Jolley: Five Minutes With Dr. Neil Hamilton & Global Warming
12/04/2009 09:48AM
Bookmark
Subscribe
Dr. Neil Hamilton is a professor of law and director of the Agricultural Law Center at Drake University with some strong opinions on climate change and the potential for the talks in Copenhagen to affect the outcome if only some meaningful agreements are reached. He shared his thoughts in a commentary published recently in the Des Moines Register.
Beginning Monday, approximately 8000 people will gather in Copenhagen, creating a mini-global hot spot of their own for a few days. Representatives from 170 countries will attend - governmental representatives, NGO's, journalists and other interested people like Dr. Hamilton and friends.
The international agricultural supply chain will be one of the center points of this worldwide debate. African farmers are facing new weather patterns that confound their traditional planting schedule. Consumers in the developing world struggle with rising food prices. A devil’s chorus of people in developed nations are questioning the way we raise our food and what it might be doing to our physical and ecological health. Decisions will be made that will have a huge impact on how food is produced and delivered to market. Probably nothing in the foreseeable future has the potential to impact what American farmers and ranchers will do more than Copenhagen.
The last conference of this magnitude was Kyoto 12 years ago. With almost every corner in the world signing the treaty, the only country of any size to walk away from it was the United States. Two big questions: If the talks don’t go our way, will Obama take a hike, too? And if he does, what will be the effect on our agricultural exports?
Spurred on by Dr. Hamilton’s commentary, I contacted him with a few questions.
Q. In a recent commentary in the Des Moines Register, you wrote that you and two Drake agricultural law students will soon be traveling to Copenhagen for the U.N. Climate Change Negotiations, "part of the Iowa U.N. Association delegation going to witness the international talks on possibly the most significant environmental, social and political issue shaping our futures." With all the issues we face in the early years of this century, that's a bold statement. In your opinion, what makes it 'possibly the most significant?'
A. If the predictions about the impacts of climate change are true to any significant extent - such as increases in sea levels, shifts in rainfall patterns, and declining water flows impacting irrigation - the effects on the natural world and as a result on the economies and political systems of most nations - including the U.S. will be very serious. The possible impacts of climate change have the potential to make other issues we have been concerned about in agriculture - such as soil conservation and water quality - pale in importance and scale.
Q. I agree with your belief that many people in America's agricultural sector don't take climate change seriously. They see it as not much more than an interesting theory. What solid facts can you recite that support the concept of global warming?
A. My goal in the op-ed was not to recite a litany of the scientific facts supporting the reality of climate change. From my perspective there is not significant scientific disagreement that climate change is happening - the disagreement may be as to the likelihood of either the pace of impacts or the causes. There is a significant part of society engaged in denying the existence of climate change but this shouldn't be confused with scientific disagreement.
Much of the agriculture community likes to talk about the importance of "sound science." From my perspective the voices of "sound science" agree on the reality of climate change - and we should listen. A person doesn't need to know how to build a clock to tell time. Most people involved in agriculture - if they are honest with themselves will acknowledge the changes we have experienced on our own farms in terms of climate in the last several decades. Rather than deny or fear this issue the opportunity is to confront it and determine how agriculture can be part of the solution.
Q. Most greenhouse gas emissions are the result of increased worldwide industrialization with emerging economic powers like China and India becoming major contributors. How can U.S. leadership, no matter how aggressive, slow down the emissions caused by those booming economies?
A. The role of U.S. leadership - as we may have seen even in the last week since the President's announcement - is that we can not expect developing countries like India and China to "go first" in making concessions. This is especially true if you view the issue from their perspective - which is developed nations like the US spent the last 100 years building our economies and setting in place climate change as part of the process - and now we expect them to forgo their own development to help resolve the problems we largely created.
It is a red herring from US groups to expect China and India will agree to the same type of restrictions we might or that they should lead the process. It is also illogical to think they will do anything on the issue if the US doesn't help lead the world - as we like to do on trade and other issues. If we want them to engage we have to as well - as is happening this week.
Q. A significant portion of the profitability of products grown by American agriculture is tied to free trade and open markets. At the same time, American farmers are an independent bunch that distrust international engagements. Why should they support a strong American presence in Copenhagen?
A. You have already answered the question. How do we expect other nations to follow our free trade lead in negotiating agreements we feel are important to us - if we are not willing to also take a leadership position on a topic and in a process they feel is even more over arching and important than trade. Global leadership is not something you get to do just when it is in your best interests.
Q. Cap and Trade legislation has been endorsed by the National Farmers Union as the basis for some ambitious goals for Copenhagen. American Farm Bureau Federation opposed it and encouraged their members to fight it. Tom Vilsack thinks it will open 'new streams of farm income from offsets and carbon markets.' As in all things, some prices will rise, others will fall. What can the American farmer really expect from cap and trade?
A. They can expect a period of some uncertainty - as the impact of the program is determined and as the rules and regulations are developed. They can then expect a period where they figure out how the programs create opportunities for them to benefit. Farmers are amazingly resilient and creative and have greatly benefited from most government programs - from crop insurance to conservation. The opportunity to benefit from cap and trade will be even greater if farmers are actively involved in shaping the legislation - rather than foolishly opposing it or pretending something is not going to happen. I am surprised at the positions many agricultural groups have taken and how little faith they reflect either in the innovative ability of farmers or the importance of sound science.
Q. You said, "If Congress fails to act, the Environmental Protection Agency will regulate greenhouse gas emissions as required by a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Legislation may raise concerns but it will be friendlier and more tailored to agriculture's needs than EPA regulations."
We're looking at potential international agreements, federal legislation and/or strengthened EPA regulations. Let's assume for a moment that we make no international agreements and the house and senate lack the political will to enact new legislation. What might American agriculture expect from the EPA?
A. Agriculture can expect from EPA regulations that are largely tailored for other industries and which may create little opportunity for farmers to play the key role they can in addressing climate change. So farmers may experience the higher costs industry may experience from the regulations but without any related programs which give agriculture the opportunity to be part of the solution - so you lose both ways.
Q. Thousands of cattlemen read Cattlenetwork.com. What would you like to say to them?
A. I would say that cattlemen have an even bigger stake in climate change than other parts of agriculture - especially in how grasslands and other forms of permanent cover can be part of our carbon solution. US cattlemen will also benefit directly if we help fund efforts to slow deforestation in the Amazon and keep more of that land in trees - rather than producing cheap beef or soybeans.
Finally I would tell them to not fear "climate change" but to consider how this issue develops a whole new range of opportunities for farmers to show the important role they play for society in stewarding our resources, producing food and protecting the climate.