A perspective on climate change for farmers

The ABC recently broadcast some comments on climate change; its acceptance by some sections of the community and its rejection by others, with another segment sitting on the fence in between.

In the broadcast, Professor Matthew Hornsey from the University of Queensland said he believes people selectively expose themselves to information, selectively critique the information and selectively remember the information in a way that reinforces their gut feeling.

So in a sense, humans develop and harbour perception of threat/risk based on a framework of socio-cultural beliefs, values, history, traditions and knowledge.

Conversely, science and policymakers' perceptions of climate change threat/risk may be based on a different social framework of values and beliefs drawn from evidence and potential impacts on a national and international scale.

It is this disparity that can create a gulf of distrust between farmers, scientists and policymakers, bringing into question motivations and where the truth actually lies.

Former WA grain farmer, Chris Evans, described it on the ABC as the contested space between local knowledge and science. He says the way to overcome it is to apply the science at a local level, that is, contextualise the risk. "Farmers have their own data and will reject external data if it's not local enough."

But as noted by Professor Hornsey, other factors are also at play. "When the stakes are high and the vested interests from the fossil fuel community are enormous, you see funded campaigns of misinformation, coaching conservatives what to think about climate change," he said.

"That gets picked up by conservative media and you get this orchestrated, very consistent, cohesive campaign of misinformation to send the signal that the science is not yet in."

The ultimate impact of sustained misinformation around Australia's climate science has been the erosion of scientific credibility and the illusion that scientists are in disagreement, he said.

"Farmers are only a small part of the problem but they are going to be a huge part of the solution, so I think they feel put upon. They feel like they are constantly being lectured about their need to make sacrifices to adapt to a set of circumstances that are largely out of their control."

Mr Evans agrees, underscoring the deeply personal connection farmers have to the land, its role in their business approach, and why the message must be managed psychologically rather than scientifically.

"Ultimately, for a farmer to confront the reality that this new climate might be permanent, requires them to go through the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance."

As Ross Gittens said recently (economics writer for the Sydney Morning Herald), there are two ways to respond to climate change. Plan A is mitigation: do things to stop it happening. Plan B is adaptation: learn to live with a much hotter world where, apart from the rising sea level, extreme weather events are more frequent and bigger.

“Since we’re making such a hash of Plan A – not just us, but the world in general – it may not be long before we have no choice but to get on with Plan B. Innovation – finding new ways to do things.”

While there may be some healthy debate about the incidence, timing, length and severity of climate change, the jury has agreed with Gittens that we need to take evasive measures. Some of these are already underway as part of our normal agricultural research and development strategies, while others must be captured in future R&D plans.

If we are to believe the climate doomsayers, the future will be shrouded in massive variations in rainfall,  temperature, droughts, and weather and climate extremes in general. Adapt or perish is their maxim.

We prefer the adapt option! If there are pest and disease ramifications, there is no reason why these cannot be addressed (some already are). Likewise if there are disruptions or distortions to growing seasons and the need for adaptive breeding and management practices.

We can also accommodate breeding varieties for drought and stress tolerance, yield enhancement and water use efficiency. Soil conservation, water capture and storage are also within our capacity to mitigate against the perils of climate change.

Regardless, as noted in a recent Delta Farm Press blog, the challenge in farming is learning the idiosyncrasies of the many impacts and influences from a region’s growing environment on farming decisions and techniques.

From annual rainfall levels and temperature averages, to soil types, pests, diseases and weeds, farming is rife with inconsistencies that require interpretive decisions. Individual farmers are at the forefront of those, harnessing their knowledge, experience, and the new technology in their digital tool box.

It’s always been that way. Farmers are champions at adaptation and stewardship of their land. Nothing has changed. In summary, we’re on the job. All is not lost. Hang in there.