Community groups in the Midwest are worried a change in California carbon emissions policy could hurt quality of life in the nation's heartland.

Later this month, the California Air Resources Board will consider an amendment to the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Oil and gas companies would be allowed to offset their emissions by purchasing credits from producers of "greener" fuel around the country, specifically, methane captured from cow and hog manure.

Tim Gibbons, communications director of the Missouri Rural Crisis Center, said it could spur large dairy farms to expand.

"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 contended.

Supporters of the amendment said their goal is to reduce carbon emissions on a national scale.

Many big dairy farms, known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, use anaerobic digesters to capture natural gas from manure, and then market it as a clean fuel. But a 2020 report by Food and Water Watch found, unlike human sewage, hog and cattle waste is not treated, so it can pollute groundwater and blanket downwind communities with a terrible odor.

Brenda Brink, a member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, said California's system of emissions credits would allow factory farms to "greenwash" their carbon footprint and put renewable energy, like solar and wind power, at a disadvantage.

"Because it's such a sweet deal, it's pushing more and more production through factory farms," Brink asserted. "State governments see the sweet deal it is; 'Well, look, it's clean energy.' And so, it's just this huge P.R. thing that is not true."

The public hearing will take place March 21 in Sacramento and will be livestreamed, so people can watch it online.


get more stories like this via email

From declining commodity prices to unpredictable weather, American farmers are at a crossroads - especially smaller operations.

And they're wondering what things will be like after President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

As it did in Trump's first term, the incoming administration is poised to revive trade disputes by implementing tariffs.

Analysts say the first go-round had a negative effect on farmers, with agricultural exports suffering $27 billion in losses.

Emergency aid was approved, but observers say larger agri-businesses were prioritized too much.

Ben Lilliston - the director of rural strategies and climate change at the Minnesota-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy - said he wonders if similar patterns will emerge.

"That definitely is a concern because we've seen consolidation in farmland," said Lilliston. "We're losing farmers - particularly losing small, mid-sized farmers - and this would be just another advantage for the largest operators."

Those larger sites, namely concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs, are growing in number, creating environmental impacts.

That's on top of talk from Trump and his aides about mass deportations of undocumented individuals, potentially disrupting the farm labor force.

However, Lilliston said Trump has raised legitimate questions about the need for trade reforms.

The Biden administration has been aggressive in addressing market fairness for farmers and improving their climate outlook, but also has been criticized for certain moves.

One is funding bio-digesters, which opponents say helps expand CAFOs.

Lilliston said they're unsure what Trump will do on that front, but conservation funding through the Inflation Reduction Act could take a hit.

"It's given a huge boost and made more money available, close to $20 billion," said Lilliston. "So, the question is, as the Trump administration comes in, how are they going to use that Inflation Reduction Act money?"

He pointed to rumblings that the incoming administration wants to roll back unspent IRA funds. But it could be a thorny issue with Republican lawmakers who tout these investments for their districts.

Those conservation dollars are viewed as ways for smaller farms to make their land more resilient and competitive in the face of climate change.

Lilliston said there are other uncertainties, such as the person chosen for Ag Secretary. She has little policy background, leaving farmers guessing.




get more stories like this via email

Rural communities across Massachusetts are benefiting from state grants aimed at strengthening the local food supply and building climate resilience.

State officials have awarded nearly $4 million to help farmers improve soil health, upgrade irrigation systems and prepare for extreme weather events, including the current critical drought conditions.

Ashley Randle, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources, said farms are helping the state meet its ambitious climate goals.

"They're a mitigation and resilience strategy so that farms can be best positioned to withstand the changing weather conditions that they are facing," Randle explained.

Randle pointed out grants will help farms improve efficiency and environmental controls and reduce greenhouse gases. Massachusetts has set a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

From cranberries to oysters, the majority of farms in Massachusetts are smaller, family-owned operations. Randle noted grants will help farmers purchase high tunnels and other equipment needed to extend their production season. She emphasized it helps secure jobs and provides income to local economies during the winter months.

"All of these grants are really helping to ensure that we have a stable food supply," Randle stressed. "And to continue to grow and adapt should there be climate change impacts like we saw last year that devastated the sector."

Last year, a deep freeze in February spoiled the peach crop while a late frost in May damaged most tree fruits. Significant flooding last summer severely damaged 13,000 acres, resulting in more than $65 million in losses. Randle added farms often face unpredictable factors but grant programs can help them adapt and thrive in the face of uncertainty.


get more stories like this via email

A Missouri-based farm group is fighting to keep the proposed "FARM Act" from becoming law, warning it would benefit large corporate farms at the expense of smaller ones.

The Farm Action Fund, a nonpartisan advocacy group, contended the proposed legislation in Congress, which is an extension of the five-year Farm Bill, would funnel more money to big corporate farms, giving them an unfair advantage and making it harder for small and mid-sized farms to survive.

Joe Maxwell, president of the Farm Action Fund, believes the legislation is making history but not in a good way.

"As far as I know, and I've been doing this for about 40 years, it's the first time there's been policy that would discriminate among the commodity crop growers in the United States, saying that the largest ones get more money," Maxwell explained. "Oftentimes, they're the ones that need the least money."

The National Farm Coalition reported 20% of farms control nearly 70% of U.S. farmland, which it said shows significant consolidation. If passed, The FARM Act would allocate around $21 billion in aid.

Nearly 90% of Missouri farms are smaller, family-owned operations. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, small farms are the backbone of U.S. agriculture. They make up 88% of all farms, controlling nearly half of the nation's farmland. Maxwell pointed out his organization is urging them to take a stand on the FARM Act, because the competition is formidable.

"I think it's the power of the dollar expressing itself in the halls of our United States Capitol," Maxwell contended. "The largest farmers have brought in the lobbyists and the trade organizations, to give them an upper hand."

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., and Rep. Sam Graves, R-Mo., are cosponsors of the FARM Act.


get more stories like this via email