Ag Policy Blog

GAO Cites Federal Risks on Climate Change

By Chris Clayton , DTN Ag Policy Editor

There has probably been more discussion in government policy about climate change over the past few weeks than in the past two years combined.

On Thursday, a Government Accountability Office report cited the fiscal exposure facing the federal government due to the increasing impacts and costs of weather disasters once considered "rare." As the report stated, "Among other impacts, climate change could threaten coastal areas with rising sea level, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of severe weather events such as floods, drought and hurricanes."

As the report stated, "The federal government is not well positioned to address the fiscal exposure presented by climate change, and needs a government wide strategic approach with strong leadership to manage related risks."

Federal agencies have released their climate change adaptation plans for public comment, including USDA. The plan is now open for public comment until April 8.

http://www.usda.gov/…

Contrary to popular belief, there are producers and conservationists urging the federal government, and specifically President Barack Obama, to be more aggressive in focusing on climate change to protect the nation's food security. Clay Pope, executive director of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts, released a video before the president gave his State of the Union address.

http://youtu.be/…

More information about ecological work in Oklahoma can be found at http://ecopassok.com/…

I can be found on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Bonnie Dukowitz 2/16/2013 | 8:14 AM CST
The worst human contribution to climate change is simply, WASTE. Turn down the thermostat in Winter, walk when you can or stay home, take the bus to work, eat all left-overs for lunch. Stopping people with agendas flying around Amsterdam or Washington etc. would be the easiest and most effective carbon reduction plan. Everywhere one looks there is a government program to promote waste, under the guise called the economy and developement. I reference these type of activities as destruction, in more than one way.
THOMAS FARLEY 2/15/2013 | 1:28 PM CST
Where are the free-market, conservative voices for reductions in government spending on crop insurance subsidies?

If anything is unsustainable, it is trying to beat Mother Nature as she wields her actuarial table.
GORDON KEYES 2/15/2013 | 10:37 AM CST
Sending large sums of our money to Oboma and his precious IPCC which is basically run by a bunch of tinhorn dictators is going to help us how ? enviromentalism is the new home of communism . Be very skeptical of anything coming from this liberal government if they were not going to gain monetarialy from some cap and trade scheme thet would not even mention the climate. The middle class that they are always pandering to will be the ones to get screwed the most. It is almost impossible to point to anything that is not touched by oil.
chris jones 2/15/2013 | 10:25 AM CST
The Forbes article cited by Mr. Truly relies on a survey of largely petroleum engineers and scientists from the oil-producing Canadian province of Alberta. Follow the link in the Forbes article to the scientific paper. One line from the paper: "We use an instrumental case to examine the debate among these professionals who dominate the oil industry in Alberta, with the oil sands as a source of particularly â?˜dirtyâ?™ oil." Numerous statements from the paper that Forbes cites actually support the idea of a scientific consensus for global warming, and the need for action, one being: "Climate change could irreversibly affect future generations and, as such, is one of the most urgent issues facing organizations (Hoffman, 2007; Porter & Reinhardt, 2007)." Also, "We agree with Hoffman (2011a, 2011b) that in order to understand this defense and resistance and to move forward with international policies, organizational researchers must gain more in-depth understanding of the subtleties of the contestation and unravel the whole spectrum of frames including those of climate change deniers and sceptics." The Forbes article is clearly an example of slanted and out-right dishonest journalism, and illustrates the lengths deniers will go to try to overcome actual data. It's amazing someone like this Taylor guy (Forbes article author) can even sleep at night, conducting his job in this fashion.
Randy Schnepf 2/15/2013 | 10:13 AM CST
The IPCC review on climate change is an extremely conservative and thorough process--- if the IPCC says climate change is human caused, then the evidence has to be overwhelming and irrefutable. Plus, 500 years of ice core samples and EVERY published scientific article on the subject suggest that we should be entering another round of global cooling or a new ice age. Instead we are breaking record temperatures and witnessing successive rounds of catastrophic weather events. The only uncertainty is over the extent of human involvement, but even on this issue the evidence is tough to deny... human activity (especially since the start of the industrial revolution) has been spewing increasing amounts of greenhouse gases at accelerating rates into the atmosphere that far exceed normal global processes.
For someone to suddenly claim that the scientific community is in disagreement on this issue simply is not consistent with published scientific research where the agreement is nearly unanimous. I would be very skeptical of any �survey of so-called scientists� published in Forbes that suddenly finds evidence to the contrary. Denying climate change isn�t just denying the evidence, but it is becoming increasingly immoral with each passing year.
Lon Truly 2/15/2013 | 7:19 AM CST
Why would anyone believe corrupt lying politicians and bureaucrats? See http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/