CLAIMS and counter claims about whether human activity is causing the Earth to warm, which may or may not upset worldwide weather patterns and cause extreme weather events, are sowing the seeds for a bad harvest.
These many claims are causing confusion and that confusion is creating inaction. Just as farmers know they can’t relax on the porch all summer, cross their fingers and hope for a bountiful crop, inaction on environmental issues is similar folly.
Skeptics and supporters could do a better job of making their respective cases by putting public education first and setting aside the half-truths and outright lies that have become common.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
The media and environmental groups love to trot out shocking tales of polar bears trapped on sea ice, the melting of the snow cap on Mount Kilamanjaro and Hurricane Katrina as examples of how climate change is affecting us.
However, most scientists, including those who embrace the concept of climate change, see little evidence that these events are directly caused by global warming. Many of the frantic ‘global warming’ cries we hear after a dramatic weather event are plain wrong. Those who cite them damage the credibility of cogent arguments.
The best scientific information we have now is that climate change is real, that humans are an exacerbating factor and that mankind will eventually feel the effects. The overwhelming majority of scientists around the world support this premise.
There are skeptics, of course, as there should be. The foundations of science rest on a system that embraces contrary theories and then sets out through scientific means to prove or disprove them.
But given the ramifications of possible consequences, we’d be foolish to wait for all the skeptics to be won over.
When scientists tell us that our children could contract polio, we ensure they are vaccinated. When experts warned us of the Y2K computer bug, we acted because it was an intelligent preventive step. And that was a much more dubious claim than climate change.
Those in agriculture have long argued that public policy should be based on the best science, be it for acceptance of genetically modified organisms or the safety of Canadian beef in the wake of BSE.
Climate change is no different.
To tackle the threat will require sacrifice, mostly in changing generally wasteful lifestyles. But sound environmental and best management practices should be among our goals in any case.
For farmers, zero-tillage makes sense because it promotes soil health and fuel efficiency and stores carbon. Farmers’ contributions to biofuel, a renewable energy source that could lead to cleaner air and water, will generally benefit society.
More efficient farm equipment and other vehicles will likely become practical money-saving necessities given the prospects of ever increasing fuel costs.
Dealing with the potential effects of climate change now makes good business sense and good social policy.
A nudge of the rudder now could steer us away from more dire consequences in the future.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
