Politics Farm Bill DA - Michigan 2024 STARTER

DA – Politics Farm Bill – Starter Packet
Notes
The agenda disad might be an uphill battle on this topic except against bigger reform proposals that require congressional action. Intellectual property protections that only involve agency or judicial action are likely to fly under the radar and therefore not result in or require tradeoffs with other congressional priorities. To compound that, there doesn’t appear to be a very good agenda scenario at this time and that problem could persist or even become worse as the election grows closer. While there is a chance that the September expiration date for the farm bill might incentivize a push to enact a new bill, the more likely outcome is just another extension of the old bill like Congress did last year. The quality of the uniqueness and internal link evidence is much weaker compared to last year at this time for the same argument. While the Biden administration and Democrats will still fight to protect SNAP and climate-smart funding from possible reappropriation by the Republicans, the evidence isn’t strong yet that Biden will lean into it like he was doing last May.
The better versions of the farm bill scenario will likely focus on particular provisions that are being negotiated – like whether climate-smart funding guardrails will be included, or the appropriate levels of nutrition assistance or crop insurance, to name a few possibilities. I have included some new impact evidence that lists what experts think *should* or *might* be in the farm bill but that might not line up with what the political parties ultimately agree to, not to mention the fact that Congress is likely to just extend the old farm bill until the next session. The better impact arguments will account for this possible extension and explain why farmers are facing uncertainty that needs to be corrected with a new bill, or that changes are needed to address developments since the last farm bill. The Humphreys 5/23/2024 evidence is an example of this because it talks about how the House bill will correct the possible flaws with California’s Prop 12. It remains to be seen if that is something to which the full Congress, especially the Senate, will agree.
Special thanks to other debate institutes (Northwestern 2023, Michigan 2023 and ENDI 2024), Dave Heidt and Tim Ellis for evidence that was either recut or directly integrated.
1nc DA Farm Bill
Farm Bill has momentum and there’s optimism that cuts to SNAP and climate-smart funding can be addressed
Grebner, 5/24/2024 (May 24, 2024, Meghan Grebner, “FARM BILL ADVANCES OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH CRUCIAL BIPARTISAN SUPPORT,” https://www.brownfieldagnews.com/news/farm-bill-advances-out-of-committee-with-crucial-bipartisan-support/, JMP))
The House Ag Committee approved the 2024 Farm Bill with bipartisan support. Following the vote, Chairman Glenn “G.T.” Thompson told members, “A majority having voted in favor of the motion, as agreed to, and HR 8467, as amended, will be reported favorably to the House.”
Four Democratic members voted for the measure providing some momentum as it awaits floor time. Eric Sorensen a Democrat from Illinois voted in favor of the bill, Don Davis of North Carolina, Yadira Caraveo of Colorado, and Sanford Bishop of Georgia also voted in favor of the measure.
In a statement to Brownfield, Congressman Sorensen said while the bill is not perfect, it does expand crop insurance and gives farmers and their families the resources needed to thrive. He says he’s optimistic Congress can work together in a bipartisan way to address the bill’s shortcomings, including cuts to SNAP and climate-smart agriculture.
The American Soybean Association says it is pleased with the bill’s advancement. The group says the bill includes significant enhancements to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of the farm safety net, meaningful investments to promote expansion and diversification of markets, and protection of vital programs like crop insurance and the soy checkoff.
***insert link***
Biden will have to fight to ensure IRA funds remain dedicated to climate-smart farming
Douglas, 24 --- Washington-based award-winning journalist covering agriculture and energy including competition, regulation, federal agencies, corporate consolidation, environment and climate, racial discrimination and labour (January 25, 20248:37 AM PST, Leah Douglas, “Fight brewing over Biden climate funds that help farmers in Republican-leaning states,” https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/fight-brewing-over-biden-climate-funds-that-help-farmers-republican-leaning-2024-01-25/, JMP))
WASHINGTON, Jan 25 (Reuters) - An effort by Republican U.S. lawmakers to reallocate $18 billion in climate-friendly agriculture funding under President Joe Biden's signature climate law would shift money away from programs that primarily benefit farmers in Republican-leaning states, a Reuters analysis found.
The Inflation Reduction Act money, earmarked for U.S. Department of Agriculture-designated "climate-smart" farm practices, is intended to support Biden's agriculture climate agenda, which relies heavily on storing carbon in the soil and lowering emissions through sustainable farming techniques.
About 65% of the new money due to be spent under the law on those climate-friendly practices would go to farmers in states that backed Republican former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, and about 70% would go to states with a Republican member on the House or Senate farm committees, according to a Reuters examination of projections by University of Illinois agricultural policy professor Jonathan Coppess.
Iowa stands to get the most money with $1.03 billion, followed by Texas ($772 million) and Arkansas ($723 million), according to the projections by Coppess, which used historical USDA funding data to estimate how the Inflation Reduction Act money would be distributed, opens new tab.
