In July, I had an event with Leslie Danks Burke, a state senate candidate for the 52nd District in New York state. Held in Ithaca, New York, we discussed agriculture, climate change and literature in front of an engaged crowd. Before we were about to take our last question from the audience, Leslie leans over and whispers into my ear.
“Ryan, let’s make this a positive answer. It’s better if people leave feeling encouraged.”
It just so happened that the final member of the audience to stand up disagreed with much of what Leslie and I had been saying, and I was ready to jump into a lively (maybe heated) debate with this individual. However, Leslie was right. If you’re asking people to be active in improving the future, then depressing them first – as I probably had been in discussing my understanding of American agriculture – isn’t a great tactic. I had learned a lesson in politics that evening.
Much of what was discussed involved the challenges facing agriculture and the role it might play in confronting global warming. Although it was billed as a “debate,” Leslie was first to make the point that all changes farmers might be asked to make should be reasonable and financially supported. Being a farmer’s daughter herself, she knew well the tight margins at stake and the difficulty managing an operation within them. Most people in the audience were not farmers, but hopefully came away with a better understanding of how agriculture has already been implementing changes for a greener planet, and what the government’s role should be in supporting further environmentally friendly practices.
Splitting my time between Ireland and the U.S., I have come to notice that American and E.U. agriculture tend to take different approaches in addressing concerns over climate issues. E.U. farmers generally echo the sentiment of Leslie: They accept that global warming is a genuine concern and everyone must do their part to combat it, including themselves. They use their political capital, however, in negotiating that any changes required are fair and adequately funded. In Ireland, for example, farmers can receive between 5,000 and 7,000 euros per year under the Green, Low-Carbon, Agri-Environment Scheme (GLAS) for meeting certain environmental objectives.
However, it appears the U.S., at least informally, has taken a different approach. In various media, farming journals and online platforms, it is common to suggest there aren’t human causes behind global warming. In fact, according to a Farm and Rural Life Poll, while nearly all farmers agreed that climate change is real and affecting their livelihoods, only 18% attributed it to human factors. This attitude was previously encouraged from high up. As reported by The Guardian, the USDA received instructions during the former administration not to use the term “climate change” in any public material.
Regardless of the science or any personal beliefs, American agriculture’s refusal to address the issue of global warming does not appear to be a successful strategy. Research from Cornell University has recently produced some alarming news for the industry: The number of vegans and vegetarians in the U.S. has doubled in the last five years. Currently, 10% percent of Americans do not eat meat. The reasons for making this dietary choice has significantly trended toward environmental concerns. Ultimately, an increasing number of Americans believe that farming is not good for climate change.
Instead, there’s a better message the industry can put out. According to the Farm Journal Foundation and MIT, it is wholly possible for American agriculture to be a net carbon sink and a leading actor in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Already, significant research has been completed and technology implemented, from anaerobic digesters to the optimal use of cover crops. Under the current administration, the USDA has announced it will invest $1 billion into supporting environmentally friendly practices on farms, and many state governments provide a limited number of grants for farmers to install new water or manure management systems that reduce pollution. Work has already been done within U.S. farming to support the environment. Rather than being kept silent, that effort should be championed to the public. Instead of American farmers being seen as an uncomfortable complication in the fight against global warming, they should be recast as the hero in moving forward to save the planet.
Although the intersection of American agriculture and climate change has become politically toxic, leaders in the industry have already been quietly working toward creating more sustainable practices. According to Politico, in 2019 a closed-door meeting was hosted by the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance that brought together almost 100 leaders across the sector, including Sonny Perdue, Trump’s appointment for U.S. secretary of agriculture. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how U.S. farming can help combat climate change. Also represented at that meeting was American Farm Bureau, who for years had fought federal legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.
Concerns over environmental issues are only going to grow in the future, and more and more consumers are going to demand a better message behind their food. With the rising popularity of milk and meat alternatives, American agriculture can no longer afford to lose the imaging war. There are plenty of achievements to celebrate and a potential future role to take on as a leader in sequestering carbon. Doing so will only encourage further government funding to support environmentally sustainable practices on farms, giving the industry something more to boast.
Let’s have a positive answer so we can all feel encouraged.
