As Donald Trump prepares for his second term with a new cabinet, one of the most significant appointments (at least for us) might be Brooke Rollins as the head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Known for her skepticism regarding man-made climate change, Rollins’ previous comments and affiliations raise questions about how she might steer the department, especially in contrast to the climate-centric policies championed during the Biden administration.
Rollins’ Climate Stance
Brooke Rollins, a lawyer with roots in Texas agriculture and a graduate of Texas A&M University in agricultural development, has often been vocal about her doubts on the predominant narrative around climate change. While she has not extensively discussed agricultural policy, her general skepticism towards climate change has been clear. Rollins has been associated with the America First Policy Institute, which has critiqued policies like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for what they perceive as government overreach, including its environmental components aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.
Already, the “green” crowd are incredibly upset that a “climate skeptic” is going to be in charge of the country’s agriculture.
How will Brooke Rollins, a climate skeptic, fossil fuel ally and Trump’s pick to lead the @USDA, handle the crisis? That’s anyone’s guess. https://t.co/9Nx9bGV2H0
— Channa Prakash (@AgBioWorld) December 3, 2024
However, her views resonate with a segment of the farming community skeptical of what they see as an overblown environmental agenda. To them, the narrative of man-made climate change often feels like a tool used by urban policymakers to impose new regulations, potentially at the expense of traditional farming practices. This perspective is wary of initiatives that might favor large agribusinesses or tech companies at the cost of the small to medium-sized family farms.
Contrast with Biden’s IRA and “Climate-Smart” Agriculture
Under the Biden administration, the USDA, led by Secretary Tom Vilsack, adopted a “climate-smart” agenda heavily influenced by the Inflation Reduction Act. This approach aimed to integrate environmental sustainability with agricultural productivity:
Conservation Programs: Billions were funneled into conservation efforts designed to reduce carbon emissions from farming practices, like cover cropping, no-till farming, and the use of renewable energy on farms.
Market Opportunities: The IRA intended to create new market opportunities for farmers adopting climate-friendly practices, potentially through carbon capture credits or enhanced commodity prices for “green” produce.
Rural Development: Investments in rural infrastructure were also tied to climate resilience, aiming to modernize agriculture while mitigating climate impacts.
However, from a farmer’s viewpoint, these initiatives might not always align with the immediate needs of those on the ground:
Cost Concerns: The financial burden and risk associated with adopting new practices can be significant for farmers, particularly when the benefits, like carbon credits, are uncertain or speculative.
Regulatory Skepticism: Farmers often express skepticism about regulatory frameworks that might complicate their operations, especially if these regulations seem to favor environmental goals over agricultural profitability.
Economic Impact: There’s a fear that focusing too heavily on climate might divert attention from other pressing agricultural issues like market access, trade barriers, and farm profitability.
Potential Policy Shifts Under Rollins
If confirmed, Rollins might steer the USDA in several directions:
Reevaluation of Climate Initiatives: There could be a rollback or reevaluation of how climate-smart practices are incentivized, focusing instead on economic viability for farmers. This might mean less emphasis on practices aimed at carbon sequestration unless they directly correlate with improved farm economics.
Empowerment of Traditional Agriculture: Rollins might advocate for policies that support traditional farming without the overlay of climate mandates, emphasizing food security, rural employment, and direct support for farmers facing natural disasters, which they argue are not necessarily exacerbated by human-induced climate change.
Skepticism Towards New Environmental Regulations: Any new environmental regulations might face rigorous scrutiny to ensure they do not disproportionately burden farmers or lead to the consolidation of farmland into larger, corporate hands.
Enhancing Farmer Autonomy: Policies could lean towards giving farmers more autonomy in choosing how they adapt their operations, potentially through deregulation or by simplifying existing compliance requirements.
Conclusion
Skepticism towards what some of us view as the “climate change agenda” should not be dismissed as mere denialism. It’s an expression of concern over how environmental policies might be leveraged for political gain or economic advantage by those not directly involved in farming. Brooke Rollins’ potential tenure at the USDA could mean a shift back towards policies that emphasize agricultural productivity, market stability, and farmer autonomy over stringent environmental compliance, especially if the latter is perceived as being more about power and profit than genuine environmental stewardship.
As with any policy direction, the challenge will be balancing skepticism with the undeniable need to address environmental concerns in a manner that does not undermine the livelihoods of those who feed the nation. The agriculture community watches closely, hoping for policies that respect both the land and their way of life.