One simple action would help quite a bit. Quit eating beef. I have stopped. It is not that hard.
51
I’m sure these farmers don’t want a government handout. I mean that would be welfare. Oh no. They for sure want to pull up their own boostraps
6
Farmers aren't stupid. If this made sense, they'd be doing it themselves. Where it does make sense, they are.
More pork for Big Ag. According to the USDA, 11.3% of US farms account for 74.2% of farm production. Folks looking for more Big Ag subsidies for ADM and Cargill etc. always trot out sob stories about Ma and Pa Kettle, good ole family farmers. However, it's The Bigs that are slopping at the taxpayer trough.
Big Ag then takes those gazillions in taxpayer subsidies to choke out the little guys here in the US, in Mexico and all around the world.
5
The Times answer (and that of liberals everywhere) is spend more of other people's money.
Yeah, no.
These boys are already sucking up the welfare what with subsidies and credits and Trump's handouts to good old boys. Welfare Queens with air-conditioned John Deeres in the shed.
I don't begrudge them, except the corporate guys and those who support them. And the ones who already sold their irreplaceable land to China.
But there are other victims of Republican foolishness. Factory workers, the formerly employed, employees-at-will. Nobody offered them a cent.
Here in North Coastia our farmers have taken to wrecking the western end of Lake Erie every summer.
They don't have to, its just easier that way. Let them phosphates phlo, as they say.
And now you want us to pay them not to wreck the planet, pollute the water that provides their livelihood?
These boys created the government that ignores them and their needs. They worship Trump, they hate regulations, they think everybody who isn't them is a degenerate lefty pinko pervert, and they all own guns and like them better than they like babies or kittens.
Now, as usual, they want them big Eastern Coastal Elite bucks. Sorry, no. You wake up first, a little bit. Then maybe we'll talk.
Nothing against you, or your woebegone little towns, by the way. Never have enough of that. Never enough.
Live in one myself, and I know it ain't easy.
7
Know this: Donald J. Trump does not care about you.....
anymore than he cared about those he stole money from in
Trump University; Trump is a con-man....and the sooner those
he has betrayed in the US farmlands know this for a fact...the
sooner we can get rid of this con artist President Trump.
3
How about no subsidizes no insurance just hard work
and independence...isn't that what farming is about ???...Then, perhaps, you will regain your self respect...and see the world as it is...
4
Soybean farmers were given billions due to Trump's trade war, but it seems many if not most of them were factory farmers, not family farmers. Encouraging farmers to capture carbon and otherwise help the environment makes sense, particularly in warmer parts of the US where crops or at least cover crops can grow all year long.
2
Please tell me how soybean and corn farmers are doing environmental service. These commodities deplete our soils , and poison our aquifers, kill off wildlife and raise carbon emissions. I am very willing to help farmers who actually grow our food and sequester carbon.
4
I agree that U.S. government agricultural subsidies are wrongly encouraging farmers to engage in needless pollution and to encourage mega-sized farms or industrial operations like confined animal feeding. Our row crop farms are intensely petrochemical dependent and also precious financially and significant sources of water pollution.
The single and best way to reduce agriculture pollution is to transition all of it to organic operations: organic fields trap many times more than conventional fields and organic field operations use much less carbon than conventional. USDA support and insurance discourage organic ag.
Secondly enviromentally wasteful corn ethanol, high fructose corn syrup, and soybean biodiesel programs should be halted--they encourage industrial ag and do not save carbon.
Finally, all farms should be regulated and covered by strict application of the Clean Water Act (none are covered today)--farmers who pollute should be fined and penalized as are industrial companies today. Most of our major rivers and lakes are polluted by farm chemicals; major confined animal feeding operations are significant polluters.
1
fertilizer uses ammonia which is NH3. the hydrogen required for this ammonia is made from methane by steam methane reforming SMR.
ten tons of CO2 is produced for every ton of hydrogen made by SMR.
on the other hand, hydrogen made by solar electrolysis of water produces zero CO2.
ask all farmers to only use ammonia made from solar cracking of water, and then farmers will have made huge progress against global warming.
otherwise their continued conventional fertilizer use is a huge contributor to fossil CO2 in the atmosphere.
2
The Rights of Nature Movement is growing across America and the Globe to establish protective Rights for our ecosystems. As a lead to bring the Caloosahatchee River its own Bill of Rights here in Florida, like that given Lake Eire by Toledo, Ohio, we realize that a Buy-In with our State agricultural interests, both family and corporate, will be essential to our initiative to protect our ecosystems. We will be seeking the input and support of the farmers for the Rights of Nature in order all best interests are served.
We hope to incorporate an innovative platform such as discussed in this article into our initiative. The Rights of Nature does not seek to vilify the Ag community but to bolster their efforts to implement sustainable and best management practices that are cost effective and affordable. Payment to farmers for measurable environmental services fit the model we envision. Follow the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund working globally for the Rights of Nature and in Florida - Caloosahatchee Bill of Rights on FaceBook .
I don't know if you noticed but most farmers voted for Trump and they hate the environment because it is the snowflake liberals who care about that. Being conservatives they deny climate change and most science.
Most farms produce grains that actually are not our food. The majority of it ends up as animal feed or is sold overseas. Thus we get the decay of our collective lands for the profits of a few. We get the pollution and well contamination. We get the brown rivers, and the GMO companies trying to stomp out the ability to use open pollinated seeds. We get all the negatives and a few large corporate farms and their shareholders get the money. In that sense, farmers are no different than other corporate entities. The people pay and the corporations get rich.
101
@Chris
Much of this is true. But it seems brainwashed to think all this has much to do with Donald Trump, as it's been developing over the past 40 years - supported by BOTH Democrats and Republicans. Iowa was always a blue state, afterall.
7
@carl bumba How is Iowa a blue state? Steve King, Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley, the list goes on. Iowa is not, nor has it been in recent history, a blue state. All I see here is more welfare for farmers given a more palatable name.
6
@MidwestGuy
Only very recent history. .... The industrialization of agriculture has been going on since the 40's and Iowa has had an outsized role in the primary/caucus process since '72. Iowa, like the excellent, independent and influential Des Moines Register, had always been Democratic, maybe not like IL, WI or MN, but surely not like MO or IN, or even KS. If you lived here you would know the cultural changes that occur once you go north of the MO-IA border and, really, north of the Missouri River.
6
I live in a rural area. Most if not all the farmers I know are Trump supporters, listen only to Fox News, do not read the NYT (or anything else for that matter), and are not good caretakers of the earth like you'd expect. Call me cynical but I see what I see every day in my little part of the world. Most are huge polluters, care little about their animals and could care even less about climate change. Good luck!
230
@Sarah99
That is unfortunate. Yet there are farmer/ranchers who are getting great results with the type of techniques the authors mention in the article. Some conservative farmer/ranchers (I don't mean this politically) who are afraid of change, taking chances etc will most likely eventually see that being chemically dependent is expensive and detrimental to not only their health but the soil that they depend on.
13
@Sarah99
I know farmers who detest Trump, especially because he is destroying their trading markets.
20
@Jean but will they vote for a democrat? If not, they are trump supporters.
6
1. The authors should also advocate Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) from organic waste (NO FRACKING REQUIRED).
2. RNG made from methane gases emitted by decomposing organic food waste & animal waste on farms would remove 48% of methane & CO2 per USDA.
3. RNG can make fracking unnecessary and reduce America’s carbon footprint simultaneously.
4. UPS cut a million tons of greenhouse gases by using 374,000 tons of organic wastes converted to RNG.
5. The NYS MTA is switching 800 buses from fossil based gas to RNG, cutting greenhouse gases by 40,000 tons/year and saving money.
Conclusions:
1. Capturing the methane gases from decomposing organic wastes using anaerobic digesters keeps these potent climate changing gases from escaping into the atmosphere.
2. RNG is the lowest carbon fuel available today per the California Air Resources Board. CARB calls RNG "net carbon negative" because more greenhouse gases are trapped to make Renewable Natural Gas than are emitted by vehicles burning it.
3. Many farms are already making RNG; more should do so & in the process stop CO2 & methane pollution and save themselves money spent on diesel.
I learned all this from energy-vision.org
For much more information see energy-vision.org
1
RNG is not capable of scaling to replace a significant portion of natural gas demand in the US.
We've been cutting farmers large checks for many decades. Those same farmers who decry the liberal left as socialists and represent themselves as salt of the earth individualists and patriots with calloused hands, but never met a government handout or subsidy - financed mostly by those lefties in New York and California - that they didn't eagerly accept.
They have recently been awarded a multi-billion dollar windfall by Trump to counteract his idiotic tariffs as, essentially, bribes for their votes next year.
I'm tired of my tax dollars being used to support people who talk trash about me and voted for Trump because he was a 'real man'. He has done more to hurt them than ANY Democrat ever has, but they just don't see it as long as my lefty money keeps flowing to them.
Not only are you all bad at farming, you are truly awful at determining people's character.
6
Speaking from the farm, Trump's bailout amounts to one cent per bushel of corn... not work driving to the local USDA office.
How outrageous.
You want taxpayers to subsidize the people who overwhelmingly support an administration that denies the fact of climate change, which is going to be one of the main drivers of their demise, so that they can stay profitable?
