http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/science/a-price-tag-on-carbon-as-a-climate-rescue-plan.html?hp
A Price Tag on Carbon as a Climate Rescue Plan
KEWAUNEE,
Wis. — Bryan T. Pagel, a dairy farmer, watched as a glistening slurry
of cow manure disappeared down a culvert. If recycling the waste on his
family’s farm would help to save the world, he was happy to go along.
Out
back, machinery was breaking down the manure and capturing a byproduct
called methane, a potent greenhouse gas. A huge Caterpillar engine
roared as it burned the methane to generate electricity, keeping it out
of the atmosphere.
The $3.2 million system also reduces odors at Pagel’s Ponderosa Dairy,
one of the largest in Wisconsin, but it would not have been built
without a surprising source of funds: a California initiative that is
investing in carefully chosen projects, even ones far beyond its
borders, to reduce emissions as part of the battle against climate change.
“When they came out here and told us they were willing to send us checks, we were thrilled,” Mr. Pagel said.
California’s program is the latest incarnation of an increasingly popular — and much debated — mechanism that has emerged as one of the primary weapons against global warming. From China to Norway, Kazakhstan to the Northeastern United States, governments are requiring industries to buy permits allowing them to emit set levels of greenhouse gases. Under these plans, the allowable levels of pollution are steadily reduced and the cost of permits rises, creating an economic incentive for companies to cut emissions.
The system encourages companies to find the least expensive ways to make the cuts, either by adopting cleaner energy technology or by investing in outside emission-control projects, like the Pagels’ methane digester.
Congress
rejected a national plan of this type during President Obama’s first
term, but 10 states, including most of those in the Northeast and
mid-Atlantic, have developed their own programs. And the approach is
expected to get a huge lift on Monday when Mr. Obama unveils a
long-awaited national plan requiring states to lower their power plant
emissions. One likely effect will be to encourage more states to adopt
systems like California’s.
Already,
the approach is spreading worldwide, with the number of people living
in places that have such a system nearing one billion, or 14 percent of
the world’s population, including about 80 million Americans.
“The
point now is to say, look, this can work, it can be scaled, and please
join,” said Frank A. Wolak, an economist at Stanford University.
Yet
in the decade it has been used to tackle global warming, this approach
has had a turbulent history. The world’s largest such system, in Europe,
has had severe problems, including gyrations in the prices that
polluters have to pay. Given a lack of evidence that the system can
actually solve the emissions problem, some environmental groups and
scientists have developed serious reservations.
“The
reason I don’t support what we’re doing is not that I don’t think
something needs to be done,” said Myles R. Allen, a leading British
climate scientist at Oxford University. “I just don’t think it’s
effective, and I don’t see it ever being effective.”
Drought-plagued
California, which Gov. Jerry Brown recently called the “epicenter” of
climate change, hopes to prove that capitalism can work in the fight
against global warming. The state took great care in setting up its
system, which is now being seen as a global test case.
Eighteen months into the venture, it is still too soon to tell how well it will work. But the state has so far managed to avoid some of the mistakes that have plagued efforts in other parts of the world. Hundreds of industrial facilities have been brought under the plan, prompting those businesses to study how to use less energy, and fuel suppliers will be pulled into it next year.
By
the end of the decade, the state is expected to collect about $5
billion a year in permit fees, with the bulk of the money being recycled
into clean-energy projects.
Worldwide,
other approaches to global warming are also being considered. A more
ambitious push could be made on renewable energy, like solar and wind.
Power companies might be ordered to capture their carbon emissions and
bury them underground. Forests could be preserved or allowed to regrow
to absorb more carbon dioxide from the air.
But
all those methods have drawbacks, and interviews by The New York Times
with more than 80 experts in nine countries revealed sharp disagreements
about which to embrace.
Experts say that limiting the effects of the human-induced warming will almost certainly cost trillions of dollars over generations and require an unprecedented level of cooperation across states and nations — if it can be done at all.
“How
do we deal, as a global civilization, with a problem that is decades in
the making and is caused by everything we do?” asked Peter Miller, a
senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San
Francisco. “It’s the challenge of our time, and there is no road map.”
Drought, Rain and Fire
The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of scientists and
other experts appointed by the United Nations, found last year that
total emissions of carbon into the atmosphere must be kept below one
trillion tons if global warming is to be held to tolerable levels. More
than half that amount has been emitted since the beginning of the
industrial era, and at the rate emissions are going up, the limit will
be reached in 30 years or less.
Already, the effects are being felt far and wide. A recent report, the National Climate Assessment,
found that every corner of the United States was being hit hard, with
more droughts in some regions, more torrential rains in others,
worsening forest fires, melting land ice, and the deaths of millions of
acres of trees from heat-loving insects.
