There has been a great deal of activity this year in Topeka on a variety of environmental issues. Three receiving press are the status of the Greater Prairie Chicken, the possible abolition of the State’s Conservation Plan, and the repeal of the standards mandating how much energy in Kansas should come from renewable sources. These as well as other issues have provoked strong reactions on both sides of the spectrum and sometimes resulted in rather unusual coalitions. The issue under discussion this week isn’t which side is right or wrong but how these issues are viewed.
First a definition is in order. A “Zero Sum Game” denotes a situation where one person’s gain is another person’s loss. If I win then you lose. This is a black and white way of examining problems. This way of examining issues seems quite prevalent in today’s society. However, many of the issues facing agriculture from endangered and threatened species to GMOs and soil conservation are not best viewed in this manner. Before going on it is important to point out here we are not dealing with the aspects of local, state, or federal control but of the goal.
The first assumption is that in environmental issues both sides want the same end – a safe and healthy environment and in the case of the prairie chicken both sides want a healthy vibrant population. The difference is how to arrive at the desired end. Here is where the Zero Sum Game logic is faulty. Normally producers can satisfy the desired environmental end without long-term harm to their livelihood. Environmentalists need to understand producers can normally use their land in a way which allows them their livelihood and achieves the desired environmental end. It may take work, research, assistance, money, and time but it is possible. And it may need assistance on the part of the public to assist producers in making the changes affordable and to provide other assistance. So are there any examples of this win-win with agriculture and the environment?
• Wind and water erosion – Through efforts of the USDA and land grant schools from the 1930s forward a variety of techniques providing residue cover to protect the soil form erosion were developed. Originally these “trashy” fields were resisted by producers but with incentive programs and research on herbicides today conservation tillage, with no-till the ultimate form, has wide adoption in the country. While the intent was erosion control to protect waterways and keep soil in place, the benefits have included better soil moisture storage and an overall better crop environment. For environmentalists, this has also resulted in better conditions for many forms of wildlife.
• Highly erodible land retirement – The Conservation Reserve Program retired marginal farm land. The result was better production per acre and an increase in wildlife habitat along with a decrease in soil erosion.
• Increasing productivity and efficiency – Thanks to the efforts of public and private agencies and businesses crop productivity and production per animal unit has dramatically increased over the last sixty years. This is due to conventional and biotechnological breeding efforts, fertilizer improvements, and integrated pest management. Farmers benefit and the environment benefits through more efficient use of resources.
There are other success stories where the solution resulted in both sides benefitting including reducing surface water pollution. This isn’t to say there weren’t hardships or difficulties but that through all aspects of society working together solutions were found that benefitted everyone. The trick is to ignore the static and focus on the end goal.