A powerful coalition of American farm groups is trying to dissuade the United States government from implementing the Kyoto agreement on climate change.
In 1997, the United States, like Canada and other nations, signed in principle a treaty that calls for drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. It has not yet been ratified by Congress.
A coalition led by the American Farm Bureau and including national cattle, corn, sugar beet, fruit and vegetable producer groups, recently released a study suggesting that implementation of the treaty could “slash” U.S. farm income by 50 percent.
Read Also
Canola council cuts field agronomy team
The Canola Council of Canada is cutting its agronomy team as part of a “refreshed strategic framework.”
It assumes new regulations and higher taxes would add $16.2 billion to the farm cost-of-production bill.
“The Kyoto Protocol (is) an assault on an American institution,” said a statement issued by the coalition.
Added farm bureau president Dean Kleckner: “The impact of the treaty would be a financial last straw for many family farmers.”
The farm groups are urging the U.S. not to sign the treaty.
Meanwhile, the Canadian farm lobby has been taking the opposite approach. It quietly works with the government to find a way to implement the treaty.
Last week in Regina, natural resources minister Ralph Goodale talked to members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture about Canada’s campaign to cut greenhouse gas emissions and lauded the role farm leaders are playing in developing strategy.
Farm representatives have been involved in analyzing options for cutting emissions in the sector.
They also have been supporting the government in its efforts to have the treaty recognize agricultural land as a potential carbon sink, which would give a country like Canada a large boost in its effort to meet the targets.
Last week, the government’s climate change secretariat director David Oulton said the difference in farmer reaction is striking.
“I haven’t had a chance to talk to my counterparts in the U.S. but my impression certainly is that American farmers are sworn enemies of this treaty,” he said in a Feb. 18 interview. “Here, farmers have been much more part of the process. They seem to see the entrepreneurial potential. I’m not sure why there is such a difference.”
CFA executive director Sally Rutherford said Canadian farmers may be less opposed because they see it as a development that is coming whether they want it or not.
“We are a small player, relatively, and while American farmers may think they and the United States are big enough to kill this treaty, that is not our situation,” she said.
“Besides, I think Canadians generally have a more balanced view of most things than they do in the States.”
Last week, Oulton told the Commons committee on natural resources that the climate change secretariat is receiving suggestions and reactions from consultations with various sectors that would be affected by policies to discourage greenhouse gas emissions.
By December, it hopes to have prepared a series of policy options for cabinet to help the government decide if the Kyoto Protocol should be ratified.
If Canada signs on, it would commit the country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 20 percent within the next decade.
