, it is “particularly challenging” to measure and quantify emissions associated with working agricultural lands and this sector has a “larger amount of uncertainty. “
Farmer: So, emissions as a whole must be rising in the United States to get everyone so riled up.
Me: Well, actually, greenhouse gas emissions in the United States decreased 18% from 2005 to 2018. Interestingly, the North Carolina governor in 2018 issued Executive Order 80 which was aimed at climate related things and stated as a goal reducing greenhouse emissions by 40% from their 2005 levels by the year 2025. Well, in fact greenhouse gas emissions in North Carolina have been determined to be down 38% from 2005 to 2020. This is close enough to the governor’s stated goal for the state that even the most ardent global warming activist may consider chilling out a bit, but we will see.
Farmer: So, let me get this straight. Our country’s emissions have dropped by almost 20% in the past couple of decades and keep dropping, with a 38% drop in North Carolina, agriculture in North Carolina only contributes (maybe) 9% to total emissions in the state, the studies done in the past 20 or so years conclude that significant climate change is really not occurring in North Carolina and we farmers and ranchers nonetheless may be subject to a growing array of new climate-related regulations which will decrease our ability to survive?
Me: Maybe. That is the scenario this article is attempting to address at the front end. It is so arbitrary that it depends on the political party in power. Right now, the U.S. Farm Bill is still being debated in Congress. The Democrats reportedly will vote in favor of the new bill if it preserves a great deal of funding for climate-related initiatives. The Republicans denounce the farm bill as too much “Green New Deal” and not enough agriculture.
And, get this — the USDA recently published its 2022–2026 Strategic Plan. What is it’s #1 strategic goal? Is it to Provide All Americans Safe, Nutritious Food? No, out of its six strategic goals, that is down the list at #4. Instead, the USDA’s new #1 goal is to “Combat Climate Change.” So, you can see that one political party currently in executive power is willing to place the climate change agenda ahead of the rights of the American consumer to safe, nutritious food.
Hopefully those who are supposed to be supporting North Carolina agriculture, the agencies, the agents, the university consultants and others, will choose to support ag instead of just gradually going along with the climate change proponents and raising the temperature of the water in the pot. However, the USDA already has a list of dozens of “Climate-Smart Agriculture Mitigation Activities” and other countries already have imposed severe climate-related laws on farmers — more on that a bit later.
Farmer: Will the North Carolina State Climate Office be of help to us farmers?
Me: Hopefully. It already works with agriculture by way of forecasts and offering other climate related tools, but it currently is a proponent of the climate change narrative and we will just need to wait to see if it in the future takes the side of climate over agriculture if the time comes for the imposition of costly climate related regulations. Realizing that some will say that there are no sides and that a climate conscious government and agriculture can work together for the good of the planet, unfortunately there are sides which for understandable reasons have developed in other countries and which are developing in the U.S.
Farmer: Why do you say that?
Me: Well, the State Climate Office has more recently taken the position that agriculture is a “ … a pretty big contributor globally” to climate change. The current Director has stated that the climate “crisis” also involves a moral imperative and a moral obligation.
The State Climate Office uses images to show sources of greenhouse emissions. In one Climate Office presentation, next to a photo reflecting a scene of burning hot heavy industry giving off fiery emissions, the Office places an image of cattle grazing in a field as another emission source needing to be addressed.
More generally, the Office’s current Director has been quoted that, “Climate change is here, it’s now and it’s hitting us hard from all sides.”
How about you, has the climate been hitting you hard from all sides recently?
Farmer: Well, not that I can recall, but diesel prices have skyrocketed the past three years and that’s been a hard hit. What I also don’t get is that every time there is a weather event like a hurricane, we always hear on the news some expert saying that it is due to climate change, is that true?
Me: We all now hear these “this is the new normal” and “this is the face of climate change” type statements after a weather event. But, for example, as I mentioned before, it is clear that hurricanes were more frequent and intense in the early part of the last century than they are now.
Farmer: I also keep hearing from the folks with the state that minimum temperatures have risen significantly because of climate change and this will impact agriculture, what about this?
Me: Yeah, I know what you mean. This seems to be a common comment from climate change proponents. But beyond that, what’s more important is that minimum temperatures are not rising in a significant, enduring and unprecedented way in North Carolina.