This month, the global stakes were made clear yet again when researchers reported
that ice sheets in the western section of Antarctica had begun an
irreversible breakup that could ultimately raise the level of the sea by
10 feet or more.
“Climate
change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly
into the present,” the National Climate Assessment said.
Some
environmental groups have contended that the best way to combat climate
change would be for governments to impose tight regulations on
businesses that produce greenhouse gases.
Economists
have argued, instead, that governments should put a price on emissions.
The simplest way to do that would be a tax — the same sort of sin tax
applied to liquor and cigarettes, albeit on a vastly larger scale.
In
the 1960s, economists in Canada and the United States developed an
alternative concept: a market in pollution rights, which they believed
would allow companies to decide for themselves how to limit their
emissions at the lowest cost.
That
approach got its first major tryout in 1990 when the administration of
George Bush embraced it to battle acid rain, persuading reluctant
congressional Democrats to go along. It reduced emissions of sulfur
dioxide far more cheaply than expected, and it was seen as a triumph of
conservative thinking about the environment.
The strategy, called cap and trade,
is now being applied to greenhouse gases. Governments impose a limit,
or cap, on the amount of the gases that can be spewed into the
atmosphere by polluters like power plants and refiners. It then issues
permits, often called carbon allowances, equal to the level of the cap,
with each permit representing a ton of emissions.
The
government requires industries to acquire enough permits to equal their
emissions. Companies that need permits buy them, either from the
government or on a commodity market, with the value set by supply and
demand. Over time, the government reduces the cap and the number of
permits, driving up their value.
The
system is intended to ensure that polluters reduce their emissions, but
do it in a way that makes the most financial sense. A company might
spend money to upgrade to more efficient equipment, for instance, if
that is less expensive than buying permits at the market price at that
time. The sale of permits also creates a flow of funds to reduce
emissions in economic sectors not covered by the permit system, such as
farming or forestry.
Over
the past decade, carbon allowances have become the world’s newest
commodity. Thousands of people — in small offices in San Francisco, on
trading floors in Houston, at power stations all over Europe — now buy
and sell the permits every day. They are not all representing polluters;
some are simply speculators placing bets on what will happen to carbon
prices over time. Thomson Reuters Point Carbon,
a research firm, expects permits representing more than nine billion
tons of emissions to trade hands this year, with a transaction value of
nearly $90 billion.
Yet
a few of these government-created markets have been seriously flawed,
and some experts argue that time is being wasted on an effort that
could, ultimately, fall short.
Problems in Europe
While
the United States has been embroiled in a political argument over the
past decade about whether climate change is even real, the European
Union has largely embraced the science and moved forward. The European
Emissions Trading System, which went into operation in 2005, has proved
that a market in pollution permits can be made to work across barriers
of language and national interest. Yet the European Union has also come
to be seen as a case study in what can go wrong if such a system is not
set up carefully.
Early
on, instead of scrutinizing data on emissions, European regulators
trusted companies to tell them how much greenhouse gas they were
emitting. Since those numbers would be used in setting the initial
emissions cap, the companies had an obvious incentive to exaggerate.
When it finally became clear in 2006 that they had done so, and
emissions were actually lower than traders had been led to believe,
permits suddenly became less valuable and their price crashed in a
matter of hours.
Then,
just as Europe was tightening its rules, the global financial crisis
hit in 2008 and 2009. “You produced less electricity, less steel, less
toilet paper — less of everything that was included in the system,” said
Stig Schjolset, chief carbon markets analyst with Thomson Reuters Point
Carbon in Oslo.
The
European Union had put no mechanism in place to respond to these
changing economic conditions, so governments kept cranking out carbon
permits even as the decline in output meant that fewer were needed.
Carbon prices tanked yet again.
Recently
the European Union adopted changes that have firmed up prices somewhat.
But at just over $7 per ton of carbon dioxide, they are still far below
their peak, and below the $30 level that many analysts believe is
needed to spur investment in cleaner energy sources.
Moreover,
the Europeans have yet to agree on long-term emission targets that
would drive up carbon prices and reward investors in clean energy,
though proposals are under discussion. “Through the 2020s, there is no
clear signal about how the cap will tighten,” said Adrian Gault, chief
economist with Britain’s national Committee on Climate Change, which advises the government on the problem.
Europe’s
broader goals have by no means been a complete failure. The European
Union set a target of lowering emissions 20 percent by 2020, and that
appears likely to be met — but several studies suggest that is less a
result of the carbon market than of economic weakness, as well as
subsidies for renewable power. Many experts in Europe fear that later,
more ambitious goals will prove unattainable if companies have too
little incentive to invest in clean technology. The experts believe
emissions throughout the developed world need to fall 80 percent or more
by 2050.
“Even
if we’re fine to meet the emissions target for 2020, it will be very
challenging to meet Europe’s long-term targets,” Mr. Schjolset said.
“For that, you need a higher carbon price now.”
