Family farm advocates in Missouri are concerned a regulation on the other side of the country could have unintended effects on rural Missourians.
The California Air Resources Board is gearing up to make changes to the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standards, which could allow California to buy tax credits to offset their diesel emissions from factory farms in the Midwest producing methane from animal waste. Critics warn it would encourage even more factory farming.
Tim Gibbons, communications director of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, said it is a stark contrast to the environmental justice commitment set by California.
"If Californians knew that their policy in their state was actually creating, incentivizing, fueling more corporate factory farms in the Midwest, I would like to think that they would be opposed to that," Gibbons emphasized.
The California Air Resources Board has a public hearing on the amendment on March 21 in Sacramento. Gibbons stressed it is important for people in the Midwest to let the regulators know their views about the proposal. There are already more than 500 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Missouri.
Gibbons pointed out California's definition of the low-carbon fuels to generate tax credits includes anaerobic digesters, which are used to capture methane from the massive quantities of manure generated by factory farms. He argued it creates an incentive for these facilities to get even bigger.
"People are opposed to this, not only out here, but I think that the vast majority of Californians that are in support of mitigating climate change would not be for -- not only this, as a 'greenwashing' idea of mitigating climate change -- but also the fact that this could create more climate change," Gibbons asserted.
A 2020 report by Food and Water Watch included examples of what happens to communities when livestock and their waste are concentrated in specific regions. Unlike human sewage, hog and cattle waste is not treated before being released into the environment. Neighbors of the facilities report odor and other health effects such as losing the ability to spend time outdoors.
get more stories like this via email
A recent report revealed the Shell petrochemical plant in Beaver County has failed to deliver the promised economic benefits since its announcement more than a decade ago.
New findings from the Ohio River Valley Institute showed the plastics plant has not brought and economic boom, and promised jobs have not materialized.
Eric de Place, research fellow for the Ohio River Valley Institute, said Beaver County's economy has performed worse than Pennsylvania as a whole, as well as the nation and even its own past benchmarks.
"Its economic performance is actually declining over time," de Place reported. "Since Shell announced that plant, what's happened is they've lost population, they've lost GDP, they've lost jobs, they've lost businesses."
De Place pointed out local residents were promised an economic renaissance with thousands of jobs and increased tax revenue when Shell built its petrochemical plant, leading Pennsylvania to give the company $1.6 billion in subsidies. He stressed it is important for community members to demand accountability and question why Shell continues to receive taxpayer support.
Shell contends its complex has created nearly 500 jobs. De Place countered Beaver County saw a short-term boost during the Shell plant's construction, with thousands of workers on-site. But since operations began, the promised economic gains have not happened.
"Clearly in the data, Shell is employing a few hundred people at the plant now. Those are real jobs, but what we're looking at is the net effect," de Place explained. "Sure, you add a few hundred jobs in one place but what happens to the rest of the economy during that time? And what happens is, it's actually declining."
De Place noted the plant produces tiny plastic pellets called nurdles, which are the building blocks for many plastic products, including disposable items such as grocery bags. Essentially, it transforms fracked gas into the raw material for plastics.
Disclosure: The Ohio River Valley Institute contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, and Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Environmentalists said a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives meant to curtail forest fires in New Mexico and elsewhere will do no such thing, and are encouraging Senators to vote against it.
The "Fix Our Forests Act" would reform the National Environmental Policy Act. The 55-year-old law requires environmental reviews and public input for major federal actions such as new logging, which supporters argued could mitigate wildfire risks.
Dan Ritzman, lands, water and wildlife director of the Our Wild America campaign for the Sierra Club, believes the deceptively-named bill would undermine environmental protections.
"The Sierra Club has long supported science-based, responsible forest management," Ritzman pointed out. "We echo the experts who support prescribed burns, responsible forest management, and we support home and community hardening to make neighborhoods and cities more resilient in the face of fires."
New Mexico's largest utility company recently warned customers in several fire-risk areas, including Santa Fe, high wind events often increase in the spring, and reminded residents to be prepared for potential power shut-offs to ensure power lines are not a source of wildfires.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said to combat climate change, the U.S. needs more renewable energy including solar, wind and battery storage technology. Instead, he noted the focus is on DEI, the acronym for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
"They keep invoking DEI but we know that DEI to Donald Trump just means 'Defending Elon's Interests,'"Markey contended. "It's just such an incredible power and money grab."
President Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax" and recently suggested he might end the Federal Emergency Management Agency's role in responding to local climate disasters. Many state leaders already have said they do not have the resources to tackle such events on their own.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Rural communities in the U.S. remain at the center of debate about the growing presence of large livestock operations.
South Dakota lawmakers are considering boosting fees that help regulate these sites.
A bill making its way through the Legislature would update the fee structure for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. These fees have stayed the same since the late 1990s.
State agricultural leaders say as CAFOs expand, increasing permit revenue would help address gaps in paying for the oversight program.
Angela Ehlers, executive director of the South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts, said funds are greatly needed for technical assistance.
"Are the soils capable of handling the amount of fertilizer being applied?" asked Ehlers. "Is it being applied in the proper manner? So, it's that type of technical assistance. And if we're gonna provide a program, we need to provide the staff to carry it out properly."
The measure comes amid proposed budget cuts for the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Ehlers said without this program, regulatory work might have to shift back to a regional federal office. Some farm lobbyists say they don't like fee hikes but recognize the need.
CAFOs have become a sore subject in smaller communities, as residents push back over air and water pollution issues.
The tension surrounding CAFOs mostly involves operations with big animal herds. But Ehlers said they also need to regulate smaller sites, which can sometimes avoid regulation.
"One could have 50 head of cattle. Those cattle are standing in the creek all summer long, doing what cows do naturally," said Ehlers. "And smaller CAFOs need the permit fee so that they can guarantee they're not polluting a very special stream that may be the water source for the town just down the road."
South Dakota's secretary of agriculture says there are now nearly 430 CAFOs permitted within the state.
The bill, which has cleared the House and now awaits Senate action, saw a compromise added to ease concerns from farming interests.
get more stories like this via email