What's next for the MAGA crowd? Maybe White Nationalists should be exempt from taxation because they're a persecuted minority?
Maybe ICE agents should have their personal income tax cancelled because- well, because.
The Federal government is who should be enforcing our current laws under the Clean Air Act and the laws regarding endangered species, wilderness, forest preservation and farm land conservation. I said enforcement, not subsidizing.
We don't need to start paying conservatives MY money for what they should be doing in good conscience, what they're probably supposed to be doing under the law and what they must do on their own without Big Government intervention.
Boy, conservatives sure hate government and liberals until you need them both to subsidize your stupid choices and bail you out of a hole your own nonsense got you into.
5
If the small towns are dropping like dominoes, let them drop. Maybe the inhabitants could move to places with real schools and less propaganda, and learn to stop shooting both themselves and the world in the foot in the process. Whatever happened to "pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps", as the GOP and their rural voters "believe" minorities should? They made this bed. They should sleep in it
1
I'll just say it: GMO is not the way to go. Not for animal feed and not for human food. No wonder so many countries won't accept our soybeans, corn and rice.
2
My thoughts and prayers are with them.
Good ol social welfare for farmers, exactly the Socialism they rail against as they support Tariff Man.
3
WIth their overwhelming votes for Trump, and more importantly, Republicans, Farmers engender no sympathy. This is just another ploy of privatizing the income, socializing the costs. Sorry, not interested.
3
Just because farmers don’t all vote the way you do doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be offered incentives to do the right thing for the planet. In my opinions farmers, especially small farmers, are so economically squeezed they would accept any incentive that would allow them to keep operating, no matter how crunchy the programs may seem. These are good ideas and the comments I’m reading show exactly why midwestern farmers have a low opinion of coastal armchair intellectuals like ourselves.
3
Not one penny more to farmers. we already have paid them 10x over while they squandered their greatest assets - land and proven farming practices. if the soils are depleted, if they made poor choices in how and what they farm, too bad. They no longer feed America. People like me can buy imported Mexican food, grain from Canada, and eat out. That's because we choose to be what these Midwestern farmers hate most, coastal elites. They have spent decades voting for Republicans who want to destroy everything that doesn't support the rich. That's their bitter harvest now.
2
As red rural; states fall further in population as blue states grow the Repubs will keep winning the WH and one or two houses of Congress via gerrymandering, redistricting and you know what.
Result? Blue State Urban Farming Will Increase and Civil War of Some Kind Will Occur.
1
I love the ideas but you need to educate farmers about how the GOP is destroying their ability to farm. These folks in IA and MN voted for an administration that denies climate change exists and if it does exist it is not an issue. And, it it is an issue it is a good one because more people will have waterfront property. Until we have blue state houses nothing new will happen.
1
Great coverage. Most important will be to determine how farmers who have been sequestering carbon for years through regenerative practices will be rewarded for the work they have been doing and continue to do as an undervalued ecosystem service. It is important that it not just be those who are making incremental improvements in soil that are being compensated— although that is critical— but that our unsung heroes — the long time “carbon farmers” —be rewarded as well.
Drivel. (A) Small towns are inefficient and economically non-viable. Farmers should get nothing from the federal government because they don't want their pride hurt like that. Being rugged individualists and all. The solution to this is U-Haul. (B) Carbon recapture through agriculture is not a thing. Biological systems are CYCLES, the biomass will ultimately burn (through fire or bacterial respiration) and release the carbon once again. I suspect Robert and Matt here are having a laugh.
2
For decades we have managed our pasture forage in harmony with rainfall and sunlight and using the cattle as forage growers. In those years we have had periodic droughts and never run out of pasture forage. We also have never had a local rancher stop by and inquire as to why year after year we never runout of grass for our cattle. As a whole we find farmer and ranchers close minded to any ideas or concepts that don't require buying some sort of chemical or piece of equipment to remedy a given situation. They are mentally stuck with past practices and traditions that would quickly bankrupt other businesses, yet they survive on the tax payers welfare (subsidies). They as a whole would be overwhelmed by such a proposition.
5
A better idea is to redirect the billions of dollars already sent to farmers through the Farm Bill, which, unfortunately, provides subsidized crop insurance encouraging farmers to ignore the risks of climate change. Studies have shown that those perverse incentives lead agri-businesses to overuse chemicals and to plant on marginal acres better left fallow.
1
The energy-inefficient, environmentally-unfriendly, industrialized farming practices that are mostly followed today are the legacy of Nixon's Agriculture Secretary, Earl Butz. It is time to change. This article provides some excellent suggestions. One might also look at countries like Argentina, which incorporates many of these practices in a highly successful agriculture.
2
I live out here on the farmland of the midwest, and we have a serious problem paying farmers because the greater population no longer has good ties to the land, and they are extremely resentful for the support farmers gave to Trump.
It is as if they want our farmers to fail as retribution for voting for this terrible President.
But I doubt farmers will change their allegiance to Republicans (I don't know why), and I also doubt our majority urban folks will support taxpayer-assisted farming.
They really do believe China was somehow hurting us even when they were our best customers. Go figure. Trump convinces people that everyone is out to get us.
3
@Richard
No, China didn't take over our entire manufacturing sector without being a customer of 'something'. Of course, it's been a series of trade offs. We give them our natural resources and agricultural products, as well as our waste products and 'know how', and they make the things we need and don't need.
2
@carl bumba- China never did "take over our manufacturing sector."
We still are a manufacturing powerhouse.
Trump is teaching people that China is an enemy. That alone is enough to make it so.
What Trump does not understand about economics wouldn't fit in 100 Trump Towers:
balance of trade issues are based on Comparative Advantage.
1
@Richard
Thanks. But you must read the labels? Basically, what we consume in this country is now manufactured in China.
A renowned Chicago area botanist, Gerould Wilhelm, has a theory that the massive amount of corn we grow has increased the flooding we experience. Why? Because we have plowed under (native) plants with deep root systems in favor of corn—which has few roots to absorb water. The advent of ethanol supercharged the conversion of more fencerows to cropland. Sounds plausible...but what is the remedy?
3
I bought an eleven acre hobby farm that had been leased for growing corn for many years by our township supervisor. When I had soil analyzed for a vegetable garden I was told by the county extension agent that it was the worse soil analysis he had ever processed. The first thing I did was stop all farming on the land. I just let most of it revert to nature. I had people drop off leaves in the fall that were disced into a two acre area where I later grew pumpkins. I picked up "shellings" from the local grain elevator, the outside part of wheat and dumped it into the vegetable garden. The land is now restoring itself with new owners that seem happy to let Mother Nature take over.
4
Would farms like ours, around 300 acres, be included? It has almost always been organic since founded by great grandfather from Ireland in 1860. No small farms left in our area, all gone to agribusiness with roundup everywhere on mostly corn. Our area is a bulls eye for neurological diseases and cancers which is considered mysterious according to the media, or it's not mentioned.
2
Wow. Lots of bitterness in these comments. Understandable.
We NEED farmers; they feed us. This means they, like an unfettered labor union, have power to blackmail everyone else. Their political power is totally disproportionate to their numbers.
If this Socialist program to induce farmers to do the right thing is implemented, some good will accrue. More questionable is how much corruption will ensue - that's human fallibility in action.
In short, we are asked to trust the integrity of people who (continue to) believe that Trump* is a good idea, or else they will keep on fueling the slow-rolling disaster that is climate change.
Tough call.
("Interfaith Power and Light"!? I'd like to hear that story.)
1
@Ann O. Dyne
The problem with their arguments is that they blame farmers for the actions of agribusiness, as if the two are one and the same. Also, they can't help blaming farmers for their recent voting behavior, even though these problems are not a consequence of it. Our agricultural sector has transformed over the past 40 years with the support of BOTH political parties. People seem to be blinded by their desire to attribute blame, in general, and their hatred of the current elected president.
1
$28B in socialism. And the farmers accepted that token form of Trump socialism and belittle the Democrats for their proposals.
Or, did Trump play the field and realize a little bribe would go a long ways and help the farmers forget that it is Trump's dimwitted and uninformed policies that are costing those farmers?
2
Unfortunately, lobbyists for Big Ag (Monsanto) will pay off lawmakers and nothing will ever change. Nothing in this country can ever change until the system of legalized payola is destroyed. We do NOT live in a democracy. It's all going to get much worse before it can get better. And it will not be pretty or clean.
3
I have little sympathy for corporate farms. This country was built by farmers who owned fewer than 400 acres of fields and woodlands, and it was food-secure without government-imposed crypto-socialism like the ethanol boondoggle. Now we have flyover farmers who work whole townships as their private territory, and are caught between the anvil of markets and the hammer of tariffs. Their fellow-citizens in their nearby county seat don't eat a molecule of the crops they raise.
4
Yes and the country was built by small manufacturers in your state using water power. They don’t exist any more so why should farms look like they did in 1840.
@Rich Murphy
While generally good, change and technology are not inheritantly good. Often there is bathwater to discard. The Amish and Menonites try to dump all of it. Small-scale manufacturing in the northeast based on local hydroelectric power may actually be viable when the full, long-term costs (both environmental and cultural) of the alternatives are considered.
Superb. It makes loads of sense to use nature's well proven processes to sequester carbon and reward the farmers who do so.