Farmer: Explain to me why.
Me: Let’s go back to the State Climate Office’s 2002 report on our state’s climate. It concluded, “… there was no widespread pattern showing increasing minimum temperatures across the state.” Interestingly, while the report from 2015 (the one that was taken down from the State Climate Office website) noted a rise in minimum temperatures, this rise was found only in urban areas and not found in rural areas. The authors of the report thought this was due to urban development and made a point of noting that it was not due to global warming.
The 2020 climate report did not dispute the findings of the State Climate Office that the rise in minimum temperatures was only found in urban areas and apparently did not even attempt to study whether this was found in rural areas. The report also did not compare 30-year time periods from early in the last century to the most recent 30-year time period, although it did acknowledge that abnormally high minimum temperature periods had existed in the first part of the last century. When I looked at the subject in my most recent study, Wake County minimum temperatures were higher in the 30-year period from 1913–1942 than the most recent 30 years.
Lastly, the study involving the six Primary Local Climatological Sites in North Carolina showed that only one of the six stations had average minimum temperatures for the last 30 years which were higher than the average and with no corresponding rise in a 30-year time period before 1950.
Farmer: We’re also told that we can expect there to be more droughts, what about that?
Me: There hasn’t been a drought of significance in North Carolina since 2007–8. See here.
Farmer: Recently, I have been hearing about “flash droughts” we are having.
Me: A “flash drought” is what you and I would call a dry spell. It’s a catchy term that has come into use in recent years and even now is referenced by the USDA. If real droughts aren’t occurring, then, frankly, those who are raising alarms about climate change have come up with a related calamity-type term and attribute ominous significance to it. The 2002, 2015 and 2020 North Carolina studies did not consider the subject of “flash” droughts worthy of investigation or discussion and the term “flash drought” was not even used. The 2020 study concluded that droughts are a natural part of North Carolina’s climate and did not find any increase in droughts over history. Lastly, if “flash droughts” were such scientifically established phenomena, then there would be an accepted definition of what they are. However, a group of scientists, including two from NOAA, tried to determine what a “flash drought” was and in a published study found that there are at least 29 different definitions in the scientific literature.
Farmer: I think I’ll stick with “dry spell.”
Me: One last thought on the subject of droughts. The high temperatures, winds and drought conditions during the great dust bowl era of the mid-1930’s resulted in the only mass migration of people in the United States due to climatic conditions. The great dust bowl occurred during an era before it could be blamed on man-made climate change. There is much written on the horrible climate and weather conditions of the 1920’s through the 1940’s in many parts of the country, for example this article here, “The 1930’s — Decade of Extreme Weather.”
This is the face of despair, with serious climatic conditions as a cause. I grew up with the children of these farming families turned migrants who made their way to the Central Valley of California and were derisively referred to as “Okies” since many of them came from Oklahoma. These hard-working, desperate folks would have welcomed just a few dry spells or “flash droughts.” Frankly, the use of the phrase “flash drought” by climate activists is a slight to their memory and to their story. Fortunately, North Carolina has not had a significant drought for over 15 years.
Farmer: You mentioned actions against farmers by other countries in the name of fighting climate change — what can you tell me about that?
Me: Let’s just review several of them. And, keep in mind, there likely are those in government who would be willing to enact the similar programs on U.S. agriculture if they could. A representative example is this quote from a member of the United States House of Representatives Agriculture Committee. “We are going to have to talk about cutting emissions from farms and changing some of the practices.”
Sri Lanka
To great fanfare and support by the international climate community, the government of Sri Lanka banned the use of chemical fertilizers in 2021. Over 90% of Sri Lanka’s farmers had used chemical fertilizers before they were banned. Sri Lanka’s anti-modern fertilizer government had the support of the European Union and World Bank, with them pledging $3 billion to help ease the transition.
After they were banned, 85% of farmers experienced crop losses, rice production fell 20% and prices skyrocketed 50 percent in just six months. Sri Lanka had to import $450 million worth of rice despite having been self-sufficient in the grain just months earlier. The price of carrots and tomatoes rose five-fold. One-third of Sri Lanka’s farmlands were dormant in 2021 due to the fertilizer ban.
