As this is being written we are nearly six months into a state of emergency that has resulted in our Governor determining that he can decide which business operations are allowed to be open for business. The authority he has assumed gives him the ability to restrict or out-right ban church congregations from meeting for services — or actually any group above the number determined by his experts.
Most recently this has resulted in edicts to require (under penalty of fines) that business operations will stipulate that their customers will wear face coverings or leave. We are told that all of this is for the purpose of addressing a “crisis.”
It began with the goal of “flattening the curve” so hospitals and health providers wouldn’t be overwhelmed by too many infected persons. Over time, the requirements of dealing with the crisis expanded to the mission of washing our hands and not touching our faces, staying six feet apart — or not going anywhere at all. Further orders from news conference pronouncements has evolved to following each of these past edicts, that have been proclaimed for our own good, to also now wearing a face covering and making sure that unless local governments produce enough tests, selected business enterprises will be forced to either not open or close if they are open.
We are supposed to accept this as a legitimate use of the Governor’s authority because we have a crisis and a section of state law apparently grants the Governor the power of untold or unlimited ability to craft Executive Orders which all shall obey.
A recent announcement by the United States Select Committee on The Climate Crisis identified that once again more government is needed and more power needs to be rendered in the purpose of “Solving the Climate Crisis.” In case you haven’t checked the membership of this “Select Committee”, it only represents one of the political parties… those who are in the majority of the U.S. House.
In his August 24th news release, Governor Sisolack launched the new State of Nevada Climate Initiative. Back in November of 2019, Governor Sisolack proclaimed through Executive Order 2019-22 that through whatever “Phase” designation that would be used for dealing with Climate Change, a State Climate Strategy will be delivered to the Governor by December 1, 2020.
Preparation of the State Climate Strategy has included a variety of virtual listening sessions that will also likely include presentations to segment the areas of concern that will be encapsulated in the strategy. These areas include:
- Renewable Energy
- Land Use & Land Change
- Transportation Transformation
- Air Quality
- Urban Planning
- Economic Recovery
- Green Buildings
- Climate Justice
Although several of these sections could have connection to Nevada agriculture, it is anticipated that “Land Use & Land Change” will be the primary topic which will cover where agriculture will fit into the Strategy.
A rough draft of possible ideas for bringing Nevada agriculture’s Green House Gas emissions to Net-Zero by 2050 were identified in the 2019 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Report, entitled, “Nevada Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Projections, 1990-2039.”
Agricultural Land Management Activities
- Promote and provide incentives for the adoption of silvopasture practices.
- Promote manure and nitrogen fertilizer management practices that reduce GHG emissions.
- Promote practices to reduce emissions from enteric fermentation.
- Provide incentives to sequester carbon through land restoration and retirement, thereby removing highly erodible or environmentally sensitive land from agricultural production.
- Promote “no till” and “low till” farmland management practices to protect soil from erosion.
- Promote hedgerow, windbreaks, and shelterbelts best practices to protect soil from erosion.
- Explore opportunities and incentives to increase carbon sequestration on agricultural and range lands.
Carbon Sequestration
- Promote land management practices that increase carbon sequestration by natural lands that are typical and/or native to Nevada.
- Expand specific programs (an example being nursery programs) to restore and enhance habitats, including wetlands, with measurable carbon sequestration co-benefits through the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources’ Division of Forestry and Division of Natural Heritage.
- Expand existing efforts to protect sagebrush habitat through the use of the Sage Grouse Protection Conservation Credit System to include carbon sequestration co-benefits.
- Promote enhanced forest biomass utilization with stringent emissions controls, such as restarting the biomass cogeneration plant located at the Northern Nevada Conservation Camp in Carson City.
- Promote urban reforestation and management.
Perhaps designating Climate Change as a crisis is more of an attention-grabbing approach than what ought to be fretted over…except for the trend of how far government seems to think it can reach when responding to something that those in charge seem to think is a crisis…
Early in September, a couple of agricultural news items that were published in an on-line agricultural news service spoke to efforts by the Environmental Defense Fund to have agricultural lenders designing their loan programs to encourage farming practices “resilient to the impacts of climate change.” A few days later the same news service carried another article which identified the idea from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to have Ag bankers and federal regulators conduct “stress tests” to assess the financial impact of climate change and the manner in which climate change poses a major threat to U.S. agriculture.
Like a pack of wolves, circling their intended prey, as the prey that is being targeted for further government intrusion, the pressure is building. Anticipation is that various levels of government will make their pitch for more dictates and controls, limitations on what is allowed and explicit prohibition for what won’t be tolerated…
The current administration in the White House has made a very powerful resume of demonstrated actions to reduce needless and over-pressing regulations. The challenger who would like to take over in November has a much different view of the role of government and is a front for an even more adamant crowd of control zealots who seem to have no limit to their views of what can be accomplished through expansive government regulations.
As we know, from our state’s experience, there are ramifications of having authorities who believe they can and should use whatever oppressive requirements they dream up to accomplish their purpose. Whatever is done to deal with a “crisis” can be justified as being something done for our own good, regardless of what devastation to the economy or personal lives might occur. It’s all only collateral and evidently not very much to be concerned about, if you are on the government side of things.
By Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau, Executive Vice President