Importantly, such a program would turn farmers from skeptics to enthusiasts, just as my corn growing neighbors love the ethanol subsidies. Nothing is as convincing as financial interest
3
A great op-ed. Thanks!
Gabe Brown's book, From Dirt to Soil, is about his success with these very farming methods on a 5,000 acre farm in North Dakota. In short, carbon sequestration improves soil health, reduces inputs and increases profits. A winning combination even without government support. Game's book should be required reading in Washington.
3
No one in this administration or at least in the Senate is remotely interested in cutting "small" farmers--or workers at smaller businesses in general--a check. That ship has sailed.
2
I am a believer in global warming and believe that one way to fight the problem is to put a price onto carbon. If one emits carbon one pays if one sequesters carbon one gets paid. I see no reason why this should only apply to farmers. If we implement such a program then farmers will certainly be part of it but I see no reason to limit this to farmers. If someone else can find a cheaper way to sequester carbon why pay more than one has to.
1
Welfare. What else can paying farmers for not doing something be called. Right wing people who want smaller government for everyone but themselves. My opinion may sound political but it is true. The question i have is why do farmers need the welfare? Today we know it is because of trump policies. Another contributing factor is the ownership / distribution system. Fix these things and end welfare
1
@Robert Black
We already provide welfare to agribusinesses for doing their thing. This is basically shifting corporate welfare to individual farmers to do something different and needed by society. There is a difference.
1
Just end the aid we now provide. We set up a system that funnels money to the agricultural industry for destroying the environment.
3
First of all, people from all over the world should, at least, be allowed to do what is good and constructive, and not be paid to be destructive. The biggest crime against humanity and nature is that the cultivation of the most valuable crop, hemp (which provide people with all they need and more, absorbs more co2 that a similar area of forest, and is weed resistant) is not even free, while animal agriculture, one of the most destructive and polluting activities, is heavily subsidised.
4
Even large corporate farms could practice water conservation by establishing 50 to 100 foot native plant barriers between fields and water ways and drainage ditches. Eliminating the heavy usage of pesticides would be even better though unlikely to ever happen. Wild life corridors along water ways would help insects and migratory birds.
6
Why not making current subsidies, which are huge, dependent on following good environmental practices? We certainly show no qualms about putting restrictions on poor women and children.
6
@sleeve
Conservation practices are actually tied to receiving subsidies. However, these soil-saving practices, are very, very rarely enforced by monitoring and taking away subsidies. Driving through the Midwest it is plainly evident that many farmers are not leaving nearly enough crop residues on the soil surface to reduce soil erosion. All carrots and no sticks. Gimmee my check but don't tread on me.
5
if you can get your farmers to stop voting against their own best interest, then this might be viable.
Big if, though....
5
This article contains creative thinking and combines large use of land area with carbon management - well done.
However, I heard on Fox News that Socialism is bad, and, paying farmers from the government coffers is socialism.
So, because Fox News has programmed me to hate anything that makes sense where community support for a better outcome for all is relevant...
I am against this proposal.
5
@Michael
Correct, socialism for me, but not for thee.
1
@Michael
Who has been programmed, that's the question? Just because Fox News promotes positions that you (and I) disagree with does not mean its listeners are programmed, any more than are Rachel Maddow's listeners. But believing one side is brain-washed and the other side is not sounds a little programmed to me.
Ah, yes, let's give farmers more federal taxpayer money so that they do what they should already be doing.
2
Capital, machines and chemicals substituted for the labor leaving the farms. This industrialization has been killing rural towns since pre-WWII.
Won't be long before the big cities topple like dominoes from all the giant farms that can't keep the capital, chemicals, soil and carbon on the farm. And an industry-captured regulatory system that stifles your rights to know about any of this (what WOTUS was all about). And that operates on the failed principle of self-policing by "the world's greatest conservationists" (Farm Bureau propaganda).
Let me know when any of the Democratic presidential candidates start asking serious questions of industrial agriculture and industrial food. Obama tried it and got his head handed to him by the reactionary right dominating land use by their industrial ethos and aesthetic selected by the loss of labor and the war on weeds.
1
@vole
Good historical perspective. One small adjustment, after losing to Bobby Rush and following machine party bosses, like Daley and Danny Davis, Obama started selling out to industrial farmers in Bloomington, Peoria and Springfield to get the downstate vote and get elected to the senate - and then the Iowa farmers (in a big way) to get the nomination. He thinks and talks a great game, but has always did what it took to advance as a politcian... like the others, except maybe Bernie... and I guess Trump.
1
Does anybody reading this happen to know how "family farms" have changed? I'm curious, for example, how many acres are farmed "per farmer" now, compared to 50 years ago, for example.
Large, corporate owned, mechanized industrial agricultural operations are deserving of NO government handouts paid for by the "coastal elite" taxpayers. It would be thievery anyway. It would do nothing to support small towns in low density states, as it would do nothing for employment, that type of "farm" being a mechanized operation.
If we're going to spend money, put it directly where it can benefit both people and the environment. Don't throw it at corporate agri-biz.
Here in Oregon there are quite a few small, family owned operations that produce specialty food products, such as fruits and berries, honey, things like that. These are products that have high value. They are sold direct to consumers in farmers markets. Our better grocery chains also carry them in their "local foods" sections. These small, family operations are the real candidates for investment. They operate at a scale and in a manner that can be beneficial to the environment. They also employ more people per acre, so they really do play an important role in their local economies.
6
@J Jencks
Right on.
Wow. I'm shocked at all the negative comments posted here. I'm as blue bubble liberal as they come, but I find this to be a workable, pragmatic proposal that addresses our biggest problem, climate change. I would much rather have my tax dollars subsidize a farmer for sound environmental practices than for the political expediency of a trade war or even worse, to ensure that Big Ag can keep lining its pockets. If we are serious in our alarmist concern for Mother Earth, we must entertain good proposals, no matter what state they come from. I'm certainly no expert in either farming or environmental science but I applaud the authors for their efforts and serious-minded desire to tackle this problem. And, just maybe, the farmers start to change their views on not only climate change but politics as well. Win, win.
7
PJP. Yea they will change. And trump will become an environmentalist. Farmers are hooked on welfare. That is their business plan.
1
@Robert Black Trump became a pro-lifer (lol). Anything is possible when you need to exploit people to stay in power to grift more money and avoid the prison term awaiting you.
The last thing the byzantine federal farm subsidy system needs is yet another scheme to try to encourage behavior that makes no economic sense.
Farmers grow crops that produce the most money at the lowest risk. That’s largely why we have too much corn and soybeans and not enough of various other crops that are nutritionally better for us—government subsidies to ensure a mass market food supply make those crops more profitable and less risky. And the farm lobby has become expert at ringing subsidies out of Congress for a variety of ancillary policy initiatives, like corn-based ethanol, which has proven to an inefficient waste of both productive land and taxpayer dollars.
We want and need our agricultural system to produce copious quantities of nutritious food that are readily available and affordable. And we want this system to be sustainable over the long term. If we need to subsidize farmers because the market does not provide enough financial incentive for them to achieve these objectives, that’s OK. But while agriculture has environmental impacts, they are not nearly as great as the tens of millions of cars and trucks driving around the planet and the power plants in China and India which are burning dirty coal. Let’s focus our attention on the big drivers of climate change before we start messing with our food supply and cost.
2
I am rather puzzled by the title of this article ‘Our Small Towns Are Toppling Like Dominoes’: Why We Should Cut Some Farmers a Check, as there is nothing in the article about Small Towns Toppling Like Dominoes. The article is about changing farming practices to improve the environment.
8
Coming up with gut bacteria that will enable cows to better digest their food so they release less methane and grow faster and healthier would make a big difference.
1
Isn't it enough already?
With the money we give the farmers, they're practically public servants.
If they are incapable of mastering the modern market, they should give up and let the people handle it who can.
2
@Glariana
No. The modern market HAS had it's way with American farmers. THIS is the problem.
1
$40/ton is a lowball number for the social cost of carbon. And while this is an interesting means of subsidizing farmers while at least nodding in the direction of climate policy, it really wouldn't do much to mitigate GHG emissions, especially since it would merely be subsidizing activities that responsible farmers are already doing anyway.
1
This sounds like a great idea.
What are the expected costs and benefits?
What are the costs and benefits of the current ethanol subsidies? We’ve been doing it long enough to quantify what it costs and what we get in return, one would think.
If the current ethanol subsidies and mandates are not an efficient way to address climate change, and these ideas are, could implementing these ideas help cushion the shock of phasing out a less efficient way of addressing the problem?
We want to do stuff that works while investing our time, money, materials, and efforts wisely.
Then again I once read that it’s hard to remember your original idea was to drain the swamp when you’re up to your backside in alligators.
1
Many great and far-reaching ideas here!
But it's very important to increase incentives to "small" farms OVER "midsize" farms, which are much larger, commodity-based businesses (with significant political clout) than most people realize. The scale and production realities of even larger, "factory" farms is beyond most taxpayers' imagination and worst fears.
It's also very important NOT to simply reward environmentally-beneficial OUTPUTS (both short- and long-term) of the farm. INPUTS, which may have carbon footprints that effectively negate subsidy-targeted outputs (especially in larger scale, mechanized and fossil fuel-dependent operations) need to be subtracted so that TRULY sustainable farm activity is rewarded. If executed this way, actual "family" farms and rural communities will be supported from bottom-up.