The damage to the country’s tea crop was immense. Tea production had generated $1.3 billion in exports annually and paid for 71% of the nation’s food imports before 2021. Then, tea production and exports crashed between November 2021 and February 2022.
The government of Sri Lanka subsequently fell. Protesters breached the official residences of Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister and President, who fled. The nation went bankrupt and defaulted on its debt payments. Millions are struggling to purchase food, medicine and fuel. Inflation rose to over 50% and food prices rose by 80% with a half-million people falling into poverty. See here for more detail and the source for this description.
Netherlands
The Netherlands is the largest exporter of meat in Europe and the second largest exporter of food overall by economic value in the world, after the United States. By the Dutch government’s own estimates, 11,200 farms out of the roughly 35,000 dedicated to dairy and livestock would have to close under its policies, 17,600 farmers would have to reduce livestock, and total livestock would need to be reduced by one-half to one-third. The Dutch government has demanded that animal farming stop entirely in many places. See reference for this information and further detail here.
Canada
Canada is seeking a 30% reduction in nitrogen pollution by 2030. While the Canadian government says it is not mandating fertilizer use reductions, only pollution reductions, experts agree that such a radical pollution decline in such a short period will only be possible through the government enforcing reduced fertilizer use, and thus reduced food production. The cost to farmers would be between $10 billion and $48 billion. The total value of lost production is estimated to grow to $10.4 billion per year by 2030. See here
Germany
The German government in 2019 enacted policies requiring a 20% reduction in the use of fertilizers and pesticides as part of its “agriculture reform package.” Subsequently, fertilizer prices rose 300%. See, here. More recently, the government has raised its “carbon” tax on diesel fuel a full 50%, resulting in a dramatic increase in diesel’s price.
Ireland
Earlier this year, the Irish government issued a memorandum which considered the slaughter of 200,000 cows to help it meet its climate targets.
European Union
The “Nature Restoration Law” was adopted by the European Union Parliament. The law sets binding targets for 20 per cent of the EU’s territory to be “restored to nature” by 2030. Critics insist it will hit farmers hard, encroaching on their land and could lead to the liquidation of millions of acres of agricultural land.
Further, the EU’s “Farm to Fork Strategy” calls for 10% of agricultural land to be set aside for non-farming use and at least 25% of EU farms should be organic.
The EU also imposed a 20% reduction in fertilizer use and a 50% reduction in pesticide use by 2030. While the EU recently paused these regulations, it only did so until in view of upcoming elections and promised future regulations, which would be more “mature,” without elaborating on this ambiguous adjective.
As far as the United States goes, it’s not a question of whether there are legislators who support these types of policies, right now it is just a question of timing and how many, which is why people need information such as is discussed in this article and why those whose jobs it is to support agriculture at some point take a strong stand to protect it, rather than urging it to gradually, drip by drip, accept various climate mitigation strategies until it’s too late to be economically viable. As one department head in North Carolina’s ag world said, “sustainability” in North Carolina’s agriculture these days really just means staying in business.
The threats to viability in North Carolina agriculture are great, primarily including the reduction in farmland due to population growth, according to the state’s Commissioner of Agriculture. These various threats also are starkly and personally reflected in a recent paper which reported that the rate of suicide among farmers is 3.5 times that of the general population. Adding all of the various climate-related regulations that are on the government’s and climate activists’ wish list will only serve to exacerbate this unfortunate situation.
Poland
Farmers recently descended in large numbers on the country’s center of government, calling for changes to restrictions placed on them by government regulations on agriculture related to climate change, among other issues. Some protesters burned a coffin bearing a sign that read “Farmer, lived 20 years, killed by the Green Deal” in the street in front of the Prime Minister’s palace.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s government in 2022 proposed taxing the gasses that farm animals make from burping and peeing as part of a plan to tackle climate change. The government previously in 2003 had introduced similar legislation, which became known as the “fart” tax, but which the government stressed should really be referred to as a “burp” tax since most emissions come from animal burps, but it did not become law. The 2022 legislation is still pending, with farmers complaining about its vagueness, impracticality and lack of necessity.
