Climate Change Impacts on Iowa, 2010, January 1, 2011

Today, perhaps without their realization, Iowans are factoring climate change into their lives and activities. Current farming practices and flood mitigation efforts, for example, are reflecting warmer winters, longer growing seasons, warmer nights, higher dew-point temperatures, increased humidity, greater annual stream flows, and more frequent severe precipitation events (Fig. 1) than were prevalent during the past 50 years. Some of the effects of these changes (such as longer growing season) may be positive, while others (particularly the tendency for greater precipitation events that lead to flooding) are negative. Climate change embodies all of these results and many more in a complex manner. The Iowa legislature has been proactive in seeking advice about climate change and its impacts on our state. In 2007, Governor Culver and the Iowa General Assembly enacted Senate File 485 and House File 2571 to create the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council (ICCAC). ICCAC members reported an emissions inventory and a forecast for Iowa’s greenhouse gases (GHGs), policy options for reducing Iowa’s GHG, and two scenarios charting GHG reductions of 50% and 90% by 2050 from a baseline of 2005. Following issuance of the final report in December 2008, the General Assembly enacted a new bill in 2009 (Sec. 27, Section 473.7, Code 2009 amended) that set in motion a review of climate change impacts and policies in Iowa. This report is the result of that 2009 bill. It continues the dialogue between Iowa’s stakeholders, scientific community, and the state legislature that was begun with these earlier reports.

2007 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Selected Iowa Source Categories

The Department’s 2007 Greenhouse Gas Inventory is a refinement of previous statewide inventories. It is a bottom-up inventory of two sectors – fossil fuel combustion at federally-recognized major sources of air pollution and fossil fuel combustion and ethanol fermentation at dry mill ethanol plants. This is the first bottomup greenhouse gas inventory conducted for Iowa and the first bottom-up greenhouse gas inventory of ethanol plants in the nation that the Department is aware of. In a bottom-up inventory, facility-specific activity data is used to calculate emissions. In a top-down inventory, aggregate activity data is used to calculate emissions. For example, this bottom-up inventory calculates greenhouse gas emissions from the fossil fuel combustion at each individual facility instead of using the total amount of fossil fuel combusted state-wide, which would be a top-down inventory method. The advantage to a bottom-up inventory is that the calculations are more accurate than a top-down inventory. However, because the two methods differ, the results from a bottom-up inventory are not directly comparable to a top-down inventory.

Greenhouse Gas and Nitrogen Fertilizer Scenarios for U.S. Agriculture and Global Biofuels, June 2011

This analysis uses the 2011 FAPRI-CARD (Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute–Center for Agricultural and Rural Development) baseline to evaluate the impact of four alternative scenarios on U.S. and world agricultural markets, as well as on world fertilizer use and world agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. A key assumption in the 2011 baseline is that ethanol support policies disappear in 2012. The baseline also assumes that existing biofuel mandates remain in place and are binding. Two of the scenarios are adverse supply shocks, the first being a 10% increase in the price of nitrogen fertilizer in the United States, and the second, a reversion of cropland into forestland. The third scenario examines how lower energy prices would impact world agriculture. The fourth scenario reintroduces biofuel tax credits and duties. Given that the baseline excludes these policies, the fourth scenario is an attempt to understand the impact of these policies under the market conditions that prevail in early 2011. A key to understanding the results of this fourth scenario is that in the absence of tax credits and duties, the mandate drives biofuel use. Therefore, when the tax credits and duties are reintroduced, the impacts are relatively small. In general, the results show that the entire international commodity market system is remarkably robust with respect to policy changes in one country or in one sector. The policy implication is that domestic policy changes implemented by a large agricultural producer like the United States can have fairly significant impacts on the aggregate world commodity markets. A second point that emerges from the results is that the law of unintended consequences is at work in world agriculture. For example, a U.S. nitrogen tax that might presumably be motivated for environmental benefit results in an increase in world greenhouse gas emissions. A similar situation occurs in the afforestation scenario in which crop production shifts from high-yielding land in the United States to low-yielding land and probably native vegetation in the rest of the world, resulting in an unintended increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.