Local rather than federal-level administration would also be important to minimize bloat, a legitimate issue.
1
These are the kinds of discussions we need to be having, rather than someone in power saying "I don't see it" to dismiss scientific consensus.
4
I grew up on a farm; my dad was a 4-H leader. The county (farm) extension agent and 4-H clubs did much to promote agricultural, best-practice innovations in the 40s, 50s, and 60s at the family farm level-at least in the Midwest.
Intensive mono-crop farming, crop subsidies, corporatization, and waves of farm bankruptcies have gutted our nation's family farmers and many (perhaps most) of our small rural towns.
While no magic bullet permits us to rollback history, the authors' recommendations can help inject vibrancy, opportunity, and resources to further our shared interests and common good.
Thank you for such a thoughtful proposal.
5
Carbon capture is another scam similar to the ethanol scam that ended up costing taxpayers and consumers billions of dollars and did nothing. Instead of giving the farmers more money, the government should be buying land and restoring it into prairie. This would raise prices for the remaining farmers and would be a big win-win.
6
@osavus
They're not mutually exclusive.
1
@osavus - If I'm running for President, there would be no more ethanol; we'll turn that corn into whiskey. Recycling in America is scam. Half the junk going into recycling bins belongs in a landfill or incinerator. So we are wasting money paying for recycling. What other jokes for protecting the environment do we have going on... ? Bigger cars every year. We are burning more gasoline than ever.
1
I’ll sign up for the program if the folks getting the checks stop voting for Senators and a President who is working day and night to dismantle the Clean Air Act and sensible mileage standards for American vehicles
9
According to Donald Trump and the Trumpublican Party, our most pressing problem is 'illegal immigration,' which is what they call LEGAL efforts by desperate Central American migrants to find asylum in the United States.
These people are coming here right now because of political turmoil, violence and poverty in their homelands. The increased migration coincides with the Trump regime's decision to slash aid to countries like Guatemala by more than half. In 2019, we've allocated $82 million for aid to Guatemala, versus over $250 million per year before Trump's inauguration - and before the 'immigration crisis' which is now costing us billions, and to which we have responded with brutality unbecoming a supposedly civilized, 'advanced' nation.
So which will give us more 'bang for the buck' - a billion bucks spent in Guatemala, which would be a game changer; or close to $30 billion in subsidies to farmers in the midwest, much of which goes to huge corporate farming combines, not 'family farms', and won't make a discernible dent?
Just for perspective, by the way, the $82 million cost of economic aid to Guatemala in 2019 likely will be equaled or exceeded by government expenditures to shuttle Trump to and from Mar a Lago for his weekend golf junkets.
If that seems like sound policy to you, I'd suggest you're drinking some awfully powerful kool aid.
6
@chambolle
The jacked-up corn, i.e. tortilla, prices from ethanol subsidies and Monsanto-dependent production standards occurred largely from Obama's politically-driven gift to midwestern farmers and his overall support of agribusiness, respectively.
Distressed rural farmers in Guatemala then sold their land cheap to Cargill subsideries for the mono-production of African palm oil (biofuel) or sugar cane (ethanol). (Our SUVs get mighty thirsty.) Urban life (including American-based drug markets and gangs) has not been kind to Guatemalan farmers, who now must contend with emigration.
1
C'mon folks. The free market will take are if this.
Great plan but no chance of it being enacted in time to matter. The comments herein list all the obstacles, the implicit (and explicit) bias of urbans against rurals notwithstanding. Most of the family farmers, apace with their generally self-defeating POV, would be against it, the industrial-ag plutocrats wouldn’t stand for it, and the meretricious pols would stop it in its tracks.
1
@Realist - What is the bias of urbans? We should like farmers that voted for Trump! Let me see if I'm biased. Trump said he would kill Obamacare, thank God I'm on Medicare, but I have to feel for those trying to get healthcare. Trump passed out my tax money to the rich so they could be richer, run up the national debt for no reason at all. Wasting money giving it to people who have so much they don't know what to do with it just to jeopardize Social Security which I hope to get in a couple of years doesn't sound like good governance. Trump's obvious dangerous ignorance as to the cause of accelerating global warming is not reassuring, dangerous to the current generation and generations to follow and civilization.
I don't see a bias. Disliking farmers is OK, justified.
1
@Realist it isn’t “rural” taxpayers dislike, it’s freeloaders growing crops no one needs that leaves a bad taste, and knowing that 50 Senators represent only 18% of the population.
@Steve and HW Keiser
Most farmers (the family farmers that are left) are victims, and most of the big bucks are going to corporate Big Ag. I yield to nobody in my contempt for Trump and many of his followers, and I agree that it is hard to feel compassion for suckers of any sort. But that is what we are called as human beings to do.
As for anti-rural prejudice, it has been a feature of Western culture since at least classical times. As a shortcut, look up the etymology of the words "pagan" and "villain." If you want more, get into social history. Implicit bias, y' know.
1
This is a terrific idea on so many levels. Not many ideas have more importance than restoring our soils to healthy levels of minerals and microbes. The ideas here go a long way towards doing that. If we spent just 10% of the agriculture and medical resesarch budgets on better soil and crops for humans, we would be in much better health and have a shot at stopping global warming. Can it be done? Yes. Will it? Unlikely since there are too many interests who profit from the status quo.
32
I live on a farm in a farm community. One that voted heavily for Trump, as a by-the-way. The idea promoted in this piece may--I stress may--be a good idea. But the devil is totally in the detail. Recall that ag organizations, including my own MN Dept of Agriculture, claimed that turning corn into ethanol was a sustainable energy practice. They ignored the total energy balance of corn production, and took a stance basically similar to the old belief in perpetual motion. Therefore, one must really examine whether there is long term carbon capture based on paying farmers out of tax money. When, in reality, the carbon could go right back into the atmosphere when the farmer stopped the program because his soil improved so much that he decided to go back to farming normally because of the immediate high--and short term--productivity benefits. So, my point: will this work for permanent capture; if not, spend tax money on something that will.
28
@Paul,
well said Paul. I have a question, are their other crops, or even weeds that could be turned into ethanol that would be sustainable? It seems like using corn is a very expansive way to do this, especially if they are using monsanto corn.
1
Gasohol only makes sense as a transitional technology in the case of a fossil fuel shortage, which is certainly not the case now. And fossil and other carbon-based combustible fuels including alcohol are what we must transition from.
4
Farmers were one of the first groups to adopt water saving techniques, often developed by land grand universities throughout the country. I believe this group would be amenable to such a program. The problem is, these same farmers also tend to vote for the political party that denies climate change.
These farmers either need to change political parties or convince the Republican Party that to keep them in the fold, they need to change their stance climate change. If they don't, they will be left behind again.
38
As one who is old and lives on a farm that has been in our family for over 130 years, industrial farming is killing our soil. The extension services have pushed farmers into chemical farming and monocultures that would have shocked my grandfather, Lord Coke, and modern Europeans who have farmed the same land for hundreds of years. My grandfather knew that cover crops were essential, that crop rotation was necessary, and chemicals, of course, weren't available. He knew that intensive agriculture exhausts soils to the point of death.
I asked the farmer who rents our place when the last time he saw an earthworm was. He couldn't answer.
If the extension/land grant universities would change their focus in the way that this article suggests, if farmers could be trained to consider soil health for the long term over maximum yields through some sort of financial benefit, and if markets didn't reward short term thinking, we would not only increase carbon capture, but we would preserve our soils for future generations.
95
@vineyridge
"if farmers could be trained to consider soil health for the long term"
Are you kidding me?? We need to train them now?
I thought they were the experts. This is what they tell us when 'the government' or any 'experts' try to encourage any improvements or updates in growing techniques.
It is the same on the New England coast where I live. Try to tell a fisherman who hasn't had a full shrimp haul in ages that we are overfished and it has to stop for a while.
Nope. There are plenty of shrimp, just let them do what they want, they know better. Maine has been closed to shrimping for 5 years. There aren't any.
14
@vineyridge Exactly. Americans had a better diet when the average farm was worked by oxen or horses, and food was consumed within fifty miles of where it was grown. A New Madrid earthquake today would leave half of the country facing starvation, because local farms are no longer sufficient to feed local stomachs.
1
@HR Yup. Maine's coastal waters today contain about 2% of the edible protein they produced in the days before mobile net gear took over those waters. In 1880, Penobscot Bay alone sustained 221 seasonal weirs. Today, there's not one weir within 100 miles. The fish were all killed by mobile net gear offshore, before they could spawn.
5
Iowa, I don't need to be farmer-splained about global climate change, and I already understand the value of pricing climate damaging actions. Until Iowa begins to vote for climate change solvers rather than climate change deniers, then Iowa will be part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Use your energy to talk to your neighbors to get them to elect representatives who believe in climate change. Hint - those representatives will not be Republican. Until then, the towns and the farms that go bankrupt in Iowa? - That is simply what you asked for, with your vote.
10
@earlyman
Do you really believe most Iowans are climate change deniers? You're basing a lot on bad information.
1
Many readers probably don't know the underlying dynamics of that have created today's Iowa farm. (Using Iowa because of the authors perspective, both being from Iowa.)
