Two states commonly lumped together in the minds of the rest of America as the Dakotas are facing climate change, with two drastically different approaches.
One looks forward to a clean energy future. The other...doesn't. One has two Democratic Senators who want to eviscerate climate change legislation and discard the cap and trade section of the bill...the other has a Democratic Senator who will support it. One has "Energy Citizen" trade groups busily astroturfing climate change...the other will be in better shape to face the reality of global warming. Have you sorted out which is which yet?
Both states will be affected by climate change, not from sea level rise, but from higher temperatures in summer, a declining aquifer, and floods; the northern Great Plains will have increased precipitation, mostly in the form of winter snowfall, which will increase the flood risk.
From the US Global Change Research Program report (6/09):
Projected increases in temperature, evaporation, and drought frequency add to concerns about the region’s declining water resources.Most of the region’s water comes from the High Plains aquifer (also referred to by the name of its largest formation, the Ogallala aquifer) from which water withdrawals already outpace recharge. Rising temperatures, faster evaporation rates, and more sustained drought brought on by climate change will add more stress to overtaxed water resources.
Agriculture, ranching, and natural lands, already under pressure due to an increasingly limited water supply, are very likely to also be stressed by rising temperatures. Agriculture covers 70 percent of the Great Plains. As temperatures continue to rise, the optimal zones for growing certain crops will shift. Pests will spread northward and milder winters and earlier springs will encourage greater numbers and earlier emergence of insects. Projected increases in precipitation are unlikely to be sufficient to offset decreasing soil moisture and water availability due to rising temperatures and aquifer depletion.
The USGCRP notes a 1.5 degree rise in temperature from the 1960s-70s baseline to now, and expected to rise 6 to 10 degrees by 2080-2099:
In short, the Dakotas have as much reason to dread climate change as the rest of the country.
So how are the Dakotas' senators proposing to handle it? Depends on which state.
To the south, Tim Johnson, a conservative Democrat originally considered a fence-sitter on climate change legislation, has announced that he's strongly in favor of the bill. Huzzah! For reasons both local -- jobs, jobs, jobs! -- and national -- energy security, he will vote for the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACES, aka Waxman-Markey, aka cap & trade). Huzzah! From an editorial on his website:
Soon the Senate will consider climate change legislation that could finally help South Dakota to live up to its wind generating potential and capture the benefits of a cash crop that is just blowing across our landscape....
This is a chance to invest in American ingenuity and help our country become a global leader on clean energy that can jumpstart our economy. We can grow our economy and reduce the demand for oil, much of which is imported and drives up our trade deficit while enriching hostile foreign governments.
South Dakota’s growing clean energy economy has added good-paying jobs at an annual job growth rate of 7.9 percent over the past decade. A new federal policy that drives demand for wind power will sustain these jobs and create more of them.
Technology and alternative ways to produce energy need long-term planning. For South Dakota in particular, with so much untapped potential for wind energy generation and renewable fuels production, a more progressive national energy policy could be just the step that will finally transform that economic potential into actual jobs, economic development, and opportunity for people and communities across our state.
This fall, the Senate is likely going to take a fresh look at a comprehensive energy bill focused on clean energy incentives. I am optimistic we can turn energy potential into reality and help create new job opportunities at home by producing more clean energy in the United States.
South Dakota's other Senator, John Thune, is a Republican facing reelection in 2010 who supports the concept of carbon dioxide limits for power plants, although that's about the only positive item I can find about him.
The story to the north is different. North Dakota has two equally conservative Democratic senators, Kent Conrad (of healthcare reform co-op fame) and Byron Dorgan. They both want to separate the climate change aspects (e.g., cap & trade) of ACES from the renewable energy aspects, put off climate change until the twelfth of never next year, and just do renewable energy this year. They're worried about doing that and healthcare reform this year -- of course, Conrad is doing his level best to ensure that absolutely nothing, neither ACES nor healthcare reform gets done this year.
Why the difference? Two reasons stand out.
One potential reason: Conrad and Dorgan welcome climate change with open arms. The state slogan will be: "North Dakota is the new South Dakota." They're content to do nothing about climate change this year, because it's not like there's any sense of urgency on the issue, is there? They've fully considered the best interests of their state and decided that longer, hotter summers are good:
And they believe that higher winter precipitation in the form of snow, followed by early spring snowmelt, will best irrigate the crops of North Dakota:
Or...it could be the money. North Dakota has some coal and oil in the western part of the state, and shares wind power potential with South Dakota. Energy Citizens (I'm not going to link and provide that site any traffic), in the news for busing oil company employees to a rally of "grassroots" supporters in which real citizens with American flags were turned away) lists, among its corporate citizens eleven different associations whose names start with "North Dakota," and none named "South Dakota." So far in his 2010 election, Dorgan has raised $190,375 from electric utilities -- utilities have given him more money than any other industry. And Conrad is concerned about protecting home state industries like oil and coal.
Nahhh.