There also are attempts by some to develop devices which slip over a cow’s face in order to capture cow burps and transform the emissions from the burp into something thought to be less harmful. However, anyone who has spent time with cattle and seen them rubbing an itch on a tree or fence post can explain why this may just not be feasible.
The EPA also is attributing emissions to buffalos, “mules, asses” and camels, so it will be interesting to see what kind of face (snout?) coverings might be developed for them. It also would be something to see someone trying to place them on a herd of wild bison.
Farmer: How about here in the U.S.? Whatever happened to the Green New Deal we heard about a few years ago.
Me: In 2019 Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez somewhat famously came out with a bill referred to as the “Green New Deal.” Among other things, her fact sheet in support of the bill stated, “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.”
Farmer: Well, I haven’t been able to afford to fly for a while, but I know that if they want to get rid of farting cows, then that means I have to get rid of all my cattle.
Farmer: So, what kinds of issues may farmers have to face in the United States?
Me: It’s already starting.
On the state level, similar to the European Union’s Nature Restoration Law, California’s Governor has issued an Executive Order that 30% of all land in the state is to be “conserved” By 2030.
North Carolina’s governor recently issued Executive Order 305 which calls for the restoration or reforesting of 1,000,000 new acres of forest and wetlands and the conservation of 1,000,000 new acres of natural lands with a focus on wetlands. The subsequent North Carolina Priority Climate Action Plan created by the Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), endorsed the reforesting of some proportion of “less productive” agricultural land and also supported the “rewetting” of peatlands previously drained for agricultural use.
U.S. agriculture now will not only have to deal with the USDA, but also the EPA, who just recently created the “Office of Agriculture and Rural Affairs” to help deliver “climate solutions.” The head of the EPA somewhat ominously stated that the EPA and USDA would work together to “model the type of behavior that we want to see …” Perhaps an example of this are recent remarks from the head of the USDA to the effect that “non-prime” farmland be converted to production of renewable energy. The USDA also has recently published a “Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Mitigation Activities List.”
Farmer: Before we get into this list, can we first discuss this war on livestock in the United States?
Me: It’s kind of ironic if you take a step back and think about it. We used to have tens of millions of buffalo roaming the country, who basically have now been replaced in numbers by cattle. Yes, they burp, fart, poop and pee, but animals in grasslands are how nature has built soil for hundreds of thousands of years.
Farmer: Do cows really cause climate change?
Me: Well, if you were to accept what the EPA has to say, all of animal agriculture contributes only 3.9% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Even at that, this is a gross number as the sequestration of carbon (including CH4 — methane) in the agricultural sector is not deducted from its emission data and instead is taken into account in another sector, see here at 2–28. Indeed, scientists have concluded that grasslands managed for livestock actually are a net sink of carbon at a global level, sequestering more than is released. If the amount of carbon which the EPA reports as sequestered by cropland were to be deducted from agriculture’s estimated emissions, then the gashouse emissions percentage attributed to agriculture would be significantly reduced, see here at 6–6. Another study concluded “there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, that domestic livestock could represent a risk for the Earth’s climate.” Also, while methane emissions in the U.S. have been reported to have increased in past decade, the number of cattle has decreased, so a reported rise in methane levels should not be caused by cattle. See, here. Are there studies with different conclusions? Of course, but my point is that those involved with North Carolina agriculture should be building the evidence to support, not derail, its livestock industry. For example, it should be noted that methane emissions have not risen in North Carolina since 2005 and they also have been steadily decreasing in the whole of the United States since 1990.
Farmer: So, even with this information, there are still people who want us to get out of the livestock business?
Me: Yes. A 2021 Time magazine article was titled, “Cows Are the New Coal.” There are U.S. policy advisors who advocate for government intervention in reducing livestock and meat consumption and adopting alternatives to meat. It’s also interesting to keep in mind that 75% of North Carolina’s value of agricultural production is livestock and the other 25% is crops.
Farmer: What do the powers that be in North Carolina think about this attack on the livestock industry?
