Growing up the son of a physician, I would often hear about the increasing (and outrageous) costs of malpractice insurance for physicians. My father would complain that he nearly spent enough money on malpractice insurance to buy an average-sized Mercedez Benz automobile. What? Although one could argue with the growing number of horror stories involving mishaps in the field of medicine, the insurance is much needed. Does the same apply to farmers impacted by climate change?
As for the unknown (in magnitude and cost) monetary impacts of climate change, farmers are sure of one aspect: crop insurance will eventually increase with the increasing threat to their crops. Journalists from Politico Agriculture reported (briefly) that crop insurance will increase in regions across the United States, as shown below:
CLIMATE CHANGE AND RISING CROP INSURANCE PREMIUMS: Earlier this summer, USDA's Economic Research Service estimated that increasing crop losses due to climate change will drive up the costs of the federal crop insurance program by as much as 37 percent in the coming decades. That's because premiums, about 60 percent of which are paid by taxpayers and the other 40 percent by farmers, will go up. A new graphic by POLITICO's DataPoint team shows how corn and soybean farmers in certain regions could be affected.For example, if the world conducts "business as usual" and greenhouse gases continue to rise, corn growers in Kansas and eastern Colorado could see crop insurance premiums increase by 100 percent.
Photo: Politico Agriculture
A California resident might be tempted to look at the graph above and say: "I do not see any significant change in California, why should I be worried?" My response: agricultural products are usually distributed across the entire United States. Therefore, any U.S. resident should not be surprised to see the increase in crop insurance premium be passed along to the customer in some shape or form. Either directly or indirectly.
Regardless, storm frequency and intensity are increasing, which means more significant negative impact looking into the future. On all fronts. Which should not be depressing. Instead, the outlook should be a wake-up call for each of us to ask our respective elected politicians to vote in favor of sustainable changes. Changes that take into account the changing agricultural landscape due to the adverse impacts of climate change. Some states are more knowledgeable than others. Where and who can we learn from? The learning (and implementation) process is going on now.
Each of us should be learning how we can help. Whether that help is in the form of passing along information from relatives who live in the directly impacted areas or getting personally involved at the local level. Participation is just as meaningful as the educational component in working toward a solution.
A quick example might be, in my case, passing on information from my relatives who are ranchers in Nebraska. What challenges are they facing as a result of climate change? How can those challenges be translated to California? Are they translatable? What are our problems that result from climate change? The conversation needs to be started now. Especially if there is to be any hope of a political solution. Heading into the 2020 election year, these conversations are meaningful as ever -- despite political differences. The time to start thinking/educating ourselves is now.
Related Blog Posts:
The 1% Can Push Science Research Forward -- Example1: Bob Wright!
Pro Bono Tutoring Can Equate To Paying It Forward!
How does a nation elevate STEM education by showcasing celebrations of science backstage?
No comments:
Post a Comment