Republicans target Biden climate funds that mostly benefit red state farmers
Republican lawmakers want to reallocate funds earmarked for USDA conservation programs under the Inflation Reduction Act, even though the programs would mostly benefit farmers in Republican states. Around 65% of the money would go to states that backed former President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, while 70% would go to states with a Republican representative on the House or Senate Agriculture Committees, according to a Reuters analysis of research from the University of Illinois.
[image of map omitted]
Republican House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn "GT" Thompson and the Senate Agriculture Committee's top Republican, John Boozman, want to reallocate the Inflation Reduction Act money to all conservation programs without the climate-related requirements.
Under Thompson's plan, some money also would be moved to crop supports and other farm programs, a committee aide said.
A spokesperson for Thompson expressed skepticism toward Coppess's findings and noted that he previously served as general counsel for the Senate Agriculture Committee under Democratic leadership.
Representatives for both Thompson and Boozman said reallocating the funds could allow money to reach more farmers.
Democrats are opposed to the reallocation.
"Moving this funding away from conservation with its intended purpose - addressing the climate crisis - is a non-starter for me and does not have the votes in the Senate or the House," Democratic Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow said in an email to Reuters.
White House officials also have pledged a fight to preserve the money for climate-friendly practices.
Though Democrats control the Senate and White House, the typically bipartisan process of negotiating the farm bill - a package passed every five years to fund commodity, conservation, and nutrition programs - often involves compromise.
The dispute over the Inflation Reduction Act money could further delay progress on the overdue bill. The farm bill that was passed in 2018 expired on Sept. 30, and was extended for one year in November's spending deal.
The farm committees are still drafting their versions of the next bill.
The climate-friendly agriculture money would go to programs whose demand typically far exceeds their available funds.
For instance, the USDA in 2021 funded 29.9% of applications for its Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which funds practices that increase soil health, reduce erosion and mitigate drought, according to the department's most recent data. That program received nearly $9 billion for Inflation Reduction Act climate-smart farming grants.
Agriculture generates about 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, from fertilizer application, livestock manure and tilling land for crops, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
US climate-smart ag is key to food security – climate change is a threat multiplier that risks extinction
Sova, et. al, 19 --- *Ph.D. from Oxford University, senior director of Public Policy and Research at World Food Program USA (October 15, 2019, Chase Sova, Kimberly Flowers - executive director of the Goldfarb Center for Public Affairs at Colby College, and Christian Man - policy action lead for the Just Rural Transition and an adjunct professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, “Climate Change and Food Security: A Test of U.S. Leadership in a Fragile World,” https://www.csis.org/analysis/climate-change-and-food-security-test-us-leadership-fragile-world, recut by JMP))
THE ISSUE
Climate change poses a considerable threat to global food security, with potentially existential economic, political, and social outcomes for humanity. As climate impacts worsen and further stress an already hungry world, the United States should claim the mantle of global leadership in responding to the impacts of climate change, double down on domestic efforts to promote climate-smart agriculture, elevate the issue of climate change and food insecurity in national security circles, and leverage the reorganization of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to further mainstream climate resilience into U.S. global food security programs.
As people around the world increasingly feel the impacts of climate change, the collective call for action grows louder and louder. The effects of climate change on food production—often neglected in favor of stories on melting glaciers, tropical storms, and sea level rise—are receiving more and more mainstream attention. This brief seeks to summarize the relationship between climate change and food insecurity, highlight salient trends and controversies, and comment on U.S. government global policies and programs that tackle this important issue.
THE STATE OF GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY
The impacts of climate change threaten a complex global food system that is already struggling to meet the needs of a growing and changing population. After great progress over the last decade, the number of chronically hungry people around the world has grown in each of the last three years. Today, 821 million people—one in nine—are undernourished. These people experience a shortage of food each day, while over twice that number face moderate food insecurity and frequently compromise on the quality or quantity of food they consume. At the same time, over 2 billion people around the world are overweight or obese, and over 1 billion suffer from micronutrient deficiency, sometimes referred to as “hidden hunger.” To amend a famous line from author Raj Patel, the world today is “stuff, starved, and hollowed out.”1
The number of hungry and malnourished people worldwide has grown in tandem with a rise in human conflict and forced displacement.2 Slow economic recovery from the 2008 global financial crisis (and food price spikes) and the increasing frequency and magnitude of climate-related extreme events have helped reverse years of progress fighting global hunger.3,4 These combined, interrelated factors have placed unprecedented stress on humanitarian organizations: humanitarian appeals have ballooned to record levels.5 Unsurprisingly, the places most impacted by food insecurity—especially Africa and South Asia—are also those suffering from the most pervasive forms of poverty and environmental vulnerability.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND AGRICULTURE
Despite the millions of acres of industrial cropland, satellite-guided tractors, and shining supermarkets in places like the United States, a large percentage of food worldwide is still produced on relatively small parcels of land by smallholder, subsistence farmers who rely solely on rainfall to water their crops and animals. These practices mean that long-term changes in climate intimately impact food production—perhaps more than any other sector of the global economy. Since the mid-1800s and the Industrial Revolution, surface air temperatures over Earth’s land area have warmed by an average of 1.5°C.6 Much of that warming has occurred since 1975 as concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere steadily accumulate.7
