| | Laramie - A new report on climate change, one of twenty being produced by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), describes effects on land, water, agriculture, and biodiversity that are expected over the next 25 to 50 years.
The West and Southwest will see drier conditions, with runoff starting and ending sooner. Longer growing seasons will likely be offset by limited water and nutrients. In arid regions erosion and wildfire will increase, to the detriment of native species, water and air quality, and private property. | Exotic weed invasions enhanced by climate change will increase fire risk, reduce forage quality, and alter habitats. The timing of animal migrations will change, and animal ranges will shift northward and upward in elevation (if they can). Some - perhaps hundreds of - species will be lost. These changes are "relatively well understood," in part because they will be "caused by greenhouse gas emissions that have already happened." (CCSP 2008)
So what do we do about changes that we can't avoid? The scientists who wrote the report were directed not to make recommendations, but only to assess environmental effects based on a review of the scientific literature and government data. They pointed out, however, that how we choose to adapt to climate change will determine the "ultimate severity of many climate change impacts," especially on ecosystem services.
"Ecosystem services," also known as "environmental services," refer to all the goods and services that well functioning ecosystems produce, which humans value, whether priced in the marketplace or not. Things like food, timber, clean water (or water purification), medicines, soil fertility, pest control, pollination, biodiversity, etc. The list is very long.
This report promotes discussion of how farmers and ranchers can adapt to climate change. It also should lead us to consider reforming agriculture itself.  | According to the World Bank (2007), agriculture "is the main user of land and water, a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the main cause of conversion of natural ecosystems and loss of biodiversity." The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) reported that increased food production and lower food prices "have been achieved at growing costs in the form of degradation of many ecosystem services," and that livestock production | "has often led to overgrazing and dryland degradation, rangeland fragmentation, loss of wildlife habitat, dust formation, bush encroachment, deforestation, nutrient overload through disposal of manure, and greenhouse gas emissions." The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2006) concluded that livestock production is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most significant environmental problems, at every scale from global to local." Adaptation options "for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources" are the subject of another CCSP report, which is imminent. (A third draft is available on the web.) By "adaptation" the authors mean "adjustments in human social systems (e.g., management) in response to climate stimuli and their effects." The report focuses on federal lands, but its warning that "business as usual" will result in "major degradation" to ecosystem services is equally applicable to agriculture. (CCSP, in press) Likewise, the policies behind land use practices must be reexamined. As the upcoming report explains: "All management is conducted within a broader context of socioeconomic incentives and institutional behaviors. This means it is essential to make sure that polices … do not undermine adaptation to climate change." Many current agricultural policies fail this test. Federal and state subsidies - such as crop set-aside payments, commodity price support programs, irrigation infrastructure, under-priced water, crop insurance, grazing permits, pest and predator control, tax structures, and under-regulation (compared to other sectors) - undermine adaptation to climate change by encouraging practices that further disturb climate-stressed ecosystems. In the West, the obvious place to start in reforming land-use policies and practices is with public-land grazing. In its study of global livestock production, the FAO concluded that ending grazing on government-owned lands in wealthy, industrialized countries (specifically, the western U.S. and Australia) makes sense for several reasons: • these regions are largely arid,
• grazing has caused "widespread degradation,"
• the lands make a "small contribution to overall livestock supply," and
• there are "growing demands for other uses such as recreation or [other] environmental services."
Of course, convincing ranchers to forego traditional enterprises will be a hard sell. This may be especially true in Wyoming, where agriculture has always been a marginal enterprise (our myths and "Cowboy State" nickname notwithstanding). But hard choices will be necessary if Wyoming is to avoid losing its natural ecosystems as well as its agriculture.
Equally urgent is the need to educate policy makers and the public. The draft CCSP report points out that federal land management policy reforms are more likely to be effective "if management is aligned with the public's well-being and perception of well-being ... This means that education and communication regarding managing for adaptation needs just as much attention as does the science ..." A case in point: The recent CCSP predictions about climate change effects on agriculture have prompted many superficial responses. For example, while indicating that "the entire industry may have to change its practices," Wyoming agriculture director John Etchepare apparently offered only one example: "If you're used to turning your cattle out at a certain time, you may have to do it differently." (Wyoming Public Radio, May 28, 2008) A more enlightened view would reexamine the suitability of the land use. For instance, Tom Lauridson, a third-generation wheat farmer and outreach specialist for Colorado State University, suggests "rethinking" whether it's "really a good idea to invest in farmland" in the western Great Plains, given the region's longer droughts. (AP, May 28, 2008)
Band-aid measures, like planting earlier or altering turn-out dates, are not only poorly informed but dangerous. Even if such steps enabled ranchers or farmers to maintain production levels for a time, they would hasten the deterioration of resources and ultimate loss of ecosystem services.
Samuel Johnson wrote that the "chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken." I prefer to believe that we have a choice: we can choose what habits to change or give up, or we can dig in our heels and become victims of changes that nature and our own short-sightedness force upon us.
Old habits die hard, but some will die. The changing climate guarantees it. Sources: The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (2008), http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/default.php Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate-sensitive ecosystems and resources. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (2008) (third draft), http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/default.php GAO, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resource, GAO-07-863 (August 2007), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07863.pdf. Henning Steinfeld et al., Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, pp. xx-xxiv, 73, 232, 271 (Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization 2006), http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
| 
