The new Senate farm bill prioritizes climate change. It’s a shame it’s doomed. – Mother Jones

This story was originally published Fall asleep and is reproduced here as part Climate table cooperation.

On Monday Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a longtime advocate for programs to support farmers and expand access to nutritious foods, introduced a new version of the Farm Bill, a key law that is typically renewed every five years and regulates much of the U.S. agricultural industry. .

Stabenow, who retires next month after representing Michigan in the Senate for 24 years, has staked her career on developing a strong and progressive farm bill that, among other things, pave the way for farmers to survive the worst effects of the climate crisis.

The text of her bill comes nearly two months after the 2018 farm bill, which originally expired last year and was renewed through a one-year extension, expired for a second time on Sept. 30. year, when funding for several programs included in the farm bill runs out.

But more importantly, the bill comes after months of fighting between Democratic and Republican lawmakers over what is most important in the next farm bill, and just weeks before the end of Congress’ current term. To pass the bill, Stabenow will need to win support from Republicans on the Senate Agriculture Committee and the House of Representatives, where Democrats lack the votes needed to pass their own version of the legislation.

It is likely, even expected, that this will not happen. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., who is likely to lead the Senate Agriculture Committee following Stabenow’s resignation, criticized her Bill X, calling it an “insulting 11th-hour partisan proposal.” Meanwhile, House Republicans are reportedly hoping to instead pass another one-year extension of the farm bill, pushing negotiations on a new bill into next year, according to Politician.

Republicans have little reason not to drag out the next farm bill since they will have majority control of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of the federal government starting in January.

By proposing a bill that is all but doomed, Stabenow may be fighting to preserve his legacy as an environmentalist who understands how climate change is already affecting agricultural production and why more investment is needed in climate initiatives that protect farmers now.

In her speech introducing details of her bill in the Senate on Monday, Stabenow said: “For more than two years, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass my sixth farm bill, the third that I have either served as chairman or ranking member… Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry.

She stressed that farming is a risky business given its dependence on the weather. “But it’s even more risky now because of what’s happening with the climate crisis, and we know that,” she said. “How many once-in-a-generation hurricanes or droughts must hit our farmers before we take this crisis seriously?”

Some advocacy groups praised Stabenow’s farm bill. Rebecca Riley, managing director of food and agriculture for the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said the bill reflects Stabenow’s “decades of leadership and dedication to strengthening America’s farmers and rural communities.” But other groups were slower to respond. In a statement, the American Farm Bureau Federation, an agricultural industry group, said simply: “We are reviewing Chairman Stabenow’s recently released 1,300-page farm bill text,” adding that it is “unfortunate that Congress only has a few legislative workdays left.” act”. (Stabenov’s office did not respond to Fall asleeprequests for comments.)

One of the key features of Stabenow’s farm bill is funding for so-called “climate-smart” farming practices—an umbrella term that broadly refers to practices that help farmers sequester carbon in the soil rather than releasing more of it into the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming. The Inflation Relief Act of 2022 allocated nearly $20 billion to fund these practices, such as crop rotation and no-till. And in the spring, Stabenow introduced a concept that would move remaining IRA money toward “climate-smart” practices into the new farm bill. (Shortly thereafter, Senate Republicans advanced another farm bill without this provision.)

Climate is perhaps the only theme of the text Stabenow introduced earlier this week, which, like all farm bills, addresses a dizzying array of agriculture and nutrition priorities. Chief among the provisions of her bill, titled the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act, are measures aimed at expanding access to crop insurance and making insurance more affordable by increasing premium subsidies. The bill also aims to invest $4.3 billion in rural communities, aiming to improve their access to health care, child care, education and broadband internet.

But other provisions indicate that Stabenow has long been thinking about how to further protect farmers from climate impacts such as extreme weather, and make the U.S. food system more diversified and resilient. She proposes creating a permanent disaster assistance program that would establish a consistent process for helping farmers after floods, wildfires and other natural disasters. Stabenow also seeks to increase support for specialty crops, better known as fruits, nuts, vegetables and herbs, and reminds the Senate during his press briefing that these crops “make up nearly half of what we grow.”

Those details reflect some of the divisions that are deeply entrenched in the congressional negotiations. Senator John Hoeven, a Republican congressman from North Dakota, was quick to dismiss Stabenow’s vision, writing on X: “Unfortunately, the Senate bill released today does not meet the needs of farm country and fails to preserve agriculture in the Farm Bill.” Boozman signaled he fully intends to ignore Stabenow’s last-minute bill, telling reporters that Congress should push for another extension of the 2018 farm bill and meet with agricultural industry groups to discuss their priorities.

Boozman and other Republicans’ concerns about the new farm bill text likely stem, at least in part, from lobbying groups representing large industrial farmers who want to see fewer restrictions on how they do business. The National Pork Producers Council, or NPPC, for example, immediately rejected the text of Stabenow’s farm bill, calling it “simply not a viable bill” because it “failed to provide a solution to California’s Proposition 12.”

The proposal would prohibit the sale of veal, pork and egg products to owners and operators of farms that knowingly raise animals in a “cruel manner.” The NPPC is following this issue closely, arguing that forcing pork producers to comply with “arbitrary” animal welfare requirements will dramatically increase their costs (and prices to consumers). The group successfully lobbied for a provision in the House Farm Bill that would essentially take away California’s power to enforce such a law by blocking the ability of state and local governments to impose conditions on the production of livestock sold in their jurisdiction (unless the livestock is actually produced in within their jurisdiction). state or local community).

Stabenow appears to be keenly aware of the zero-sum approach through which many different players view the farm bill. Addressing the Senate, she mentioned that the House version of the farm bill in May would have provided “enormous” resources to a small number of commercial farmers in the South. “I’m not saying these farmers don’t need support. They do,” she said. “But it can’t come at the expense of the millions of other farmers and ranchers in this country,” including those with smaller, diversified operations or growing fruits and vegetables.

In her speech, Stabenow repeatedly framed her bill as a bipartisan project and emphasized the urgent need to provide more resources to more farmers now. Her vision, she said, “can and should pass.” But whether that’s true or not will largely depend on her colleagues, who currently have no incentive to negotiate with her and other Democrats and may simply wait to push their own agenda. How long they will wait remains to be seen.