California as Pioneer
Mary Nichols cut her teeth as a young lawyer by successfully suing the California state government for violating the federal Clean Air Act.
She has long since become an insider, running the most powerful state
environmental agency in the country, California’s Air Resources Board.
Ms.
Nichols — chosen by a Republican governor and kept on by the Democrat
who succeeded him — said that when her agency set out to create a carbon
market, her European counterparts were candid in advising the state how
not to repeat their mistakes. “It was an act of great generosity on
their part,” she said.
California’s
Global Warming Solutions Act, signed in 2006 by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, set a goal of lowering California’s greenhouse gases in
2020 to the 1990 level, a cut of 28 percent from the level they had been
expected to reach in 2020 without the law.
Even after it was signed, the law was the subject of political and legal battles, with oil
companies and other polluters fighting to overturn it. When voters were
asked whether they wanted the state to tackle global warming in 2010,
they voted 62 percent to 38 percent to move forward with the law, which
requires more efficient cars, more renewable power on the state’s
electric grid and many other steps. A centerpiece was a provision
capping emissions from big polluters, including power generators and
gasoline refiners, and setting up a permit-trading system.
California
spent several years developing regulations, then began its
cap-and-trade system in 2013. The project is taking hold gradually.
California adopted rules shielding companies vulnerable to out-of-state
competition, as well as residential electricity customers, from the full
impact of the costs. In the early days, it is giving away many of the
required carbon permits for free to ease companies into the system.
Nonetheless,
at just over $11 a ton, the carbon price in California is now the
highest in any cap-and-trade market, 60 percent above the price in
Europe.
In
setting up the market, California took measures to prevent the wild
price gyrations seen in Europe. The state spent years getting accurate
emissions data, for instance. And it established de facto floor and
ceiling prices for its permits. The price so far has been highly
predictable, trading in a range from $11 to $14 a ton.
As
part of its plan, the state decided to allow emission-lowering projects
in sectors not covered by the cap-and-trade system, such as forestry
and farming. These “offset projects,” which can be located anywhere in
the United States, are subject to strict auditing. The projects create
credits that can be sold in the California market.
New companies have sprung up to serve as middlemen, helping farmers, forest owners and others set up eligible offset projects. One of those companies, TerraPass of San Francisco, matched the Pagel dairy farm in Wisconsin with California’s money.
John
T. Pagel, the owner, said that he had thought for several years about
installing a system to reduce odors and capture methane emissions from
the manure of thousands of cows. But he could not figure out how to make
the economics work. “It’s the right thing to do, but it has to support
itself, too,” Mr. Pagel said.
Then
he met a TerraPass representative at an agricultural fair several years
ago and learned he could receive payments totaling tens of thousands of
dollars a year.
On
a tour of his farm near Kewaunee, Mr. Pagel proudly showed off the
gear. A 20-cylinder Caterpillar engine, powered by methane from cow
manure, throbbed in a large building behind his barns. As it turned a
generator, it was pumping enough renewable power into the local electric
grid to supply about 1,200 homes.
“I love that thing!” Mr. Pagel said.
One
of his sons, Bryan, described meticulous oversight from California,
including instruments that send a stream of data back to TerraPass
headquarters to verify that the system is working properly. Otherwise,
said Peter Freed, a former TerraPass employee who helped set up the
deal, the state might disallow the carbon credits. “The California
system doesn’t have a real tolerance for error,” he said.
Still,
it will not be clear for years how successful the state’s carbon market
has been in lowering emissions, or in spurring investment in clean
energy. In the meantime, the Obama administration must decide how hard
to push other states toward copying California’s program.
“What’s
good for California, and what others will ultimately look to, is
success,” said Richard Corey, chief executive of the Air Resources
Board. “The ultimate test of success is going to be: Did it work?”
Questioning Cap and Trade
Some
environmental groups and academics have never reconciled themselves to
the idea of a market in pollution rights, and Europe’s problems have
heightened their doubts. So far, they point out, global emissions are
still rising.
“I
would throw the markets out and start over with something different,”
said Doreen Stabinsky, a professor of global environmental politics at
the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Me. “I think we can’t be
sidetracked by playing around with a market, because this objective is
so important, so pressing and so difficult.”
Economists
and analysts who support cap and trade say they are confident the
problems can be worked out, and they believe California is in the
process of proving it. The key issue now, they say, is whether
governments that adopt these systems will tighten the emissions caps,
driving up carbon prices — and do it soon enough to make a real dent in
global warming.
A
second carbon market operating in the United States shows that the
gradual lowering of emissions targets can have an impact. That system,
known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative,
started with far more modest goals than California’s, covering a
smaller segment of the economy, and for much of its history carbon
prices were below $2 a ton.
