Peterson Denies Global Warming Hurts Agriculture: ‘My Farmers Are Going To Say That’s A Good Thing’
Peterson Denies Global Warming Hurts Agriculture: ‘My Farmers Are Going To Say That’s A Good Thing’
House Agriculture Committee chair Collin Peterson (D-MN), who has been blocking the passage of comprehensive climate legislation, dismissed a White House report on the damaging effect of global warming on U.S. agriculture. Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the chief of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association and one of the top scientists in the Obama administration, called the climate impacts report released yesterday a “clarion call for action” for a problem that “is happening now, and in our own backyards.” However, the Wall Street Journal reports that Peterson, “when asked by reporters Tuesday about the report’s findings, said they run counter to what many in his region are experiencing“:
We’ve just had the biggest floods and coldest winters we’ve ever had. They’re saying to us [that climate change is] going to be a big problem because it’s going to be warmer than it usually is; my farmers are going to say that’s a good thing since they’ll be able to grow more corn.
It is not apparent what farmers Peterson is talking about. As the report explains in its section on the agricultural impacts of climate change, global warming brings not only warmer temperatures but also heavier floods. Despite the relatively cold winter of 2008, over the past thirty years winter temperatures in Peterson’s Minnesota have risen more than 7°F. In fact, floods and higher temperatures associated with global warming have already damaged America’s corn crops, with worse to come:
Analysis of crop responses suggests that even moderate increases in temperature will decrease yields of corn, wheat, sorghum, bean, rice, cotton, and peanut crops.
Responding to Peterson’s argument on a telephone briefing organized by the Center for American Progress, USDA Global Change Program director Bill Hohenstein explained that scientists have estimated that “the effects on the corn yield in the Midwest” from observed changes in temperature and carbon dioxide levels “are a decrease of about 3 percent, not accounting for changes in water availability.” Hohenstein was citing an earlier U.S. Global Change Program report, The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States:
The scientific studies discussed in the report found that very 2°F (1.2°C) increase in temperature caused by global warming reduces corn yields by four percent, offset by the increased productivity from higher carbon dioxide levels for a net decrease of three percent. That’s an annual U.S. corn crop loss of $1.4 billion, $135 million from Peterson’s state of Minnesota alone. Without action, the report warns that U.S. temperatures could rise fivefold by the end of the century. If the damages to corn yields remain consistent, that would lead to a 15 percent reduction in the corn crop, or annual losses of $7 billion in today’s dollars.
This estimate does not take into account the damage to crop yields from extreme precipitation, such as the floods of 2008 that caused around $8 billion in total damage to U.S. farmers. The report Peterson dismissed as being good news for farmers also shows that if no action is taken to halt global warming, the U.S. grain belt could see one to two months of heat waves over 100°F and two to three months of heat waves over 90°F by the end of the century. Corn, by the way, “will fail to reproduce at temperatures above 95°F.”
The report further details the rise in poison ivy and other noxious weeds due to higher carbon dioxide levels and warmer temperatures, the near-certain elimination of regional crops like maple and cranberries by mid-century without action, and the acute threats to America’s livestock production.
Peterson has similarly discounted scientific analyses of the effects of biofuel production while demanding the House leadership make concessions to industrial agriculture in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454).
5 Responses to “Peterson Denies Global Warming Hurts Agriculture: ‘My Farmers Are Going To Say That’s A Good Thing’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Yesterday, I received an email from the State of Texas Comptrollers Office citing all the reasons that Cap/Trade would be bad for Texans. The memo linked here: http://www.window.state.tx.us/newsinfo/columns/090617-captrade.html
Any Texan who wants Climate Change Legislation should contact her office. Notice that she fails to provide any real statistics, fails to address the change as a per capita cost, but just an overall cost and fails to address that a “job loss” to the oil industry could be off-set by jobs in the renewable energy industry.
If you are like me, a retiree with limited funds, just email her office directly, no need for a long distance phone call! Texans need to take action against this type of rhetoric…words without meaning.
For the record, South Texas is in a severe drought for the past 2 years…temperatures here have been at or above 100C for the last 10 days with no relief in sight.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:21 amOne of the problems with Global Warming is the term itself. Opponents like to point out that from where they stand (such as the northern tier states) a warmer winter or longer growing season isn’t a bad thing, as long as there is rain.
The scariest thing that scientists are deeply worried about but rarely mention, since they can’t show definitive proof yet, but are getting closer, is the effects that changing our atmosphere will bring. Much of life on this planet (other than us) likes carbon dioxide. We are just beginning to see what doubling the percentage of CO2 does. One thing that likes CO2 is fungus (it also likes warmth). It wouldn’t take very many known funguses to suddenly start growing rapidly to wipe out many of our food crops. Just ask any farmer, fungus is as big or even bigger enemy to their crops than insects.
A few areas of droughts, a few areas of out of control fungus and insect attacks and world food production could take a huge drop. Then food shortages and price spikes and chaos results. Increased CO2 does much, much more than just raise temperatures and we are only beginning to know what.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:35 pmAnother danger with climate warming is the “light switch affect.” When you use a light switch, you move the switch from one position to the other. At first, nothing happens: the switch moves to no effect until, CLICK, it springs from one state to the other. There is a lot of CO2 locked in ancient decaying vegetation beneath surface ice on earth. When increasing temperature causes the ice to disappear, CLICK! That CO2 is released into the atmosphere cutting years off estimates for the worse effects to manifest. We could reach the point of no return almost literally overnight.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:19 pmwhile demanding the House leadership make concessions to industrial agriculture in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454).
Now here we have the root of the problem. I strongly suspect that Mr. Peterson couldn’t care less about the farmers in his constituency as long as Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill are happy and donating money.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:43 pmI am from Minnesota also. I did a study a few years ago on temperatures at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport for the periods 1960-1967 and 2000-2007. My premise was that people who live in warm climates wonder what the fuss is. My results were: July highs are 1+ degrees warmer than 40 years ago. July overnight lows are 4+ degrees warmer, January highs are 6+ degrees warmer, and January overnight lows are 9+ degrees warmer. Summers do not seem much different, but winters have changed drastically. The term ‘global warming’ should be ‘global flooding’.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:56 pm