.
1. Higher temperatures increase moisture stress and make us more vulnerable to drought.
2. Global warming is prompting an increase in extreme weather events – from downpours to drought. Neither is good.
3. Climate change has the potential to shift weather patterns. Agricultural communities have made investments based on current weather patterns. If the rain shifts elsewhere, the effect may be neutral for the world, but it will be devastating for those communities.

This will not come cheaply; not for the rural America, not for America at all.

Most economists believe that combating the problem will cost roughly one percent of gross domestic product, according to The New York Times, comparable to the spending on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Solutions for rural America may include a role for sequestering carbon as the Center suggests. However, rural solutions have ot go far beyond that. For example, we need to look at the controllable contributions to greenhouse gas from the massive, factory scale dairy and hog raising operations. It is known that these contribute over 25% of the air pollution in California's San Joaquin Valley.

This is one are where the Rural Caucus of the Green Party needs to make it self heard at the national level; Even though we are not officially recognized, we can demand that the next Green Party Presidential Candidate be competent to speak on the questions Global Warming and how it affects all of America.

The Center for Rural Affairs has outlined some of the major problems with this budget in its most recent newsletter. Rather than repeat that analysis, I would rather suggest that this administration will look for every place where they can cut expenditures in the budget to support their quixotic quest for reaching our Manifest Destiny.

There needs to be a Green Party critique of current policies. As an issue, it will not gain much press. However, such a critique can become useful for organizing rural counties. If Greens can put forward practical solutions for the problems that this administration is failing to address, then we would be one up on the Democrats.

Hopefully, we can have the time to use this space to begin the definition of that critique.

I don't think that we would agree that a farming practice that relies on selling high priced product to a premium market will work for everyone. There just are not enough people with that much money. But the rest of the project seems to be going in the right direction.

I wonder what others think America would look like if rural really mattered.

Overall the Sierra Club invested in 32 major projects -- each one an effort to identify and turn out environmental voters in a metropolitan area. From that investment, we garnered about 20 new environmental votes in the House of Representatives, five new green votes in the Senate, and four new green Governors. That's a very high ROI. There have been three major turning-point election since I became an environmentalist -- turning points in the favor of the future. They were the mid-terms of 1974, the Clinton election of 1992, and now this one. The two previous ones were, statistically, probably larger. But they were largely the result of external factors -- environmentalists in a certain sense benefited from them, but did not earn them.

This was one was different. We worked this, for years. We stretched, we grew, we dared, we slogged. This one was a tribute to our commitment to Lincoln's and Jefferson's faith in democracy.

Accoring to the Salme, OR based Capital Press ("The West's AG Website) this has even more meaning for farmers.

The NFU, which has 250,000 members concentrated in the Plains and Rocky Mountain states, and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which claims about 5.5 million members through its insurance sales, are the nation's pre-eminent general farm organizations. Both the NFU and Farm Bureau say they are nonpartisan, but the NFU traditionally has ties to the Democrats and Farm Bureau to the Republicans.

I note that they have their own Carbon Credits Program and are talking about risk managemen for weather related disasters. These are surely issues that concern rural American and should be central to Green polich.

At a time when many Greens would abandon rural areas as "red state country" and "a waste of resources to organize" McCaskill's victory in Missour seems to indicate that Rural America can at least be the difference maker in major elections. The question for us as Greens is whether or not it can be the engine that sparks our growth.

Rural America lives close to the land. If there is any consituency for Green Environmental Policy, it should be here. We have too frequently been labeled as city slicker, tree huggers who are trying to tell rural America how to live. I know that is how the Republicans would like to picture us. Greens are a threat to the Corporate Money Tree for Republicans.

What they do not understand is that Greens policies for sustainable development and decentralization would make be a sensible alternative to big spending Democratic programs.

The real entry for Greens in many rural areas would seem to be the fact that there are many jobs, all paying poverty level wages. It is time that Greens learned the lesson of 1992, when Clinton reminded the country that "It's the economy." Green economic policy will drive Green Party Growth in Rural America at the expense of the Republicans, and it can begin on Rove's watch.

It is interesting to note that this study was conducted by the CSU-Fullerton Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies. These two areas, often positioned in the media as antagonistic, are in fact so tightly coupled that separation is impossible. If one of the worrisome factors for business is the economic burden of health insurance, then serious attention must be paid to the fact that, as the report clearly states, "Air Pollution Costs San Joaquin Valley $3 Billion a Year" That is $1,000 per person.