But
the system has worked smoothly for several years, generating $1.7
billion that nine state governments in the Northeast have used largely
to support clean-energy projects. Those investments, as well as
utilities’ switch to cleaner natural gas, have sharply reduced carbon
emissions in the region.
Recently,
the nine states decided to cut their emissions cap by 45 percent and to
let carbon prices rise. They have nearly doubled, to $4 a ton, and the
revisions are expected to spur still more clean-energy investment.
Some experts believe that in the long run, carbon markets will make a substantial contribution only if they can be tied together across political boundaries. That would allow polluters to search the world for the cheapest ways of cutting emissions.
To a limited extent, such networking has already begun. Europe has allowed billions to flow abroad
to developing countries, underwriting projects that have, for example,
helped poor families switch to more efficient coal-burning stoves.
California and Quebec have tied their markets together, and trading
between them began early this year.
The
world’s biggest carbon polluter, China, has begun experimenting with
markets in seven cities and provinces, with a view toward forming a
national carbon market this decade. Both California and Europe are
tentatively speaking to the Chinese about future linkages.
As
such developments take hold, the once unthinkable has begun to seem
plausible, if by no means inevitable: a linked global carbon price high
enough to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy.
“We
might be witnessing the birth of a new system, without quite realizing
it,” said Glen P. Peters, a climate researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research
in Oslo. “When you think of all these bottom-up initiatives around the
world, maybe we are living through the transformation right now.”
Experts
who support cap and trade contend that a market mechanism can reach
more deeply into the economy than any other approach, changing the
behavior even of people and companies that might not necessarily care
about global warming.
The Wisconsin dairymen perhaps serve as an example of that.
Even
as the methane-powered generator roared on his property, John T. Pagel
said he was not convinced that the climatic changes happening in the
United States were a result of human emissions. He suspects they might
be part of a natural cycle. But with Californians dangling cash in
exchange for his willingness to cut emissions, he jumped at the chance
to build his digester.
“We
are doing exactly what they asked us to do to get paid to reduce
carbon,” Mr. Pagel said. “If somebody else believes in it enough to put
up the money, that’s all I need to know.”
Reporting was contributed by
Mark Scott from London, Keith Bradsher and Chris Buckley from Hong
Kong, and Felicity Barringer from San Francisco.
As the Climate Changes, So Does the Language
Climate change has created its own vocabulary of concepts and institutions. Here are a few of the terms that often come up in discussions of the problem and its proposed solutions.
Carbon market: A financial market where government-issued permits that regulate greenhouse-gas emissions are traded as a commodity.
Cap and trade: A government-created system to restrict emissions by imposing a limit, or cap, on the amount of pollution that can be spewed into the atmosphere by certain industries. The government issues permits or carbon allowances to industries for the amount of greenhouse gases they are allowed to emit, then gradually reduces the cap and the number of permits, providing a financial incentive for those companies to pollute less. Companies that need fewer permits can trade with those that need more permits on a financial commodities market, with the price driven by supply and demand. The higher the price of the permits, the greater the incentive to reduce emissions.
Greenhouse gas: A type of pollutant that scientists say contributes to global warming. The primary pollutant is carbon dioxide, but there is also methane, nitrous oxide and many refrigerants.
Carbon allowances: Government-issued permits to industries that allow them to pollute up to a certain limit.
Carbon offsets: Projects that lower carbon emissions in nonregulated industries, such as forestry or farming. These projects produce “offset credits” that can be traded on the carbon market and used by polluters to comply with emissions limits. Governments usually set limits on how many of these types of credits polluters can use.
Carbon price: The cost to industries or companies for each ton of greenhouse gas that is emitted in a given period. The cost can be established directly by the government, in the form of a tax or a set price for permits, or indirectly through carbon markets, where permits are traded freely and supply and demand sets the price.
Carbon pricing: A system that requires polluters to pay for their carbon emissions.
Pollution rights: Permission given by a government to an industry or company to pollute up to a certain controlled level. Such a system leaves it up to the company or industry to figure out the best way to stay within the limit.
Emissions Trading System: A financial market created by the European Union to trade the carbon allowances issued to industries to control carbon emissions. The system has been in effect since 2005 and covers about 11,000 power plants, industrial facilities and airlines in 31 countries.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: A body of scientists and other experts appointed by the United Nations to periodically assess and issue reports about the status and impact of climate change on the planet.
National Climate Assessment: A report issued periodically by the federal government and prepared by a panel of scientists and other experts, including representatives of fossil-fuel companies, to assess the status and impact of climate change on the United States.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: A cap-and-trade system limiting emissions in nine states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. The system has raised $1.7 billion for the governments, which have mostly put the money back into clean-energy projects.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_dairy_farms_grow_bigger_new_concerns_about_pollution/2768/
While milk carton imagery pictures bucolic, small farms, more than 50 percent of U.S. milk is now produced by just 3 percent of the country’s dairies — those with more than 1,000 cows, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The very largest U.S. dairies now have
15,000 or more cows.