In places like sub-Saharan Africa, unlike highly industrialized economies, agriculture represents a disproportionately large percentage of countries’ gross domestic product (GDP) and employs up to 80 percent of the rural population. Farming in such places often occurs on heavily degraded lands and lacks high-quality inputs like seed and fertilizer and access to agricultural markets. It is no surprise, then, that subsistence farmers represent over half of the world’s hungry people (of whom half, in turn, are women).8 According to the United Nation’s World Food Programme (WFP), at least 80 percent of the world’s hungry people live in places prone to natural disasters and environmental degradation, including many of the world’s poorest places.9
Climate change impacts on agriculture vary considerably by geography. Climate change has already been linked, for example, to changing patterns of agricultural pests and diseases, saltwater intrusion from sea level rise, and even the decline of nutritional quality in plants. In fact, recent research has shown that with highly elevated concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), iron and zinc content in plants could fall by as much as 17 percent, accompanied by an increase in starches and sugar production in plants. This shift in nutritional quality could cause an additional 175 million people to experience zinc deficiency and 122 million to experience protein deficiency, according to researchers.10 Undernutrition already costs the global economy $3.5 trillion in lost opportunity and human capital.11
Climate change most directly impacts food production through crop yield changes, typically from temperature increases and rainfall variability. A general rule of thumb in the equatorial tropics is that every 1°C rise in mean temperature is associated with a 10 percent drop in crop yields. Temperature spikes during critical phases of a plant’s growth can lead to outright crop failure. Although impacts will vary considerably by crop and production system, some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-latitude places will likely see yields from rain-fed maize, wheat, and rice fall considerably in the coming decades.12 While reports often reference a 1.5°C to 2°C “safe” level of warming that would avoid the most devastating impacts from climate change, agricultural systems—especially where crops are already grown dangerously close to their biophysical limits— are immediately vulnerable to any additional warming.
By some estimates, between 12 and 39 percent of the world’s land surface will develop novel climates by 2100 as a result of climate change.13 Today’s agriculture remains land and resource intensive. Agricultural production—both crop and pasture—occupies more than 40 percent of total land area and accounts for at least 70 percent of all freshwater withdrawals globally.14 Climate change, land degradation, and biodiversity are linked in a complex feedback loop—a vicious cycle.15 These impacts are already being felt and chronicled today. A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Control (IPCC) suggests that soil is eroding 10 to 100 times faster than it is being formed, a process accelerated by climate change impacts like drought and high-intensity rainfall.16 Meanwhile, unprecedented biodiversity loss— especially among pollinators, bacteria, and fungi in soils, and natural predators that control pests—is being fueled in part by climate impacts, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.17
Ultimately, climate change will most severely impact those places least able to cope. Climate change will threaten years of development progress and thrust many vulnerable populations into poverty—adding as many as 122 million more people by 2030.18 Increasing evidence shows that climate change may also slow the decrease in inequality between countries, reducing GDP among the world’s poorest populations by up to 30 percent.19 As a consequence, climate change is fraught with questions of global justice and inequality, especially as industrialized countries generated an overwhelming majority of historical CO2 emissions.
THE THREAT FROM DROUGHT
Of all the impacts from climate change on agriculture and food security, drought may be the most harmful for smallholder farmers and other vulnerable populations. Given improved early warning and humanitarian responses, large-scale deaths from famine are increasingly a thing of the past, but drought in the Horn of Africa, Southern Africa, and Central America has been long associated with famine. In these places where rain-fed agriculture is prevalent, over 80 percent of a drought’s economic impact is felt in the agricultural sector.20,21
Multi-year drought is especially devastating for subsistence farming families. Each year without a good harvest pushes the hunger season further ahead and diminishes seed stock for next year’s planting.22 Long-term drought also destroys precious topsoil, allowing it to blow away in high winds or wash away during heavy rains. From a food security perspective, drought in some parts of the world is increasingly synonymous with El Niño. A climate phenomenon resulting from irregular Pacific Ocean temperatures near the equator off the coast of South America, El Niño is triggered by a change in trade winds that would typically push colder waters westward. Research indicates that a general warming trend on the earth could increase the frequency of so-called “Super El Niño” events.23 Consistent with this trend, the 2015/16 El Niño event was among the strongest on record, bringing record drought to Central America’s Dry Corridor.
Droughts and other climate-related extreme events are becoming more frequent because of the impacts of climate change, some evidence shows. In fact, they have more than doubled in frequency over the last 25 years, as researchers noted in the 2018 edition of The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. In the early 1990s, approximately 100 of these events were recorded each year; today, that number is 213.24 Moreover, in a relatively new area of investigation, researchers have linked the impacts of climate change to so-called “multiple breadbasket failure,” or the potential for widespread weather-related losses to major food-producing regions simultaneously.
Addressing food system impacts from climate change is not merely an environmental challenge, it is a human development imperative.
In summary, addressing food system impacts from climate change is not merely an environmental challenge, it is a human development imperative. By some estimates, global food production must increase by as much as 70 percent by 2050 to meet the needs of a growing population.25 This is both a challenge and an opportunity: in developing countries, GDP growth

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.