Me: The North Carolina Department of Agriculture’s Commissioner of Agriculture sent a January 29, 2024 letter, along with several other states’ heads of agriculture, to six large financial institutions, expressing concern that the banks had made commitments to the “Net Zero Banking Alliance,” which is associated with the United Nations Environment Programme (the same outfit involved in Sri Lanka’s food and financial disaster). The letter pointed out that “implementing these commitments would have severe consequences for American farmers — including cutting America’s beef and livestock consumption in half, switching to inefficient electric farm equipment, and moving away from the nitrogen fertilizer necessary for American agriculture to thrive.” Subsequently, at least two of the largest financial companies have withdrawn from their commitment.
As for the legislature and governor, it just depends on who is in office.
Farmer: Even if you assume their beliefs about cattle emissions, do they ever weigh the benefits?
Me: It has been explained here that cattle upcycle inedible cellulose material like grass and convert it into nutrient-dense beef and more than a hundred life enriching byproducts, all the while protecting wildlife habitat, reducing the spread of wildfires as they consume brush, aerate the soil with their hooves, and are part of a circular methane cycle. As a by-product of consuming cellulose, cattle do belch out methane, returning that carbon sequestered by plants back into the atmosphere but only temporarily as the methane is broken down after about 10 years and converted back to CO2 as part of a biogenic cycle, meaning that the carbon is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being consumed by an animal. In other words, it is recycled carbon per this analysis.
Farmer: What alternative food source do climate change activists against meat support?
Me: Insects. And weeds.
The World Economic Forum claims “eating insects could reduce climate change” since “our consumption of animal protein is the source of greenhouses gas.” The same organization also has said “we need to start nurturing — and eating — weeds,” which “can be nutritious and tasty, if we know which ones to pick.”
Farmer: But this is just from some type of global think tank and not supported in the U.S., right?
Me: Well, the USDA recently awarded a six-figure grant to a company to study raising crickets on feed made up material from city garbage dumps. USDA’s grant listing contains criticisms of traditional livestock practices, “Conventional protein production poses a substantial strain on the ecosystem, requiring unsustainable quantities of water, land, and feed as inputs.” The grant description also calls “conventional” farming a “significant source of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Me: Oh, I forgot to ask you — do you have dogs?
Farmer: Yeah, why do you ask? I don’t know too many farmers without dogs running around.
Me: Well, they also want your dogs as well. A study at a well-known land-grant state university estimated the carbon pawprint of dogs and recommends that we don’t own them because they contribute to global warming. The author recommends having birds or hamsters instead. The Canadian Broadcasting Company even interviewed a climate physicist and environmental epidemiologist with the Imperial College in London and noted, “Pets are methane producing, meat eating monsters using up earth’s finite resources, says climate physicist Robbie Parks.” There also was a 2009 book written by sustainable living specialists in New Zealand who assert that a medium-sized dog has an ecological pawprint twice that of a Toyota Landcruiser. The book is actually titled, Time to Eat the Dog?: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living and is available on Amazon.
Farmer: Scary stuff.
Me: Also, at the most recent United Nations conference, the United States, along with other countries, signed a pledge to keep agriculture in the crosshairs in future climate meetings, via the “UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action,” which commits the countries to integrate food into their climate plans by 2025. One example of what is being pushed for is the organization Plant Based Treaty, which claims we are “eating our way to the planetary brink” and that the global food system is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, even greater than all forms of transportation. The aim of this organization is to is to eventually have anti-agriculture regulations made mandatory by national governmental laws and trade treaties.
Agriculture also has now gone mainstream viral with the climate activists who earlier this year threw soup at the Mona Lisa hanging in the Louvre in Paris. The environmental justice group which claimed responsibility for the attack, Riposte Alimentaire, describes itself as a collective dedicated to advocating for action on climate change and sustainable agriculture, and wants the government to take over all means of food production.
Let’s look at some of the ag practices that the USDA and others are suggesting or requiring in the name of saving the planet from climate change/global boiling.
First, there is the move to electrify farm equipment. Replacement of the internal combustion engine is now on the USDA’s list.
Farmer: It’s not unusual during a harvest to be using our tractors around the clock in order to get the crop in. There is no way that an electric tractor or even a pick-up will hold a charge long enough to do that. Plus, electric trucks will only add to the cost of transportation since the battery takes up so much space and is so heavy (roads have weight restrictions) that it will take at least double the number of trips. Plus, I just heard of a recent study which, noting the much heavier weight of electric vehicles, found that EVs actually produce much more potentially harmful particulate emissions from their tires than gas powered vehicles, which are lighter and don’t produce much in the way of tailpipe emissions these days.