With this increased concentration of milking cows comes a corresponding
concentration of manure production. And what happens to this manure is
at the heart of the pollution issues surrounding the dairy industry.
In Wisconsin, several dairy operations are now facing opposition to plans to expand their herds. Porous karst soils in the parts of Wisconsin where a significant portion of dairy expansion is occurring present some unique environmental issues. Run-off from dairy farms and other agricultural activities has seeped into aquifers and elevated levels of nitrogen, in some instances to unsafe concentrations; in one recent case, the Wisconsin Department of Justice levied a $65,000 fine against a dairy operation for contaminating groundwater.
Neighbors of Kinnard Farms dairy, located in the Kewaunee County town of Lincoln — an area of karst soils — are now in court challenging the state’s approval of a permit that would allow the dairy to expand its herd from 4,000 to more than 6,000 milking cows. About 50 percent of the town’s private wells currently have water that exceeds bacteria or nitrate safety standards. Residents opposing the DNR permit contend that it lacks sufficient information about how the dairy will manage the tens of millions of gallons of liquid manure its cows will produce.
U.S. farm consolidation is nothing new, but recent changes in the dairy industry are transforming the business in ways that are increasingly worrisome to regulators, residents, and environmental groups.
Wisconsin embodies this consolidation trend. State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) figures show the number of Wisconsin dairy farms with more than 500 cows grew by about 150 percent in the past decade. At the same time, the overall number of dairy farms dropped by about a third, just as they have nationwide. The number of U.S. dairy operations with 2,000 or more cows has grown faster than those of any other size as milk production has increased about 20 percent.
According to the EPA, a 2,000-cow dairy generates more than 240,000 pounds of manure daily or nearly 90 million pounds a year. The USDA estimates that the manure from 200 milking cows produces as much nitrogen as sewage from a community of 5,000 to 10,000 people.
This year and last, Wisconsin has fined several dairy operations for manure spills and manure runoff. According to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in 2013 a record number of manure spills — more than 1 million gallons worth — were recorded in Wisconsin. The newspaper reported that from 2007 to 2013, the state experienced an average of 15 manure spills annually from dairy farms. Roughly a third of those spills came from large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs.
“Wisconsin,” says Clean Wisconsin staff attorney Elizabeth Wheeler, “has a nitrate problem.”
Wisconsin is hardly alone in grappling with this problem. Similar pollution issues — primarily from spills related to manure storage — have been cropping up across the country. Some recent cases include:
In one of the larger cases of manure pollution in recent years, an estimated 15 million gallons of manure, water, and other matter spilled in 2010 into a slough that drains into the Snohomish River in Washington state, when a berm on a dairy farm’s manure lagoon failed. Erin Fitzgerald, senior vice president for sustainability at the Innovation Center for US Dairy, a trade group, says a dairy’s size does not determine how well its environmental impacts are managed. William Matthews, Oregon Department of Agriculture CAFO program manager, concurs. “There are stellar operators of all sizes,” he says.
Fitzgerald’s organization stresses the need for nutrient and water quality management plans tailored for each operation, and says dairy is “one of the most regulated and inspected industries in agriculture.” She also touts the industry’s voluntary commitment to “best practices” and improving its environmental footprint, including its 2008 commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent.
Milking cows, explains the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), produce more manure than beef cattle and the Holsteins that dominate the U.S. dairy industry produce almost twice as much manure as Jerseys. Cows that give more milk per cow also produce more manure and per-cow milk production has almost doubled since the 1970s.
Historically, dairies dealt with manure by applying it to fields as fertilizer, as many do today. But as dairy herds have grown, a single farm often has more manure than it can use at any one time. Excess is typically stored in lagoons. “When it comes to the environmental impacts of concentrated dairy operations, it all comes down to manure management,” says Kendra Kimbirauskas, board director of Friends of Family Farmers.
Questions about manure management have prompted opposition to a number of Wisconsin dairy operations’ plans for large or expanded herds. One of these farms is Burr Oak Heifers, located in Wisconsin’s Central Sands region, an area known for its porous souls. Burr Oak Heifers is seeking a Wisconsin DNR permit to house 3,100 cows, which are expected to produce an estimated 3.32 million gallons of liquid manure and 45,900 tons of solid manure annually. In 2013, the farm, operating under a different business name, was fined $65,000 by the state for contaminating groundwater, including private well water. The permit now up for approval would grant the farm an exception to Wisconsin’s groundwater nitrate concentration limit of 10 parts per million (ppm) and permit its nitrate discharge at 28 ppm.