Iowa farmers moved away from the integrated farm of lore. What used to be small family operations on a quarter section of land (160 acres) raising a few cattle, some pigs, chickens, maybe some ducks or geese, and depending on the entire family to do their part. That may have still been the case in the 1950's and 1960's, but not today.
Most farmers are now strictly grain farmers. No cattle, dairy, or hogs. Too much work for what they get. Unless they go into livestock in a big way. And the Renewable Fuels Standard created huge demand for corn to meet the ethanol mandate. That demand eats up nearly half the entire corn crop and it drove corn prices to astronomical highs, up around $8 bushel for several years after the mandate kicked in. Farmers made huge money in those years, and the price of land exploded. Good Iowa farmland in the 1960's went for $600 acre. Today that same land goes for $10,000 or more. One farm in NW Iowa sold for $14,000 an acre a couple years ago.
And farm size has gotten larger as well. That 160 acre farm in the 60's is now 1,000 acres. A 2,000 acre farm is good sized but not as big as many get. And a 2,000 acre farm, at $10K an acre... well that is a $20 million dollar farm.
As far as subsidies go, even farmers are embarrassed to talk about how much welfare they get.
164
Thank you - I grew up on a family farm in southern Indiana - what you say is exactly correct - I might add the Republican driven policies created this mess.
And as everyone knows - ethanol - uses more energy to make and transport than it saves - yet another give away to prop up basically a ECO negative, useless gas additive to get rid of corn -
Of course, the conman Trump wants even more!
71
@medianone
How refreshing to read someone who knows what they're talking about!
It's hard to overstate the effect on our country of having Iowa as the first state in the primary process. Is there ANY state in the country that has FEWER family farms compared to corporate farms than Iowa has? If Missouri or Indiana led the process we probably wouldn't have had 40 years of ad libitum corn syrup consumption.
8
@medianone
In these parts farmers don't walk or saddle mules anymore since ATVs. Now with round bales, they never need to step out of their cabs. It's all mechanized and with very complicated carbon footprints.
We had three 1/4 - 1/4 sections in the late 1800's; now we've got 7 acres... bank notes and taxes. The lenders/land barons out here are worse than pawn brokers in the city.
7
The problem with farm conservation programs is that they don't stay that way. As soon as there's a drought, farmers win a disaster declaration that lets them pull the land out of conservation -- and back into production -- just when wildlife needed conservation land the most. In other words, farmers get money to do nothing for years, then get more money just when drought pushes food prices higher. This is nuts.
33
I assumed the article would discuss paying farmers for direct climate change action such as putting windmills on their property, or some cutting edge form of carbon sequestration.
But basically, the article is proposing that the government pay farmers for using sustainable practices and not polluting so much.
Pay them to not use pesticides? Huh??? Maybe just ban the darn pesticide.
I loved the years I spent in Eastern Iowa, and I'm sad that a way of life is evolving away. But there is nothing inherently sacred about family farms, no reason that they should receive special governmental that preferences them over other small businesses.
110
@ImagineMoments
Industrial agriculture is bad for the Earth. We should reduce the growing of annual crops especially grains.
6
@ImagineMoments
So you would propose banning all farm practices that may be deemed "non-sustainable", like the use of petrochemical-based fertilizers? Isn't this a tad Draconian? Name one country in the world that does this?
1
@ImagineMoments
Do you still live in rural America? Have you seen the decline of small towns? Do you thank farmers as well as the Divine when you say grace before your meal? Perhaps not "sacred", the vanishing family farm is a vital link in the chain of life. My state demonized teachers; it was brutal. If farmers are demonized, it will be devastating. Divided. we fall. Let us all move toward solutions to global warming, together.
6
I grew up on a farm in Indiana and back then all farmers had incentives to protect the environment and the land.
That was before years of Republican farm policies which can basically be summarized as:
“Plant every inch, hand billions of federal welfare to millionaire farming corporation, grow tons of corn and soybean the US doesn’t want or need and —- and oh yes, who needs regulations”?.
238
@Steven
Nonsense. There are a lot of blue states, like Iowa and Illinois, that have been shaping farm bills over the past 40 years. BOTH parties are to blame. There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys....
2
@carl bumba
At the end of the day - especially when considering who's for - and who's against - campaign$/lobbying/election reform, the energy for that is almost entirely on the Dem side. And reform is how we fix these things.
So you're making a dramatically false equivalence when you say "BOTH parties are to blame." Which makes saying that - a HUGE part of the problem!
1
As with all policy, incentives are the way to get buy-in from a variety of political backgrounds. Too many people are barely getting by, so we need to help them. If we can help them and save the planet, it is a no-brainer. Of course, there are a lot of no-brainers that the GOP say "no" to.
4
It would be wonderful if small farmers, especially organic farmers, could have some federal policies tipped their way.
As a follower of "The Cornucopia Institute", which sticks up for small organic farmers, it's an uphill climb. BigAg throws its money around very heavily in Congress and at the federal ag agencies - trying to water down organic food policies, treat the air, water, crops, animals as shabbily as possible - anything to make a buck at the expense of our health and planet. It needs to be top down, and if we continue to have presidents that only care about the stock market and large donors, good ideas like these won't come to fruition. Sanders or Warren 2020 - either could be a remedy.
6
"We already provide enormous taxpayer support for farmers to stabilize our food supply. "
And that is enough - too much really.
If these farmers haven't learned and employed sustainable farming techniques already I have no interest in paying them to do so.
How about shade grown crops to reduce water use? Everyone seems to think all produce needs to be grown in the blazing sun.
In Central America the shade grown coffee that preserves millions of trees and provides habitat for important migratory birds is some of the best coffee you can drink.
I know in my own garden everything grows great with sun from 9 or 10 am to 3 or 4pm; how about incorporating tree growth?
How about employing the Native American "3 sisters" technique of corn squash and beans together?
There are multiple ways of improving growing techniques that protect crops and reduce water use. What? Did I hear you say that's not applicable on an industrial scale? I thought we were talking about SMALL FARMS.
4
I have watched this tread grow throughout the evening and a few things are pretty obvious - people who do not care to live in the past are fed up with those do. We were chastised by Stuart from Alaska for being so mean, because, according to Stuart, we are all in this together. Does that include black folk, brown folk, qlbgt folk, native folk? Or just European folk? I read a farmer from CT who got clobbered when SALT went away; where was The We Are All In This Together when that happened? A large number of posters would like Stuart and company to reach into their own pockets to solve the problems they have created and leave blue state money where it belongs - in the pockets of the makers, not the hands of the takers, so it can pay for the infrastructure, the schools, and the communities that generate America’s wealth.
If I was a Red State taker, I might realize that any state, and there are 35 of them, created by an act of Congress, can just as easily be disenfranchised by another act of Congress. There is nothing eternal about statehood, And if territorial status is good enough for Puerto Rico, which has more citizens than 30 states, it should be good enough for any Congressionally created state with less population.
Missing data alert: Republican farm bills cut the very conservation programs proposed in the article. Second, proposals to add carbon payments to conservation reserve program payments (CRP) were unanimously rejected by Republicans during discussions of the past farm bill. CRP program is oversubscribed throughout the midwest with many more farmers applying than the money available. The authors need to convince Republicans and republican supporting farmers, not the rest of the country.
15
Eventually people will find out that money is no good as a goal in itself. It is only good when it is used for a good purpose. When the land is exhausted, washed away or blown away, they might begin to look at another alternative. Lets see if we can avoid another dust bowl era. Money is an empty goal with no conscience.
6
My Amish neighbors don't use diesel fuel or pesticides. Their crops fetch well, therefore, at farmers' markets. Cover crops seem to appear out of nowhere, which'll happen on fertile ground, absent chemicals. Draft horses are kinda expensive, but not compared to combines (which sit idle 360 days a year.) I don't think it's a coincidence that the Amish also do not borrow money from banks - interest being a form of sin. Thus, foreclosure isn't a worry. Their elderly are well looked after. Their kids are healthy. Almost none of them grow up to be hedge fund managers.
If that isn't "sustainable", it'll do until sustainable gets here.
28
@Cornstalk Bob.....Farming like the Amish is great. Now all we have to do is convince about 30% of the people living in the cities to move back to the farms, work 14 hr. days, and live without electricity and any of its conveniences.
@Cornstalk Bob
Brilliant commentary. Note the empirical observation of the under-representation of the Amish among Hedge Fund managers.
@Cornstalk Bob
Being Irish Catholic, it's been difficult coming to the conclusion that the Amish (and Mennonites) may now be the ones who save western civilization.
My husband and I own a small farm in a blue state (CT). Thanks to the GOP tax bill, our taxes have gone up substantially. Where is the fairness in these payouts? We are disgusted and discouraged by once again--surprise, surprise--folks in the red states are requesting more handouts. We are not feeling charitable.
22
Everything in this piece seems very reasonable but it is the rural farmers that supports the party that denies global warming. The metropolitan areas need to subsidize them even more so that they can support policies the majority see as just science.
4
This reminds me of the way glyphosate and dicamba work. Once you're using them regularly there are weeds that become resistant. The result is that the producers then created a second product that will kill the resistant weeds. As it stands, taxpayers are paying farmers, mostly corporate, who use bad environmental practices. This proposal just pays them more.
