Climate Policy

Food Becomes Catalyst for Change at Climate Week NYC

Thu, 25 Sep 2025 11:58:07 GMT

It’s Climate Week in New York City, and for Sara Roversi, founder and president of the Future Food Institute (FFI), an organization and global ecosystem devoted to sustainable food futures, there’s no substitute for the strides made when stakeholders meet in person.

“All the activists, scientists, changemakers, innovators, philanthropists, investors in social innovation and so on, come together for Climate Week, and I strongly believe that meeting in person can accelerate [climate action],” Roversi says. “What is also fundamental is that these meeting points help us to build trust, because you cannot build trust through digital meetings.

“You build trust if you start to shake hands, hug people, see people in the eyes, and make commitments,” she continues. “And this is happening here this week in New York. So, it’s very important to be here.”

Climate Week NYC, Sept. 21-28, is the world’s largest climate gathering outside of the Conference of the Parties (COP), and organizers say this year’s theme, “Power On,” is a call to continue to drive progress.

“What I’ve found here at Climate Week, is that people want to be part of the change. They want to be part of the solution,” Roversi says.

With offices, living labs, innovation hubs and ambassadors around the world, the Bologna, Italy-based non-profit Future Food Institute seeks to be part of the solution through its three main pillars: education, community development and innovation.

Founded in 2014, FFI has long participated in Climate Week, but Roversi says this year the organization’s involvement is amplified.

“Future Food Institute started many years ago with the ambition of nudging food system transformation — seeing food really at the epicenter, the nexus between humans and nature,” she says. “It’s what represents our identity, history and culture. At this year’s Climate Week, we are connecting all of those dots.”

Connecting the dots includes presenting Future Food Institute’s efforts that align in education with its academy, work it’s doing within communities from marginal and rural areas to urban centers, and “also showcasing how much public-private collaborations can really spark innovative solutions,” she says.

The Power of Food

Gastronomy is central to the non-profit’s efforts, as Roversi sees food as a lever for climate action and “a super powerful, positive weapon that we all have in our hands.”

She also says the power of food is often underestimated.

“Food is a global language and a driver for global economic prosperity,” she says. “Food is also a catalyst for change. So how do we face the urgent issues of creating a more sustainable future of food while understanding technology’s role in closing the gaps in our food system? The key is knowledge and education, the cornerstones of innovation.”

At Climate Week NYC, Future Food Institute has been presenting several of its projects, including one that looks at the connection between where food and water comes from and human health.

“We’re looking at everything — creating the correlation with the soil to where the food comes from, as well as how much fresh food you’re eating, how much food in season you’re eating, and trying to understand what are those parameters that are at the end of the game impacting on our health,” she says.

The goal, Roversi says, is to create a kind of algorithm of longevity, a platform that can support policy and decision-makers to understand the health costs of its future citizens.

“If we see that eating fresh food is going to impact positively on human health, and we know it, we know it clearly, then we have to start to invest in the infrastructure to target human health,” she says. “So, [the fresh produce] sector is absolutely fundamental.”

Roversi also says it’s more important than ever to be at Climate Week because we’re in a unique time in history.

“It’s a unique time given the complexity at the global level, in terms of the geopolitical situation, the human, social, spiritual crisis, the environmental crisis and the political crisis,” she says. “It’s a time in history where we see lots of different conflicts that are reshaping the equilibrium of the planet.

“If you’re thinking about food, food security, procurement — and we know the complexity of the food system — it’s very important to be here and talk about food.”

And she sees fruits and vegetables as critical to the global food system.

“[Produce] plays a critical root and role in the future of food because fruits and vegetables are nutritious and feed the world. I strongly believe that your sector is going to play the most important role in the future.”

Technology and the Future of Food

While Roversi says she’s “a strong supporter of AI and technology” in agriculture, she eyes it with caution.

“With AI and any kind of tech solution, I’m very afraid that we’re going to grow a dumb society, if we’re not able to work with and invest in the infrastructure around AI in a way that makes humans more creative, more conscious, more empathetic and uses AI in the proper way,” she says. “I think that in food, this is absolutely fundamental, because when we’re talking about food, we’re talking about human health and we’re talking environmental health. So, it’s important to empower people to make much more thoughtful decisions when they’re thinking about food.”

Roversi was asked to host the Prime Minister of Bhutan during Climate Week NYC. “They’re building the happiness city, so for me, he needs to get the Nobel Prize for Peace,” she says.

(Photo courtesy of Future Food Institute)

A Global Initiative

Beyond Climate Week NYC, Future Food Institute participates in climate-related events around the globe including Venice Climate Week.

“Venice is a place that itself represents fragility and beauty and resilience, because we know that sea level rising in a city like Venice is something that you can touch every single day,” she says.

The institute is also actively involved in promoting the Mediterranean diet, which Roversi says is much more than supporting a planet-friendly diet — it means embracing a balanced and holistic way of life.

“We see the power of gastronomy as a very important pillar of our set of cultural heritages,” she says. “So, we are also managing the permanent secretariat of UNESCO for the Mediterranean diet, and we were here also presenting our summit that is going to take place in Italy in November, and we are celebrating the 15^th anniversary of the Mediterranean diet as a UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.”