Clean Wisconsin’s Wheeler calls the proposed nitrate discharge exemption “unprecedented.” The DNR explains that the exemption is based on background levels of nitrate present in groundwater coming onto the site from other sources, and that the permit will require groundwater monitoring and a “nutrient management plan” designed to control manure storage and how and when manure is spread on fields. The goal of such plans include preventing application of more nutrients than a farm’s soil can absorb and making sure it’s applied when it won’t easily run off, as in winter when the ground is frozen.
Wheeler notes that dairies have typically spread manure on their own fields to fertilize forage and other crops or contracted with other farms to do so. On small farms, the ratio of cows to pasture land generally allows for a sustainable nitrogen balance. But the majority of U.S. dairy herds are confined to barns throughout their entire lives and shuttle between stalls and milking parlors in enclosed corrals and corridors and eat silage and grain grown elsewhere. “We’ve kind of taken Mother Nature out of the picture,” says John Haarsma, manager of Rickreall Dairy, an Oregon operation with 3,500 cows.
In excess, manure’s nutrients — largely nitrogen and phosphorus — can create problems. Too much in surface water can create algae blooms that result in hypoxic or oxygen-deprived dead zones According to the EPA, excess nutrients from agriculture, including chemical fertilizers and dairy manure, are a major source of water pollution across the US.
In Wisconsin, explains DNR hydrogeologist Bill Phelps, about 10 percent of all private wells exceed the state’s nitrate water quality standard. In areas of high agricultural activity where fertilizer use is high, this percentage rises to about 30 percent, said Phelps.
Manure also contains pathogens that may include E.coli and other fecal coliforms. In addition, manure often contains pharmaceuticals — antibacterials and hormones — given to many dairy cows to fight disease and promote growth. Some of Kewaunee County’s wells have tested positively for estrogenic, endocrine disrupting compounds. The source has not been pinpointed, but numerous studies suggest that CAFOs, through their use of pesticides and hormones, are asource of some estrogenic compounds that enter U.S. drinking water.
In New York, now the country’s third-largest milk producing state, dairy expansion has also become an environmental issue. An ongoing lawsuit is challenging a 2013 regulation change that would increase the size of dairies allowed to operate without a nutrient management plan from 199 to 299 cows. Environmental advocates say the New York Department of Environmental Conservation failed to consider environmental impacts. “It was made for economic reasons,” to support the state’s booming Greek yogurt industry, says Rivekeeper staff attorney Michael Dulong.
Lack of measures to prevent catastrophic manure spills is among the reasons Environmental Advocates of New York policy director Katherine Nadeau gives for her organization’s opposition to this regulation change. She cites a 2005 incident in which 3 million gallons of manure spilled from a New York dairy into a nearby river, killing thousands of fish.
One day this winter, I visited one of the dwindling number of smaller U.S. dairies —Double J Jerseys, a 200-cow dairy operation in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. As I arrived cows munched clover in the barnyard, near the Bansens’ front door. Jon Bansen, a third-generation dairy farmer who produces milk for the Organic Valley co-op, said that the ratio of cows to pasture on smaller farms leads to a sustainable nitrogen balance. The steady rise of large-scale dairy operations, he said, has been “fueled by cheap fuel and cheap feed,” adding, “More is not always better."
Climate change has created its own vocabulary of concepts and institutions. Here are a few of the terms that often come up in discussions of the problem and its proposed solutions.
Carbon market: A financial market where government-issued permits that regulate greenhouse-gas emissions are traded as a commodity.
Cap and trade: A government-created system to restrict emissions by imposing a limit, or cap, on the amount of pollution that can be spewed into the atmosphere by certain industries. The government issues permits or carbon allowances to industries for the amount of greenhouse gases they are allowed to emit, then gradually reduces the cap and the number of permits, providing a financial incentive for those companies to pollute less. Companies that need fewer permits can trade with those that need more permits on a financial commodities market, with the price driven by supply and demand. The higher the price of the permits, the greater the incentive to reduce emissions.
Greenhouse gas: A type of pollutant that scientists say contributes to global warming. The primary pollutant is carbon dioxide, but there is also methane, nitrous oxide and many refrigerants.
Carbon allowances: Government-issued permits to industries that allow them to pollute up to a certain limit.
Carbon offsets: Projects that lower carbon emissions in nonregulated industries, such as forestry or farming. These projects produce “offset credits” that can be traded on the carbon market and used by polluters to comply with emissions limits. Governments usually set limits on how many of these types of credits polluters can use.
Carbon price: The cost to industries or companies for each ton of greenhouse gas that is emitted in a given period. The cost can be established directly by the government, in the form of a tax or a set price for permits, or indirectly through carbon markets, where permits are traded freely and supply and demand sets the price.
Carbon pricing: A system that requires polluters to pay for their carbon emissions.
Pollution rights: Permission given by a government to an industry or company to pollute up to a certain controlled level. Such a system leaves it up to the company or industry to figure out the best way to stay within the limit.