The second part of this is a report on an innovative attempt to address much of the problem There are four signifcant sources of air polution in the San Joaquin Valley: automobiles, pesticides from arial spraying, parrticulat matter from such agricultural operations as disking, and methane from dairy operations. Measurements will show that the largest source of greenhouse gas emilssion in the valley is from dairy operations as 1 in 7 of all the dairy cattle in the United States are in this valley.

The Strauss Family Creamery in California's Marin County has been frequently featured on local (San Francisco) television as a model for organic dairy operations. Of special interest here is the story of their turning poop into power.

The information on the Strauss Family Creamery web site is backed up by a report distributed by the California State Energy Commission. Another report was issued by the National Dairy Environmental Stewardship Council, most of whose members come from academia or are on staff at other Dairy organizations. Entitled "Cost-effective and Environmentally Beneficial Dairy Manure Management Practices" This covers a variety of environmentally sound practices including the use of methane digesters to capture the methane and drive electric co-generation facilities. On this subject, they conclude that "In regions where dairies can offset their electricity purchases with biogas-derived power, they are cost effective with potential payback periods of 3 to 6 years (depending on federal cost-share fund availability)."

Perhaps this has taken hold in California is the fact that the California has had some degree of net metering in its law since 1996. However, it is not permanent and it is not all inclusinve. I cite the following:

California's net-metering law, which took effect in 1996, requires all utilities to allow net metering to all customers for solar and wind-energy systems up to 1 megawatt (MW). Investor owned-utilities are required to offer net metering for biogas-electric facilities and fuel cells.

The original law applied to wind-energy systems, solar-electric systems and hybrid (wind/solar) systems. In September 2002, legislation (AB 2228) allowed biogas-electric facilities up to 1 MW to net meter until December 31, 2005, under a pilot program. This pilot program was extended until December 31, 2009, with the passage of AB 728 in September 2005. A customer-generator may continue to net meter an eligible biogas digester for the life of the facility, provided the digester meets California's best available control technology (BACT) requirements upon installation. Furthermore, AB 728 (2005) authorizes up to three large biogas digesters -- systems with a capacity greater than 1 MW but no more than 10 MW -- to net meter. There is a 50-MW statewide limit on net-metered biogas digesters. California law provides for retail cost recovery of revenue loss from net-metered biogas digesters.

Last year, Art Myatt and Chuck Jordan had a discussion about net-metering on this list. I am not sure of what the situation is in any other state besides California.

This story was originally publised in the San Francisco Chronicle. This story was recently updated by San Francisco's CBS affiliate KPIX Ch. 5 this week. Straus Farms has saved over half of their initial investment in the 18 months that they have been in operation. I am trying to get access to a video of that segment and will place the link here if successful.

Note: there are two things that make this viable: net metering and some offset of the original capital cost. The most important is the California net metering law, a subject that has been discussed on ruralgreen email list, especially as it relates to Michigan and their utilities.

• advocate placing wind farms in industrial parks close to places of high
  demand;
  
• encourage urban planners to incorporate rooftop solar panels;
  
• oppose the use of rural or wild land for mega-energy projects, including the unhealthy and unsightly giant power lines that already scar parts of the West, Mid-West, and Old Northwest;
  
• demand rural electrification grids be local and built to appropriate scale to serve only the area's rural needs;
  
• promote the idea of an energy-luxury-use tax, which will put the burden of higher energy prices on those using energy in wasteful, high-consumption ways (example: SUVs, large motor boats, electrified grass whips, toothbrushes, toys, etc.);
  
• advocate for simpler, truly earth-gentle lifestyles and building and zoning codes that foster such living rather than make it impossible.
  

What they are not talking about is the fact that a significant amount of the nitrogen fertilizer used in North America is sourced from natural gas.

Prowling around the internet today, I found this statement in testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

My purpose today is to discuss the devastating impact that the sharp rise in natural gas prices is having on both the fertilizer industry and on the American farmer. -- Mr. Glen Buckley Chief Economist, CF Industries.

