By MICHELE F. MIHALJEVICH
Indiana Correspondent

FORT WAYNE, Ind. — Everyone, including those in agriculture, will share the pain of the cost of reducing carbon emissions, a Purdue University extension specialist said last week.

“Almost anything that’s effective in cutting down CO2 (carbon dioxide) is going to cost,” said Otto Doering, a professor in Purdue’s Agricultural Economics department. “You cannot tackle this without some costs to someone. Everyone is going to have to take a little bit of pain. If we’re going to do this, everyone will have to share that pain.”

While there is agreement among many scientists and others that the climate is changing, the reasons behind that change are not as definitive, he said. The bulk of the science indicates CO2 is a factor, but land use also affects the temperature, he said.

“If you take out a forest or a field and add a Walmart, you’re going to see a change in temperature,” he said. “We don’t tend to think about that as much in Indiana because we have lots of farmland, and a lot of prime farmland, but when changing the land, you need to look at how it affects heat and how it handles heat.”
Doering spoke Jan. 12 during the Fort Wayne Farm Show. He was the first of a trio of speakers who discussed how climate control legislation might impact farmers.

The questions about what’s causing climate change are a part of the debate over how to fix the problem, Doering said. “Do we know what’s really happening? Do we know it’s caused by CO2? Do we know it’s caused by land usage?” he asked.

“We’re just not 100 percent sure. But it might be worth it to do something, because the potential final outcome is so catastrophic.”
Climate changes could affect how farmers plant, said Justin Schneider, staff attorney for the Indiana Farm Bureau.

“We could see changes in the length of the growing season, and farmers could have to deal with additional pest and disease issues. You’d see changes in the precipitation patterns,” he explained.
Farmers, like other consumers, could see an increase in household energy costs and there is the potential for higher food costs, Schneider said. They could also see increased farm-related energy and fertilizer costs.

“It’s not going to be uniform pain, but there will be some who hurt a lot worse than others,” he added.

Farmers do have a chance to help offset carbon emissions elsewhere by use of fertilizer and manure management, livestock dietary improvements and through the sequestering of carbon with no-till, he said.

“Farmers have a great opportunity to reduce greenhouse gasses through biomass and biofuels. We have to look at ways to make these more efficient,” Schneider said.

Potentially higher energy costs associated with climate change legislation would be another increase in costs that consumers might have to pay, said U.S. Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). Costs from other potential legislation, such as health care, could also increase, he said.

Because of the potential for increased costs, everyone should be in agreement on the problem and a solution before legislation is enacted, he said.

“We don’t seem to be having that discussion about whether the assuming behind this is correct,” Souder said. “Before you wreck the American economy, you ought to have a tad more science. What we don’t need to do is destroy our economy.

“If we have a challenge, do you do it dramatically or do you do it incrementally? Are we going to incrementally do this in a logical way?”