Fetterman: Agriculture can’t ‘cannibalize’ climate change funding

Federal funds aimed at helping agriculture address the effects of climate change must not be raided to fund agriculture as a whole, said Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.).

His move comes as congressional Republicans suggest defunding agricultural conservation programs entirely.

“I strongly oppose any measures that would essentially cannibalize Inflation Reduction Act conservation funding in order to pay for the Farm Bill conservation efforts,” he wrote in a letter to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is the climate stimulus package the Democrats passed along party lines last September. It contains $19 billion for helping agriculture adapt to the climate crisis.

Now, that money is up for grabs as part of the wider negotiations over the $1.4 trillion Farm Bill and an omnibus of food-supporting subsidies and legislation that is passed every five years.

Republicans are seeking to loosen — or cut — any restriction tying that climate funding toward federal conservation programs.

Some want to go so far as to redirect all federal climate funding to the Farm Bill’s baseline budget, essentially turning it into a catchall slush fund, the Idaho Capital Sun reported. 

Ranking member John Boozman (R-Ark.) has voiced support for redirecting the entire $39 billion of Farm Bill conservation funding — not just the specific climate stimulus money — to the baseline budget, according to the Capital Sun.

That’s part of a broader argument between the parties about the role of climate funding in the bill.

In a discussion with the committee, Boozman implied he’d like to see that money go to crop insurance programs, which have been pressed by a rising number of extreme weather events.

“Certainly we’re not going to try to tie our safety nets — our risk management tools, that our farmers desperately need around — to being climate-friendly,” Boozman said.

That statement represents a widening gulf between the two parties. Climate scientists generally agree that — at least in the case of flooding, heat and drought — these rising damages are largely attributable to climate change.

Democrats like Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) have argued against cuts to popular programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).

EQIP and CSP don’t have the funding to keep up with the demand from farmers. More than two-thirds of farmers and ranchers who apply to EQIP are typically rejected, according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

While the IRA money must go to agriculture, there is no legal requirement for it to go to any specific climate or conservation measures, and it could be moved away from EQIP and directed toward other programs.

“Cutting these popular programs, as I’ve heard some of my colleagues discuss, would be devastating to farmers and would negatively impact the environmental quality of agricultural land,” Fetterman wrote.

But for other members, that $19 billion — not to mention the broader $39 billion in total conservation funding — is a tempting target. 

In addition to extreme weather, inflation and supply chain interruptions have strained other farm support programs, like crop insurance, and some conservative members are proposing that climate funds be siphoned off to address other needs. 

Congressional Republicans, by contrast, passed legislation this week seeking to repeal $540 billion in climate stimulus funds as a condition for the generally routine move of extending the debt ceiling, or the amount of money the federal government can borrow.