The problem with Mr. Buckley's testimony is the fact that this was in 2001. However, he was right. In the production of Ammonia fertilizers, natural gas is 75 to 90% of the total cost of production. The cost to farm is going up again, as is the cost of everything we buy at the supermarket.

The news is not telling us that. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is not even looking at it. All that the House is doing is fighting over who gets a new refinery. Anyone want to bet on Texas? The Committee Chair is Joe Barton.

This is another case where politicsians and the media just don't believe that rural people vote, or that they know which way they will vote (red state?). So, they figure that they can ignore it, which they will, until the prices of corn, wheat, cotton and everything we eat go up next year or more family farms are lost. Then they will wonder how it happened when they were not looking.

The Millers began their farm as newlyweds, in 1998, with the help of a low-interest, beginning-farmer loan, and they’ve kept it going with relatively modest federal subsidies totaling about $48,000 in the first five years. They hope to give the farm to their daughters when they retire, or perhaps sell it to another young farm family. They would like to help stanch the flow of young people away from this remote region.

During the last few droughty years, Harold Miller recalls looking south toward the Bear Paw Mountains and seeing clouds of soil fly from conventional farms. "It reminded me of the Dust Bowl," he says. "But my land wouldn’t blow. That’s one of my biggest goals, to keep the soil there."

Yet, despite their good stewardship, the Millers’ farm comes with an ecological cost. To plant their organic crops, they could have converted conventional farmland, but that would have been expensive and time-consuming, requiring at least three years for farm-chemical residues to subside and for the soil’s fertility to recover. So instead, the Millers plowed up native prairie.

While the Miller's results might be considered "Green" their methods, plowing under more native prarie, drew strong criticism from environmental organizations.

For me, the main point was that there is a stong need for local action, cooperation rather than confrontation. The full text is available here without a login (though they ask you to register.)

How should a rural green approach this? Click the comments box below and tell us.

Some have previously submitted your names and other information to Linda Cree or Aimee Dunn. If this includes you, you don't have to register here, unless you want to make it easy to keep our records up to date.

You can access the registration page by clicking "registration" on the bottom of the page. Once you have registered, keeping it up to date is your responsibility. I have provided an update function that you can use from the right side task list.

I forsee that we can eventually utilize the comments area of this blog to work each of these into a potition document for the national Green Party.

LAND USE PLANNING conserving rural areas, rural revitalization, pros and
cons of Smart Growth movement, suburban sprawl, rural gentrification,
corporate colonization of rural areas, promotion of bio-regional thinking,
population issues

ORGANIC FARMING

support for small-scale, labor-intensive, organic
farming, local production, farmers' markets, seed-saving, opposition to
agri-business, genetically engineered crops, corporate control of the global
food supply

ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION

sustainable forest management, better env'l laws
to stop pollution, support for more wilderness areas and wilderness
corridors, water issues, support for alternative energy, pros and cons of
some alternative energy proposals such as large windfarms, global warming,
voluntary simplicity, and also including "Speaking for Wolf" concept and
support for the Seventh Generation Amendment

TAXATION ISSUES

geonomics, a "luxury" energy tax, pros and cons of
various kinds of property taxes, tax breaks for small mom and pop businesses

RURAL POVERTY

support for living minimum wage, universal health care,
strengthening social security, affordable rural housing, making small
parcels of land more available to would-be organic farmers, orchardists,
etc.

PROMOTING RURAL PERSPECTIVES WITHIN THE GPUS

gaining official caucus
status, being a voice for the rural viewpoint

EDUCATION

in the schools, the use of local Green "experts," outreach to
promote our stands on all of the above

We also feel that it is necessary to separate these functions from the ongoing, free wheeling discussion that takes place on the ruralgreen listserv at Yahoo Groups, which you can join by clicking on the "discuss" link at the bottom of the page. Such un-moderated discussion is great and we have chosen not to apply moderation rules to the discussion list.

On the other hand, this BLOG will be moderated to some extent. While we want all of the input that we can get, when the discussion goes beyond the intended purpose, then some gentle action will be taken, such as suggesting moving the comments to the discussion list. At the same time, we have installed some filtering software so that spammers using automated comment form search engines will not be able to overload the blog with invitations to gambling sites or medication sources.

Over the next week, we will gradually fill out some additional content and tune the templates so that the site is easier to use and not a lot of work to manage. Feedback on this is welcomed.