Viewpoint
A fresh set of regulations
Newly powerful politicians and regulators seek to control agriculture
Political issues aren’t at the top of the agenda at MFA Incorporated. A wet spring, a narrow planting window in April, and a slow, soggy May occupied the attention of most of us at this writing as June opened. If challenging weather isn’t enough, we must constantly deal with people who seek to impose their will on agriculture through politics and strained science. Don’t forget for a minute that environmentalists and regulators are all about control. Their misplaced efforts certainly make earning a living much harder than necessary at no discernible improvement to society or the environment.
While MFA’s members and management of the cooperative made a conscious decision decades ago to exit the political stage, we do embrace organizations formed for just that purpose: the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Farm Bureau and the assorted agricultural commodity groups.
Those organizations deserve our thanks, support and membership. If you don’t belong to the commodity group that represents your corner of agriculture, I urge you to join. In today’s world, especially, agriculture needs continuous, professional representation. It disappoints me to say that traditional agriculture is under assault by today’s political leaders. That’s not over-reaction. That’s not pointing at one political party over another. That’s fact.
The latest efforts by the environmentalist social manipulators are playing out under the banner of climate change. I’ll leave my personal opinions on climate change unprinted. That’s as diplomatic as I know how to be, especially considering the impact of proposed government regulation on agriculture.
If government would guarantee in writing that its multiple, unending regulations would mean perfect weather each year during planting and harvest along with lower input costs, I’d be regulation’s biggest ally.
In the meantime, government’s newly proposed legislation looks to be taking the form of a carbon tax (sometimes called cap and trade). That legislation would immediately impact fuel, energy and fertilizer costs. And that hits close to home for MFA and its customer/owners.
According to reputable groups, current climate change legislation under consideration could cost the average American family $2,400 a year in increased utility costs alone. EPA predicts natural gas (the key component of nitrogen fertilizers) will increase 25 percent immediately. Plus, gasoline and diesel costs would rise. Obviously, agriculture will be impacted far more severely than the general public.
Unfortunately, this legislation will be moving through Congress this summer. Mainstream ag groups, including the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, American Farm Bureau, National Corn Growers, American Soybean Association and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, say agriculture has to be involved in order to stay in front of the issue.
The U.S. House and Senate ag committees are the go-to people in moderating this mess. So contact your senators and representatives to reaffirm that agriculture’s benefits hinge upon the legislative details.
It could be so easy. At a fundamental level, agriculture takes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and turns it into food, fiber and fuel, thereby limiting carbon. According to experts, that puts agriculture in a unique position in terms of a future marketplace for carbon. EPA says agriculture could sequester up to 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases each year by serving as a “carbon sink.”
That newly formed political term means taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in plant materials in the soil. And it means agriculture reduces its emissions of several gases considered as ingredients of climate change.
According to NCFC, agriculture needs to watch this development closely. We need to make sure our industry representatives (like the commodity groups) and our political representatives keep agriculture’s interests front and center in any politically devised solutions to this theoretical problem.
We must make our lawmakers remember their primary responsibility should be similar to the responsibility of physicians: First, do no harm. After all, carbon trading has the potential to become a moneymaker for farmers and ranchers. That’s a green we can all agree on. But it’s also one I wouldn’t put money on.
Bill Streeter is President and CEO of MFA Incorporated
Click here to respond to this article
Top of Page
