GRAND FORKS -- North Dakotans are fortunate to have two excellent senators. At the moment, Sens. Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan are wrestling with some complex and contentious issues, from health care reform to the slowly recovering economy.
But no upcoming legislation is likely to have as big an impact on the long-term future of North Dakota -- and the planet, for that matter -- as the climate and energy bill that the Senate is about to debate.
The science shows clearly that global warming is real and we are already feeling its effects -- including more frequent and more intense flooding, droughts and storms. Accordingly, the debate has shifted from science to economics. And one climate-related economic issue of great importance to North Dakota is the financial opportunity such legislation could afford farmers and ranchers.
North Dakota has the potential to produce more energy from wind power than any other state, according to the American Wind Energy Association. The bill the House passed, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, would provide more incentives to take advantage of that natural resource, which would encourage more North Dakota farmers and ranchers to lease their land for turbines, each of which can bring in $3,000 or more a year.
ACES also would allow farmers to earn income by increasing the carbon they sequester in their soil and by capturing emissions, such as methane and nitrous oxide, on the farm. Farmers then would be able to sell "offsets" to polluters that have trouble reducing their own emissions.
ADVERTISEMENT
But what about the flip side? What would happen to farmers if we do nothing to curb global warming?
Scientific studies point to a future of extremes in North Dakota's already notoriously challenging weather if global warming continues unchecked -- from more frequent, longer-lasting heat waves to increasingly powerful storms and flooding.
Expected changes to North Dakota's climate will likely bring populations of insects and crop-damaging pests and diseases to the state. Wetter springs would delay crop planting. Hot, dry summers would stress crops and livestock. By the end of the century, North Dakota likely would experience 20 to 60 days every summer when temperatures soar above 100 degrees, according to "Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States," a recent report by 13 federal agencies.
The good news is that the cost of preventive action would be dramatically less than the cost of doing nothing. Separate studies by the Energy Information Administration, an agency in the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that the House bill would cost U.S. households less than $115 per year through 2030.
The legislation also acknowledges we have to help the coal industry transform itself. It would provide a significant amount of funding to help the industry adopt technology enabling it to store its carbon emissions underground.
We are clearly at a crossroads. Conrad and Dorgan will play a critical role in dealing with the very real threat of global warming and its potentially devastating environmental and economic consequences. By supporting strong action, they will help us move forward to a cleaner, safer, more prosperous future, one that will significantly be decided by actions taken within our own state from which we will all benefit.
Seielstad is a former Oliver Benediktson Professor of Astrophysics at UND. Knobloch is president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge, Mass.