I'm all for subsidizing small and mid-sized farms, just not for mega-acres of corn and soybeans.
10
Farmers are already heavily subsidized now. Rather than just shoveling out the money, tie these subsidies to conservation programs. Subsidizing conservation programs would also soften Mother Nature's blows and provide better water quality.Win, Win, Win.
10
The U.S. for many decades now, has incorrectly distorted the oil & gas industry through enormous tax advantages & subsidies. Stop that first, which will reduce federal expenditures, reprice all oil based products and result in a major positive shift in our environmental policies.
11
Democratic Candidates and Leadership - pay attention. This program to restore the soil health of not only America, but the world, is critical is critical to combating rising CO2 rates. Its a win-win for Democrats to achieve their goal of sequestering carbon while simultaneously giving red state farmers and ranchers a reason to vote Blue. Of course you won't win them all but you don't need them all. However, the planet does need all hands on deck when it comes to combating climate change. Provide the incentives and we can sequester carbon, rebuild soils, and increase the quality and nutrition of our food supply as well the health of the middle of the country.
This Win-Win-Win is a road map to winning the red states.
8
@Cameron H - Yes I agree, we are pushing the growing of corn in dry land areas in western Kansas, Nebraska, even eastern Wyoming by pumping the Ogallalla Aquifer to where it has dropped in many areas by more than 800 feet. Many areas will go dry in the next 10 to 20 years so that short term thinking is going to bankrupt many farmers in the near future. We need to conserve water, use less fertilizer and begin to practice 'sustainable agriculture' as was done back in the 1800's and early 1900's.
2
Like many others, I do not want to give money to farmers, who have been raking in cash for years and have been proped up by Republicans to win their votes. But...
I favor Mr. Yang's idea of a universal income, perhaps $1000/month for all over 18. But I would tie in added incentives for those who live in overcrowded urban blight areas, and others if they choose, to move to rural towns and hence bring much needed cash and perhaps new business opportunities.
This could alleviate the job losses automation is producing, give all adults the chance to adopt a new lifestyle, and enrich both the economy and the culture of rural America.
Yang has a funding plan which could work, but I would add a market trading fee to draw revenue from the high speed traders, and perhaps increases in top bracket tax rates.
Rural America needs help! Drugs, hopelessness, loneliness, low incomes, etc., are destroying a core part of our country. We need real solutions, and maybe this is one. I look forward to serious discussion.
5
I don’t trust Farmers period. They do not care about my health with their farming practices.
15
@Paul you can't throw them all in together. The real problem is the commodification of agricultural products, the rise of industrial farming, and the perverse incentives put in place by the US govt. In this commodity paradigm its a race to the bottom in terms of quality (and healthiness) because efficiency is the key driver. I would argue that Farmers and Ranchers do care but when your caught between monolithic food companies and the agrochemical industry, its impossible to stay in busxiness if you don't play by their rules. Its no wonder only half the farms in this country report any profit whatsoever (that's USDA data).
What this program does is help farmers get out of monoculturing, which destroys soils, replacing it with a more holistic approach that is more efficient in practice and restores the soils back to better health to recapture more carbon. Healthy soils also means healthy, more nutritious foodstuff coming off those soils.
8
@Paul Best thing you could do is stop buying their product. Boycott food and see how that impacts those nasty farmers.
@Cameron H Before the funding program proposed is put into place, strict regulations need to be formulated and put into place ( don’t see that happening).If not done this way, I do not see money being spent wisely.
You do not mention the overuse of pesticides.
I suggest that the authors speak with the pig farmers and growers of the animal feed and gasoline additive that some call corn and ask them what they think of New Jersey.
Myself, I will help those self righteous, self centered and selfish reactionaries in Iowa when they give progressive blue states the SALT deductible back.
21
Paying people to do good things is a mistake. People do good things because they want to do good things. When you get paid you are doing them because you get paid, not because you want to to do something good. Getting paid takes away the inner motivation and makes us less moral. Also schemes to pay for do-gooding are opportunities for corporate corruption. A better policy would to get rid of perverse incentives, such as taxes and benefits that reward environmental recklessness. There's no shortage of that going round.
7
@Charles Justice - so if you work for a company that produces a good product, your company just gives it away?
All plans for minimizing the impacts of long-term climate change eventually point to the need to draw down and store carbon from the air. If people do that, they are providing a service.
It's the same as putting a price on carbon emissions. We want to discourage emitting fossil CO2 - making people pay for burning stuff is one part of the solution. We want to encourage removing CO2 effectively - paying people to do that for us is one part of the solution.
4
@b fagan, the big problem is fossil fuel use, so I agree that carbon taxes are necessary. And we need big life-style changes too. But we are not going to get it by paying people. People need to believe in what they are doing, and do the right thing because they know it's the right thing.
@Charles Justice
Unfortunately, the planet probably can't wait for intrinsically motivated, moral people to correct our problems. This logic works when there are sufficient pro bono farmers out there to remedy the situation and we might risk changing them to a less productive state of extrinsic motivation by paying them. But this isn't the case. I think a little extrinsic motivation could change farmers from net carbon producers into carbon sequesterers. And idealists will try to do the right thing, either way, under great financial stress or under less severe financial stress. Decadence is a long way off for small family farmers who do it sustainably. We're not artists, after all.
2
You may be right, but I have a hard time giving farmers anything when they voted for Trump's idiotic stand on environment. Plus Republican cheating on many many other things, like ignoring Supreme Court nominees, redrawing congressional election districts, and pretending like the tax cut did not help rich people the most. Disgusting party. The farmers deserve what they get for voting for them. I hope they reap what they sow, so to speak.
Right up there with NOT reimbursing Texans for hurricane damage from all the hydrocarbons they have loosed from that state.
37
@Will Hogan I have that impulse too, our environmental crisis belongs to the GOP and it feels perverse to pay red states for an catastrophe they caused.
That said, a) the climate crisis is too large to let petty personal grievances get in the way of anything that contributes to the solution, b) farmers are in direct contact with the land, and I'd rather they be partners in improving it than be forced to by fiat, and c) punishing individuals for the crimes of a group feels unjust.
And long term, we need to loosen the Fox/GOP grip on the red and purple states. That only happens by working together, not punishing. Think Marshall Plan vs Treaty of Versailles.
13
@Will Hogan
I'm no Republican. But if you depend on rural farmers for your food and on Texans for your fuel, heating and plastic needs you may want to throttle back your hypocrisy accusations.
@John McGrath well said.
I don't know much about farming. I do know that I eat well, everyday and it doesn't cost that much. As for environment I know that mega farms cause an abundance of pollution including animal waste and pesticides as well as unconscionable use of water like, its, well, water! Disposing of manure pollutes the atmosphere as well as ground water, aquifers, streams, rivers and lakes. Pesticides kill insects, animals and as we know about Roundup, also causes cancer in humans. As for small towns and a way of life, small family lives are routinely up-ended as they cannot compete against the corporate mega-farms or cheap imports of fruits and vegetables from all over the world. Milk is produced in such vast quantities that great amounts are literally thrown out because it cannot be sold at a profit.
A great deal of the misery of farmers is caused by modern farming techniques and cost of equipment for planting, harvesting or pollution control. Not to forget the costs of water and preventing insects from destroying crops. The damages from Swine Flu and mad cow disease are also well known. And we must not forget the futures contracts that also distort supply and demand and all too easily wipe out a farmers profits.
So, now we're concerned about small towns and "For pennies a meal, the federal government can incentivize better environmental services." Really? Is that the only concern and the only risk that must be mitigated? Farmer's have enough problems. Small towns too. What to do?
6
Sure. Let’s give more blue state money to red state farmers who support a president who doesn’t care about anyone but himself. Trump gives billions to red state farmers to buy their support. Who pays? Mostly blue states. If you voted for Trump then have the decency to live with the consequences.
78
@Avatar....That's the problem. Those who voted for Trump still think he's doing wonderfully while the rest of us feel as though we are living with the consequences of their voting! You can't have a Government for the people by the People when the Majority don't vote. Voter turnout in Elections whether Presidential or otherwise is generally low. Yet after an election those who don't vote still complain ! If the Majority do not Vote in Overwhelming Numbers..the Minority tilt the Elections their way !! Then you have as we have today...a Government for all of us...whether we like it or not... by some of us who chose to Vote. Vote Overwhelmingly Blue in 2020...it's the American thing to do !!
13
@Dave
I agree that everyone of age needs to vote, but your information is wrong. Over 61% of Americans of voting age voted in 2016, which means the non-voting is not the majority. The minority tilt elections their way because of gerrymandering, not because the majority of voters don't vote. This also is assuming that most of the non-voters would vote Democratic. We do not know this.
5
As it concerns any financial investment, I would like to see each farm’s tax return, income statement and balance sheet before I respond with money.
22
@Suburban Cowboy...The last property tax bill I got for a piece of farm land I own in Illinois, gave about 60% to the local school district and 25% to local municipalities. As farms have gotten larger, there are fewer farmers sending children to school. There are fewer buildings to protect and lower county road maintenance; and the percentage of property tax farms pay keeps going up and up and up, because farmers are out voted by more numerous people living in the towns and cities.
@Suburban Cowboy: and random drug testing to go along with the welfare money...