For ranchers in really cold places like the mid-west, the EVs just don’t cut it in severe below freezing temps. And, as far as a pick-up goes, to get a reasonable towing and driving range, you need to buy the loaded version, which is about $90,000, plus it takes time and costs more than you think to charge. I came across this test report in MotorTrend about a popular truck, the electric Ford F-150, and it’s not encouraging.
Me: What would happen if you stopped using nitrogen-based fertilizers?
Farmer: Well, just look what happened in Sri Lanka. Also, we deserve some credit. Just think about how we use fertilizers. Farmers have to pay for fertilizer, nitrogen fertilizer being particularly expensive. So, farmers have every incentive to maximize nitrogen use efficiency (the fraction of nitrogen from fertilizer that is taken up by a crop). The lower the crop uptake of nitrogen, the greater will be the potential losses of nitrogen to air and water and the larger the fraction of fertilizer expenditures that would be wasted.
Me: I’ve also seen a recent paper by a group of international scientists which reports that “Proposals to place harsh restrictions on nitrous oxide emissions because of warming fears are not justified … . Restrictions would cause serious harm; for example, by jeopardizing world food supplies.”
Why not just use manure?
Farmer: Practicality, supply, inability to measure it and uncertainty as to what nutrients are being applied.
Me: No-till farming has been suggested.
Farmer: So, I will refer you to a good article from Iowa about plowing. The bottom line is that the decision should be left up to the farmer. Some farmers do a modified form of no-till called strip tilling which helps with soil moisture retention. While no-till will help with moisture retention, it also can increase costs in that special equipment is needed to plant seeds into the harder soil, with many areas of soil being more compacted than in past times due to heavier farm equipment being used. Plowing also can help prevent water run-off and it’s an effective way to control weeds instead of using herbicides.
Me: What about planting cover crops?
Farmer: I don’t get the connection with global warming, but in any event, cover crops can keep down weeds and help with soil moisture retention, but they become kind of another whole crop to expend energy and money on, and they can compete for water and nutrients. I actually was offered a financial incentive to plant cover crops, but it didn’t make economic sense, so I didn’t do it.
Me: A buffer strip also is on the USDA’s list, how would that impact you?
Farmer: It basically would just take some of my land away from our farm by creating a buffer strip around the land with some type of cover crop. My water and soil don’t go anywhere, so I don’t see the need for this.
Me: The USDA’s list also includes converting cropland to grass-based agriculture. What do you think about that?
Farmer: Well, this is the USDA recommending that I stop growing all of my crops and just grow grass, legumes or “forb.” I had to look up forb; it’s basically something like a dandelion. My crops feed people. I think this is just calling for unproductive, grassy fields.
Me: Are you open to monetary incentive programs?
Farmer: Well, it sure is better than what is going on in other countries with land actually being taken away and other restrictions being put in place. But the problem with incentives is that they usually aren’t enough to cover all the costs and they can be taken away next year. Practices that make economic sense are the best way to go, and also practices that actually are needed. For example, I remember when we had rivers catching fire, smog in the air and contaminated soils. But the environmental regulations that were put in place the past few decades have left the environment cleaner than it has been in 50 years. I mean, when was the last time you heard of people lying down in the road or throwing stuff at artwork in a protest over smog or clean water? It seems now that all that has pretty much been taken care of, the activists and regulators have moved onto this climate change thing. We’ve been warned for over three decades now that due to a changing climate, agriculture was going to suffer with farms going out of business. While farms are under pressure from economic factors and reduced land, they have not been going away because of some new embedded trend in our weather each year.
Me: Why not just go “organic?”
Farmer: While I think most of us support the idea of organic farming, virtually all farmers can’t afford to go organic to the extent that no chemicals of any kind are used. It can be profitable for small farmers in niche markets and some larger growers have organic divisions, although typically supported by a conventional side. In the larger picture, attempting to move from widespread conventional farming to organic, free-range farming would require vastly more land and destroy natural habitat.