Emissions Trading System: A financial market created by the European Union to trade the carbon allowances issued to industries to control carbon emissions. The system has been in effect since 2005 and covers about 11,000 power plants, industrial facilities and airlines in 31 countries.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: A body of scientists and other experts appointed by the United Nations to periodically assess and issue reports about the status and impact of climate change on the planet.
National Climate Assessment: A report issued periodically by the federal government and prepared by a panel of scientists and other experts, including representatives of fossil-fuel companies, to assess the status and impact of climate change on the United States.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: A cap-and-trade system limiting emissions in nine states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions. The system has raised $1.7 billion for the governments, which have mostly put the money back into clean-energy projects.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_dairy_farms_grow_bigger_new_concerns_about_pollution/2768/
As Dairy Farms Grow Bigger, New Concerns About Pollution
The slogan on Wisconsin’s license plate — “America’s Dairyland” — celebrates the state’s number one agricultural activity and iconic status as a milk and cheese producer. What it doesn’t reveal is how dramatically the dairy industry in Wisconsin and in other parts of the United States has been changing, or the environmental concerns those changes pose.While milk carton imagery pictures bucolic, small farms, more than 50 percent of U.S. milk is now produced by just 3 percent of the country’s dairies — those with more than 1,000 cows, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The very largest U.S. dairies now have
In Wisconsin, several dairy operations are now facing opposition to plans to expand their herds. Porous karst soils in the parts of Wisconsin where a significant portion of dairy expansion is occurring present some unique environmental issues. Run-off from dairy farms and other agricultural activities has seeped into aquifers and elevated levels of nitrogen, in some instances to unsafe concentrations; in one recent case, the Wisconsin Department of Justice levied a $65,000 fine against a dairy operation for contaminating groundwater.
Neighbors of Kinnard Farms dairy, located in the Kewaunee County town of Lincoln — an area of karst soils — are now in court challenging the state’s approval of a permit that would allow the dairy to expand its herd from 4,000 to more than 6,000 milking cows. About 50 percent of the town’s private wells currently have water that exceeds bacteria or nitrate safety standards. Residents opposing the DNR permit contend that it lacks sufficient information about how the dairy will manage the tens of millions of gallons of liquid manure its cows will produce.
U.S. farm consolidation is nothing new, but recent changes in the dairy industry are transforming the business in ways that are increasingly worrisome to regulators, residents, and environmental groups.
Wisconsin embodies this consolidation trend. State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) figures show the number of Wisconsin dairy farms with more than 500 cows grew by about 150 percent in the past decade. At the same time, the overall number of dairy farms dropped by about a third, just as they have nationwide. The number of U.S. dairy operations with 2,000 or more cows has grown faster than those of any other size as milk production has increased about 20 percent.
According to the EPA, a 2,000-cow dairy generates more than 240,000 pounds of manure daily or nearly 90 million pounds a year. The USDA estimates that the manure from 200 milking cows produces as much nitrogen as sewage from a community of 5,000 to 10,000 people.
This year and last, Wisconsin has fined several dairy operations for manure spills and manure runoff. According to an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in 2013 a record number of manure spills — more than 1 million gallons worth — were recorded in Wisconsin. The newspaper reported that from 2007 to 2013, the state experienced an average of 15 manure spills annually from dairy farms. Roughly a third of those spills came from large Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs.
“Wisconsin,” says Clean Wisconsin staff attorney Elizabeth Wheeler, “has a nitrate problem.”
Wisconsin is hardly alone in grappling with this problem. Similar pollution issues — primarily from spills related to manure storage — have been cropping up across the country. Some recent cases include:
- In February, in Michigan’s Allegan County, a stormwater system failure at a dairy with a 1-million-gallon manure lagoon spilled manure into nearby waterways, creating a visible plume five miles long.
- In Yakima, Washington, the Community Association for Restoration of the Environment and the Center for Food Safety allege in an ongoing lawsuit now in federal court that manure spreading by five large dairies has caused nitrate and other contamination of groundwater and violates the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The plaintiffs contend that the way the manure is being applied is the equivalent of dumping solid waste, an activity covered by RCRA that has not previously been applied to manure spreading. The dairies filed a motion this month to dismiss the charges.
- In Canton, Minnesota, a wall on an above-ground manure storage tank broke last April, spilling roughly 1 million gallons of manure.
In one of the larger cases of manure pollution in recent years, an estimated 15 million gallons of manure, water, and other matter spilled in 2010 into a slough that drains into the Snohomish River in Washington state, when a berm on a dairy farm’s manure lagoon failed. Erin Fitzgerald, senior vice president for sustainability at the Innovation Center for US Dairy, a trade group, says a dairy’s size does not determine how well its environmental impacts are managed. William Matthews, Oregon Department of Agriculture CAFO program manager, concurs. “There are stellar operators of all sizes,” he says.