Before they get a dime, shouldn't they have to pass a drug test like the welfare recipients in many states?
Snark aside, - what this article proposes seems to be a decent idea.
17
One more program? When do the many subsidies to farmers end?
21
Answer — When the Electoral College disappears.
I live in rural Michigan and like a lot of the ideas. I believe out neighbors in Ontario Canada do the same sort of thing to keep farmers (such as my neighbors) from plowing into the ditches but most of them had tRump/Pence signs in 2016 so it makes it hard for me to want to give them even more welfare to buy more MAGA hats. And I'd like to correct a comment the author makes-the 28,000,000,000 tRump borrowed from China to cover for his disastrous trade fantasies had nothing to do with maintaining America's food supplies, just to ensure they vote for him again in 2020. Perhaps a better use of tax dollars would be to let the welfare kings go under and buy their properties at the foreclosure sales and then "naturalize"them. After all, trees are much better carbon storers than transient crops.
17
Subsidizing farmers to prevent climate change seems like a sensible idea. If we're already subsidizing farmers to do nothing, or worse do harm through things like ethanol, we can at least pay them to be useful. So much the better if farmers think "the market" is determining outcomes.
FYI: $16 billion a year in government subsidies to distort our agriculture production is not a free market proposal. You're much closer to Marx than you are to Smith. Of course, US agriculture ceased being a free market enterprise long before any of us were born. Industrial agriculture arguably never was a free market. Slavery is a rather huge market distortion.
That said, I see two problems.
1) Incentivising farmers doesn't solve the larger problem of rural economic development. Namely, most small and medium sized farmers are old and there's no one left to replace them. Most Americans simply don't want to live and farm in rural America anymore. And yet, old white males are among the people most likely to resent immigrant labor taking up the slack. I see a paradox.
2) Subsidizing farmers is not a panacea. What's the carbon footprint of shipping a ton of soy to China? We're paying farmers to produce a carbon ton just so we can pay them not to produce a carbon ton. If prices, including food supply, truly represented the cost of carbon used in their production, we wouldn't need to offer farmers a handout. Farmers are already enjoying a price subsidy in the form of free carbon emissions.
13
@Andy,
beautiful exposition!
@Andy
What and how we farm needs changing. The scale of production needs changing. Major reforms seeking long-term sustainability will not be driven by open borders and the free market. A level of protectionism and fettered capitalism is necessary.
Yes. If one or two of our five kids remain on the farm it'll be surprising. The power of the internet and social media to communicate in lieu of physically work makes it tough on work ethics. It also seems to promote some social decay, in addition to providing a national library at your fingertips. So even if the economics improve there are major cultural/technological issues to deal with.
It's hard to help people who keep voting against their own interests.Rural farmers helped put trump in office so they get no sympathy from me.They knew going in that Rs don't believe climate change is happening yet they voted for trump.Farmers can't value their land that much when they elect people to office who refuse to do one thing to abate the already happening climate disaster.
39
Take an objective look at the direction human population has gone for the last 200 years around the world, moving from the rural areas to the cities. 200 years ago, 98% of our population was involved in food production. Today, its less than 1%.
We need to take a serious look at what is grown in the midwest for food or what we're really doing, subsidizing farmers to grow for profit crops like soybeans to sell to China.
Trying to artificially keep rural towns alive, will result in a bigger welfare farming state than we have today.
The inefficency that this will result in puts our country at an economic disadvantage to our competitors who are expediting the movement of their populations to the cities making them the winners of the 21st century and beyond.
6
Absolutely great ideas, for sure.
But the problem is, I have a very, very hard time thinking of the welfare of people who elect Steve King. Call it short sighted, and it's probably wrong. But for people that vote for people like him, I have a hard time appealing to my better angel here.
50
@Adam Wright,
they elect Steve King, and use undocumented workers, but the very thing Steve King gets elected on is deporting undocumented people. Can someone explain?
Boo-hoo. These farmers are all diehard right wingers except when it come s to their own subsidies. I could care not less about the dying market towns either.
You want the free-market in all its untrammeled power? You got it, Old MacDonald.
52
Great idea!
A coordinated effort at the national level is essential to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. I am happy to see any substantive program to mitigate its effects started. We need to do as much as we can. The question is whether the American public will support the level of effort that is demanded by the severity of this crisis. There is no doubt as to the severity of the problem facing us, and there is not doubt that as moral people we should do something to clean up our own mess. The way we do this should be a central topic or our current public discourse. Let's hope this happens before it is too late for our grandchildren.
2
Economic consolidation - and 'gentrification' - is overwhelming rural America. Everything from the land and seed, to the homes, communication (web access), education and livelihoods of rural communities is all being crowded out by the lucky few. Land and communities all over the west are being bought up by California retirees, Wall Street speculators and other Countries (China, for one). Agri-business is firmly in the the grip of monopoly. The market for Ag products works only for the top of the food supply chain(pyramid). Rural areas have been beaten down so badly that Trump and the GOP look like Up. For twenty years, the consolidation of market power has produced inexpensive food at the expense of the people and the land who grow it. If Dems cannot directly address this problem they will lose. The dark, embittered voice of Fox News is heard in every home and hotel across rural America. The Fox and its 1% own the feudal henhouse and know precisely how to mobilize the very people their policies disenfranchise.
26
I love it. Shame politicians don’t generally go for sensible plans.
I was under the impression that buying votes was illegal.
4
@Daniel B Republicans have shown they believe the law,like morality, is for other people.
3
Less than seven hours south of here is NYC. We have enough English speaking farmers who can tell you how well your suggestions work. The suggestions not only work for farmers it seems to be working for everybody. We were good enough for the Clintons to spend their vacation with us. The only thing our economy needs is more people. We welcome journalists our George Washington was a journalist and today is our 4th of July.
Today I saw a Monarch in our garden three years ago it was an occasion today it was an everyday occurrence.
Our farmers and our government work together their failure is our failure and their success is our success.
I remember when America thought like that but that was before you believed in "conservatism?".
7
Have they not boot straps?
58
@Vinson
This seems foolish. The way it stands now, if they out-compete others and are successful on their own your and your children's world will suffer. These incentives are mainly for the benefit of non-farmers.
I thought farmers didn't like socialism and welfare.
84
So many negative comments!
First of all, these people are your fellow citizens and humans and they grow your food. We depend on each other.
Second, they are entitled to have their needs addressed like every other group in this country.
Third, contempt doesn’t sound good coming out of anyone’s mouth, whether Left or Right.
Finally, this is one possible climate change remedy among the many that are required to solve this problem. It sounds like a great way to turn the present farm subsidies into something positive. Solutions in Iowa are different from solutions in Alaska or New York.
19
@Stuart
I believed as you do until recently. I am now convinced that Sooners, Hawkeyes, etc would just as soon see New Jersey slide into the Atlantic Ocean than give us any consideration.
Red Staters love state rights. Let them take care of themselves.
Warning: the Kansans have recently seen how well that works.
20
@Stuart I can (and would rather) buy my food from another country
1
From where I am sitting right now typing this I can see 1000s of acres of fruit trees and hops and not a single white person working in those fields. Get back to me about farm welfare when those white farmers start voting in their best interest. Until then I need those tax dollars to support all of the impoverished brown skinned field workers -- the real food producers -- in my neighborhood.
1
of course, these self-righteous farmers deserve the 28B bailout. . .and any additional check the taxpayers would like to cut to them they will take. All the while screaming about the coast elites and minorities who are the real takers. . .
70
Okay, deal: We pay the farmers, but they stop looking down on "liberal coastal elites", voting for Nazis who can't read or accept science (like the fossil-burner climate attack), or selling corn to any company that they know makes HFCS from it.
48
OK, but carbon-storing, while of great significance, should be pursued in alliance with efforts to reduce the amount of nitrogen that flushes into the streams, then into the rivers and then into the Gulf of Mexico. Main sources of such nitrogen are crop production (corn) and CAFO-based animal production.
And, we could all do our fair share by abstaining from meat consumption.
6
@PlayOn
Better to raise cattle on grass instead of corn and soybeans.
2
Just say no to socialized farming. Not one dime to these GOP hypocrites.
60
Why would the government cut a check to any farmer? In order to keep the actual cost of food production a mystery? In order to take tax dollars from "coastal elites" and subsidize the current administration's base? Yes and yes.
31
When the farmers will repeat after me, “Yes, this check represents socialism, and I am fine with that”, then I’m all for it. Until that time, those hicks who vote for Trump and rail against socialism while cashing government checks paid to stop them from growing crops, can slowly twist in the wind.
133
@ScottC
Most of those "hicks" who get farm subsidies and who may have voted for Trump are actually large land owners and corporations who have their land farmed. Then there are all those in rural communities who benefit indirectly from farm subsidies and high commodity prices. But they, too, aren't usually farmers. You're blaming the wrong people.
2
The politicians in farm country are servants of Mammon. Ideally, we would in fact pay farmers to stabilize our food supply. In fact, we pay farmers to stabilize the profits of giant agribusinesses that have little to do with food and everything to do with industrial production of high fructose corn syrup and ethanol and export of soybeans. None of these benefits our food supply.
If and when we ever get around to the idea that subsidies paid to farmers are for the benefit of all Americans rather than Big Ag, this would be an intriguing idea.
