Crying Wolf: Climate Change Will Cost Farmers Far More Than a Climate Bill

Posted by EWG Staff in climate change, Conservation on October 6, 2009 | 3 responses

Farm industry leaders and their supporters in Congress are trying to derail climate change legislation by insisting that the House-passed bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), will cause ruinous increases in the costs of production for farmers. They claim this threat is so potentially devastating that climate change legislation should be shelved or loaded up with concessions that send more money to their agricultural constituents.

But a new analysis (pdf) by the Environmental Working Group of US Department of Agriculture cost estimates finds that the projected increased costs of production due to the climate bill will be so small ⎯ $0.45 per acre for soybeans, $0.66 per acre for wheat, and $1.19 per acre for corn, for example ⎯ that they amount to well under one half of one percent of current production costs.

The report, Crying Wolf, concludes that a fertilizer spreader or chemical sprayer that is a bit out of adjustment would cost farmers more. Moreover, the added costs pale compared to the federal government’s taxpayer-funded, multi-billion-dollar commodity subsidies.

Read the report (pdf)

Read the news release (pdf)

Featured Press:

  • concerned citizen

    Where is your report? The links are not active….

  • Susan Friar

    While I appreciate your perspective on the climate Bill, one of the biggest concerns is water…having enough and using it wisely. What have you written or plan to write about that? And when are we going to wake up America about its wasteful use of water!

    Thanx.

  • Concerned Farmer

    The people who wrote this “report” are ignorant to the true conditions and risks of farming as they have probably never had to face rough years trying to keep a farm operating. The “report” mentions taxpayer subsidies; these subsidies are paid in order to keep food prices low for consumers. Anybody who argues that point do not know what they are talking about. We have some of the cheapest consumer food products in the world, and this is due to taxpayer subsidies which keep farms going. Without these payments, crop prices would need to almost double in order to keep farmers in business. You’ve got to remember…Farming is a business; part of being in a business is to make a profit. Current crop prices barely cover costs. Farmers also need to additional mo ney to feed and clothe their families and to keep a roof over their heads…And most farmers are not the large corporations which many make them out to be; many rely on farming for a living. So think about this post next time you feel farmers shouldn’t be allowed subsidies. I would not mind not collecting subsidies if I received higher crop prices, but would you mind higher food prices from the grocery store?