Me: I’ll add to that by noting conventional agriculture is used on 99 percent of U.S. cropland and is responsible for significant environmental improvements to farming. The total amount of pesticides applied to U.S. crops declined 18% between 1980 and 2008 and is today 80 percent lower than their 1972 peak. Total fertilizer use in the U.S. peaked in 1981 and hasn’t risen since, despite an increase in total crop production of 44 percent, according to the EPA. Also, there is a recent study concluding that organic animal farming has just as many emissions as conventional farming.
Me: There also is a proposed Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) rule, “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,” which, through so-called Scope 3 emissions, would require farmers, regardless of size, to track and report data regarding “indirect” emissions from a vague array of sources to the companies with which they work. The Scope 3 emissions reporting requirement could impact most farms since a majority of agricultural products are used or sold by a publicly traded company. But 98% of all farms in the U.S. are independent and most family operations do not have the resources to track and report the emissions data necessary to meet the disclosure requirements. While the SEC decided in this election year not yet to include agriculture in this requirement, it will remain under pressure from climate activists and politicians in solidarity to re-visit this issue in the future. California, though, actually has already enacted a similar law requiring the same information gathering and disclosures by agricultural interests, SB-253, which is in the process of being implemented.
Also, if you were required to track any sort of emission from your farm that could somehow contribute to global warming, you would have to be holding sensors in front your and your family’s mouths and noses throughout the day.
Farmer: What’s the last point you made?
Me: There is a recent study which concludes that just humans breathing throughout a typical day contributes to climate change.
Farmer: Oh boy.
Me: Maybe you can outfit your family with those masks being designed for cows to wear. Oh, and don’t forget to include your dogs as well. Unfortunately though, there are some whose ideal scenario is a deindustrialized world with fewer creatures, so it’s important to take all of this stuff seriously.
Me: What about setting aside part of your farm for solar panels?
Farmer: I’m fine with putting panels on top of our home or even barn as a form of renewable energy and if it will help bring our electrical bill down, but I really don’t want the eyesore of rows and rows of panels. In any event, it really isn’t possible unless it’s to scale, that is, unless I give up a large portion of my acreage, and I mean give it up. I might as well let a small subdivision come in.
Me: What about something like biodigesters, machines that take the methane out of manure and allow the manure to be re-used out on the field?
Farmer: Wait a minute! I thought there are those who think it would be great idea if we all went organic, and now I am expected to use machinery to scoop up all our manure, put it in a machine, then use more machinery and power to spread it out over what? If you’re a big, vertical operation, then I suppose it could be used for nutrient supplementation of whatever is being grown for feed, but I would just be returning it to my grazing fields, where it was in the first place.
Me: Ok, time to wrap things up, any final words?
Farmer: I hope that people realize how important agriculture is and that we are feeding more and more people, while continually using less land and fewer resources. We always are personally incentivized to use the latest, most advanced and most cost-effective technologies and will continue to do so. I realize that there are some very smart people who truly believe in, whatever you want to call it, global warming, climate change, global boiling, but it is indisputable that there are a lot of politics and money involved. There also are some very smart people who are pointing out either that while it may be warming a little recently, we can easily adapt, or that it is not that significant and certainly not unprecedented. Plus, we were being told over 30 years ago that the “science was settled” on climate change and its causes, so why now start pointing the finger at ag? Control of the food supply is a powerful thing so I’m not surprised that politics are involved.
I hope that those folks whose job it is to support agriculture in North Carolina, and others as well, are willing to side with us against unnecessary and costly regulations, even if it means going against the grain of peer, academic and financial pressure, and not gradually lead us into a life of regulation and restrictions that gradually will, one by one, lead us to go out of business and threaten our food supply.
By Tom Packer, longtime backyard farmer in North Carolina and Northern California. He also has an advanced certification in gardening, is President of one of the oldest garden clubs in North Carolina and is a Board member of a foundation which supports agricultural research and teaching activities in the Tar Heel state. He obtained his B.A. and J.D. degrees from the University of California. All this educational article’s content is that of Mr. Packer alone as an individual and not as a member of or on behalf of any organizations or groups with whom he is affiliated. Other horticulturally related articles by Mr. Packer can be found at https://medium.com/@tpacker25.