Fitzgerald’s organization stresses the need for nutrient and water quality management plans tailored for each operation, and says dairy is “one of the most regulated and inspected industries in agriculture.” She also touts the industry’s voluntary commitment to “best practices” and improving its environmental footprint, including its 2008 commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent.
Milking cows, explains the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), produce more manure than beef cattle and the Holsteins that dominate the U.S. dairy industry produce almost twice as much manure as Jerseys. Cows that give more milk per cow also produce more manure and per-cow milk production has almost doubled since the 1970s.
Historically, dairies dealt with manure by applying it to fields as fertilizer, as many do today. But as dairy herds have grown, a single farm often has more manure than it can use at any one time. Excess is typically stored in lagoons. “When it comes to the environmental impacts of concentrated dairy operations, it all comes down to manure management,” says Kendra Kimbirauskas, board director of Friends of Family Farmers.
Questions about manure management have prompted opposition to a number of Wisconsin dairy operations’ plans for large or expanded herds. One of these farms is Burr Oak Heifers, located in Wisconsin’s Central Sands region, an area known for its porous souls. Burr Oak Heifers is seeking a Wisconsin DNR permit to house 3,100 cows, which are expected to produce an estimated 3.32 million gallons of liquid manure and 45,900 tons of solid manure annually. In 2013, the farm, operating under a different business name, was fined $65,000 by the state for contaminating groundwater, including private well water. The permit now up for approval would grant the farm an exception to Wisconsin’s groundwater nitrate concentration limit of 10 parts per million (ppm) and permit its nitrate discharge at 28 ppm.
Clean Wisconsin’s Wheeler calls the proposed nitrate discharge exemption “unprecedented.” The DNR explains that the exemption is based on background levels of nitrate present in groundwater coming onto the site from other sources, and that the permit will require groundwater monitoring and a “nutrient management plan” designed to control manure storage and how and when manure is spread on fields. The goal of such plans include preventing application of more nutrients than a farm’s soil can absorb and making sure it’s applied when it won’t easily run off, as in winter when the ground is frozen.
Wheeler notes that dairies have typically spread manure on their own fields to fertilize forage and other crops or contracted with other farms to do so. On small farms, the ratio of cows to pasture land generally allows for a sustainable nitrogen balance. But the majority of U.S. dairy herds are confined to barns throughout their entire lives and shuttle between stalls and milking parlors in enclosed corrals and corridors and eat silage and grain grown elsewhere. “We’ve kind of taken Mother Nature out of the picture,” says John Haarsma, manager of Rickreall Dairy, an Oregon operation with 3,500 cows.
In excess, manure’s nutrients — largely nitrogen and phosphorus — can create problems. Too much in surface water can create algae blooms that result in hypoxic or oxygen-deprived dead zones According to the EPA, excess nutrients from agriculture, including chemical fertilizers and dairy manure, are a major source of water pollution across the US.
In Wisconsin, explains DNR hydrogeologist Bill Phelps, about 10 percent of all private wells exceed the state’s nitrate water quality standard. In areas of high agricultural activity where fertilizer use is high, this percentage rises to about 30 percent, said Phelps.
Manure also contains pathogens that may include E.coli and other fecal coliforms. In addition, manure often contains pharmaceuticals — antibacterials and hormones — given to many dairy cows to fight disease and promote growth. Some of Kewaunee County’s wells have tested positively for estrogenic, endocrine disrupting compounds. The source has not been pinpointed, but numerous studies suggest that CAFOs, through their use of pesticides and hormones, are asource of some estrogenic compounds that enter U.S. drinking water.
In New York, now the country’s third-largest milk producing state, dairy expansion has also become an environmental issue. An ongoing lawsuit is challenging a 2013 regulation change that would increase the size of dairies allowed to operate without a nutrient management plan from 199 to 299 cows. Environmental advocates say the New York Department of Environmental Conservation failed to consider environmental impacts. “It was made for economic reasons,” to support the state’s booming Greek yogurt industry, says Rivekeeper staff attorney Michael Dulong.
Lack of measures to prevent catastrophic manure spills is among the reasons Environmental Advocates of New York policy director Katherine Nadeau gives for her organization’s opposition to this regulation change. She cites a 2005 incident in which 3 million gallons of manure spilled from a New York dairy into a nearby river, killing thousands of fish.
One day this winter, I visited one of the dwindling number of smaller U.S. dairies —Double J Jerseys, a 200-cow dairy operation in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. As I arrived cows munched clover in the barnyard, near the Bansens’ front door. Jon Bansen, a third-generation dairy farmer who produces milk for the Organic Valley co-op, said that the ratio of cows to pasture on smaller farms leads to a sustainable nitrogen balance. The steady rise of large-scale dairy operations, he said, has been “fueled by cheap fuel and cheap feed,” adding, “More is not always better."