42
This is an innovative and practical idea to deal with climate change, top soil loss, polluted water ways, and depleted soils.
We should start immediately!
"Instead of just growing that one crop, it grows three additional crops: corn, oats and hay." Farmers do not have equipment to deal with several crops so they would need money up front to help them purchase what they need to harvest several crops.
9
@Jacquie I grew up in farm country and they used to grow winter wheat before second-cropping corn or soy. Still happening around these parts.
3
The mega corporate farms are a big part of the problem.
The small and medium sized farms are the true family run operations.
8
@Jean...Between 1995 and 2012, of the 500 largest farms raising crops in the U.S., 126 were in Mississippi and 0 (as in zero) were in Iowa. When people talk about mega corporate farms most people have no idea where or what they are.
1
Or, we could have a carbon tax that would reward farmers that wisely use fossil fuels and punish those that are profligate.
One of these choices feels a heck of a lot simpler and fairer to me.
5
@J c
The problem extends beyond simply limiting the burning of fossil fuels. It includes a need to support biodiversity, reduce chemical runoff, diversity income, etc. Simple one-size-fits-all responses ignore the complexity of the problem.
8
@Aaron
Sure, but one thing--not paying the true cost of using fossil fuels to grow crops--addresses 90% of the problems we are facing. Let's start with that.
3
I see that your Coyote Run Farm consists of 110 acres. Is his what you consider a small farm? Please define small and medium farms. 160 acres? 640 acres. Here in central Ohio, just north of Columbus, there are farmers with 3,000 acres of soy beans. That isn't small to me. A recent NYT article spoke of a farmer with a $300,000+ combine. That is an industry.
35
@Michael Fiske
When we moved to Ohio, we initially in the country, with every neighboring household ( except us) farmers.
The farms were generally 200-600 acres in that section of Ohio.
In Iowa, farms very often are thousands of acres. So yes, the author is a small farmer.
7
@Michael Fiske: Mr. Russell is also executive director of Iowa Interfaith Power and Light. Perhaps we could tax churches for the policies that the authors are asking the government to fund?
26
So we should send more of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars to people who deny that climate change is caused by CO2, and who elect Republicans who promote burning coal to produce *more* CO2...
in order to clean up the pollution that they themselves cause to increase?
Gotta give them credit for a very robust business plan. Maybe even better than the ethanol scam.
134
Yes, we should. It will benefit all of us and just might convince them that environmental stewardship and the government aren't such bad things.
What if we didn't pay farmers their already large subsidies unless they did farm responsibly?
136
@sleeve
There are MANY farms like ours that farm responsibly, sequester carbon for others and do not receive a nickle in subsidies.
1
@sleeve
Because Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland says "NO WAY"
The only winners in this scenario are the large corporate farms.
The small family farm is dying.
So again, we the taxpayers are subsidizing big business.
How about the farmers, if they want this, do it themselves?
24
Regenerative grazing is direct climate change action. Don't confuse corn-fed, feedlot beef with 100% grass-fed beef that is managed to sequester carbon. Since the market demand for this healthy, sustainable food is robust, we don't have to subsidize the small number of farmers who are already raising beef this way this (3-4%). Their beef will sell in the marketplace. What we have to do is STOP subsidizing growing corn (which goes to ethanol, animal feed, and corn syrup). Annual crops such as corn, soy, and peas, are responsible for soil carbon loss to the atmosphere, whereas, regenerative grazing preserves habitat, protects against floods, and drought, and combats climate change by sequestering carbon and cutting emissions of methane and nitrous oxide
16
@Miss Manners: Cattle farming is unsustainable in all forms. Plant-based farming is the future.
5
@Stephen Hawking's Football Bootsm Grass fed beef is obviously carbon neutral. The grass sequesters carbon and the cattle recycle it as beef. The flesh of the cattle inevitably return to the soil, directly or indirectly.
2
@TH C02 is only one of several greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Even grass-fed cows produce methane, which is a much more potent contributor to global warming than C02. The substantial environmental impact of global agricultural production was summarized in a recent scientific study reported in Time: http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
2
What if we paid farmers...? Anything completing that is unhinged madness of the highest order and odor!
21
what do y'all make of this, supposedly generated by our EPA...
https://www.epa.edu/?p=113&fbclid=IwAR22l0cmhLirs1KPORzH-bGZCXtImQi3cCLStV9HQsL7FOem-YrHYBxfyMU
@Elvis
It's all about cornfed, feedlot cattle, not 100% grass-fed cattle who are managed to regenerate farmland and sequester carbon. Big difference.
7
@Miss Manners livestock manure is a major contributor of methane, which is far more damaging to the environment than CO2. I don’t care what you feed them, manure is manure, and you don’t have to be “country” to understand that.
3
Democratic candidates need to talk with small to mid-size farmers, asking how such a program might benefit them. Listen to their responses, then tailor proposals accordingly. No one--repeat, no one--likes having ideas forced upon them. But willing participants could mean a win/win.
15
Not a scientist, but if trees essentially sore CO2, can someone tell me why aren't we planting trees by the billions across the globe?
45
@TVM
Because regenerative grazing of cattle (ruminants) causes tremendous amounts of carbon to be stored by by soil fungi. The grazing is managed in a way that mimics the buffalos' movement across the great plains, building deep topsoil. The cropping of the grass starts biochemical signals that result in accelerated photosynthesis and carbon storage. Grasslands and ruminants co-evolved. We need them just as we need rainforests. People need to understand the difference between corn-fed, feedlot beef that are part of the problem and the 100% grass-fed beef that are part of the solution.
40
@TVM it maybe also because of the fossil fuel industry decades long campaign to brainwash and manipulate society against the idea of human induced global warming. This has led to the current inability of society as a whole to address CO2 emissions In any meaningful way. Perhaps fossil fuels simply need to be banned in order to force the required restorative and preventative action. Take the fight to the cause - the fossil fuel industry.
7
@Miss Manners Understand, but wouldn't more trees help tremendously. After all you are suggesting we need to restore greater rain forests. Yes, to billions of trees?
2
Many, if not most farmers, are already doing many or most of the practices listed in this article plus ones not listed.
There is an existing program under the farm bill called EQIP that provides cost sharing for many environmentally benefit practices; it is often oversubscribed/underfunded. And the USDA already does grants for solar and wind energy. Those grants are oversubscribed/ underfunded.
So, there are already programs in place that could be greatly expanded. We just need the two parties in Congress to get together and agree that the programs are beneficial to everyone, and not political in any way.
That last part is the problem.
29
Why not? We already cushion them from every risk they face. Let's pay them for something useful to everyone else.
10
Very glad to see this in the NYTimes. Farmers are critical to mitigating climate change. By adding rock minerals and biochar to crops farmers can boost the levels of carbon being sequestered even further. Extensive research has been done on this and is underway at the University of Illinois and UC Davis. Also, Delton Chen has a a climate mitigation economic theory called the Silver Gun Hypothesis that supports paying for the environmental service of sequestering carbon. This would be a win win win for biologic systems, farmers, and a more equal economic system.
42
@Fort sounds like a good argument for ending timber harvests by private entities on public land
6
@Fort - let’s address the problem at source - stop using fossil fuels and allowing that industry to wreck the planet. Restorative farming and other carbon drawdown activities can help fix up the mess, but ultimately we can’t shift the responsibility for the problem away from the very industry that is causing it.
6
@HW Keiser
Too much of timber harvest goes to make paper, which could be made from easy-to-grow hemp instead. Old, big trees are cut down and ground to pulp, instead of being carbon sinks. I would add hemp to the list of crops to rotate through.
9
When we were kids (50 plus years ago), every farmer around here plowed fields in the spring. Now it is surprising to see a plowed field. I suspect the majority of Ohio farmers use either no-til or conservation tilling, plant cover crops, rotate crops and manage grazing. The only thing lacking is renewable energy, but wouldn't it be great if struggling farmers could actually make money for their efforts? There are few jobs harder or more honest than America's farmers and it's past time to give them a break.
26
@Preserving America,
I agree, if true, no-till is where it's at. We should also go further and incentivize organic, and neutralize the toxic lobbying of Monsanto and fiends.
"What if We Paid Farmers to Fight Global Warming?
They would act like all businesses the government gives money to: take it and get around using it for its intended purpose.
What if--and I know it is insanity to capitalist Republicans--the government just stopped giving any money to all business and let the free market work.
13
@Glenn
Free markets have limitations. Sometimes they fail to materialize at all. More often than free marketeers are prepared to admit, free market prices do not capture the full costs or benefits of production and consumption. The outcomes in such markets do not achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. In the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith argued that a government should remedy this suboptimality by regulating prices to reflect the benefit and costs that are not accounted for in the free market. The authors are taking his advice. They are wise to do so.
6
@TBishop
Another Cafeteria Capitalist...
Adam Smith also argued, passionately and often, for strict regulation of the market, for fair treatment of workers, for capitalists to pay the full cost of whatever they had benefit of from water to wasteland to the air. Insisted on it, as a matter of survival.
It was unexceptional for Smith to recommend limits on income and increases in taxes if the state should require it in order to regulate and provide services.
Before you ask, yes indeed, there were many instances in which Smith preferred state services to the 'free market'.
You, and the authors, would also be wise to take this advice, not just that which appeals to you.
7