At Climate Week, FFI is also meeting with its project partner Tokyo Tatemono. Together the organizations are building a sustainable food ecosystem in the Kyobashi area of Tokyo known as Tokyo Living Lab.

“They are strong believers in a regenerative economy,” she says. “Basically, they don’t have agriculture there because they are in one of the most crowded places in the world … We are working with them on designing a strategic initiative advocating for regenerative models in cities that can really create an alliance with the agricultural area around major cities.”

What does Climate Week NYC’s theme mean to Roversi and Future Food Institute?

“I think that empowering human development is the starting point and when we think about powering on, it’s about rethinking the models, rethinking the KPIs, rethinking the system, rethinking the way we are building partnerships,” she says. “For Future Food Institute our identity is [based on] pioneering. We have always put ourselves out there as a pilot, as a trial. We are a kind of a fab lab of systems. We are hackers. We are always acting in this way and powering on.

“And we always put ourselves in the system saying, ‘come on board, and let’s change the world together,’” she says.

USDA Ends Programs for Solar, Wind Projects On Farms

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 17:54:11 GMT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will no longer support solar and wind projects on productive farmland, said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins in a post on X on Monday.

The move is the latest in a series of actions by the administration of President Donald Trump to stall development of wind and solar energy, which Trump says are unreliable, expensive and dependent on Chinese supply chains.

“Millions of acres of prime farmland is left unusable so Green New Deal subsidized solar panels can be built. This destruction of our farms and prime soil is taking away the futures of the next generation of farmers and the future of our country,” Rollins said on X.

The USDA has provided over $2 billion for renewable energy projects, like solar and wind, through its Rural Energy for America Program, according to the agency website. The agency has also supported clean energy projects for rural electric cooperatives.

The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

About 424,000 acres (1,715 square kilometers) of rural land were affected by wind turbines and solar farms in 2020, less than 0.05% of the nearly 900 million acres used for farmland, according to a 2024 USDA study. Most of that land stayed in agricultural production after the development of the solar or wind projects, the study found.

The administration of former President Joe Biden supported solar and wind projects in rural areas and on farms as part of its effort to cut climate-harming emissions and make clean energy more affordable.

(Reporting by Leah Douglas in Washington and Nichola Groom in Los Angeles, CA; Editing by Leslie Adler, Chizu Nomiyama and Marguerita Choy)

US EPA Plans to Cut Staff to 1980s Levels, Dissolve Research Office

Mon, 05 May 2025 18:41:07 GMT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans on Friday to slash its budget by $300 million in fiscal year 2026, reduce staffing to 1980s levels and dissolve its research and development office as part of a sweeping overhaul of the agency.

The reorganization will consolidate several key offices, reflecting plans to cut regulatory red tape and promote more energy development, as laid out in President Donald Trump’s executive orders, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a video message.

“With these organizational improvements, we can assure the American people that we are dedicated to EPA’s core mission of protecting human health and the environment,” Zeldin said, adding the agency will be better positioned to match Trump’s goals to “unleash American energy, revitalize domestic manufacturing, cut costs for families and pursue permitting reform.”

Critics including the Union of Concerned Scientists said the staff cuts and changes in organization of the EPA would force staff members to follow the political program of the president rather than scientific evidence.

Zeldin said EPA staffing will fall to a level last seen when President Ronald Reagan occupied the White House in the 1980s, when the agency was led by an administrator who was critical of it. In 1984, the EPA had just over 11,400 staff members compared
to more than 15,100 in 2024.

The reorganization follows weeks of speculation about staff cuts and Zeldin announcing the cancellation of billions of dollars of EPA grants.

Major changes to the agency’s structure include shifting scientific research from the Office of Research and Development to different program offices, such as a new office of applied science that would align research with the politically-appointed administrator’s policy priorities.

Researchers had warned that dissolving the research unit would undermine scientific independence.

The EPA also announced it was dissolving the Office of Science and Technology, which helped develop scientific research and guidelines for water policy.

Other changes will include creation of an Office of State Air Partnerships within EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation that will work with state permitting agencies to resolve permitting concerns and process state plans to meet federal rules.

It will also add 130 positions to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to work on reviewing a backlog of over 504 new chemicals and over 12,000 pesticides.

The 1,500 research and development staff would need to apply for around 400 of the newly created positions in other offices, employees were told in an all-hands meeting at EPA on Friday. It was not clear what would happen to those employees that do not get new positions.

The agency extended the deadline by a week, to May 5, for accepting a deferred resignation for employees.

The EPA will also elevate issues of cybersecurity, emergency response, and water reuse and conservation, it said.

Advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists on Friday said that shuttering the EPA’s scientific arm that conducts independent research and folding it into policy offices will turn the EPA into a purely political agency.

“Dismantling this office, along with the administration’s plans to reclassify scientists as political appointees ... could very well turn a premier science agency into a political arm of the president,” said Chitra Kumar, managing director of UCS’ Climate and Clean Energy Program.

(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Leslie Adler and Nia Williams)

Will Europe's Farmer Protests Make Their Way To The U.S.?

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:11:09 GMT

In case you haven’t heard, farmers across Europe are fed up with their politicians and bureaucrats telling them how to farm. Such sentiment is nothing new. What is new is that the level of frustration has grown to the point where thousands of farmers are taking to the streets with their 15-ton tractors and marching to the capitals and major cities of European countries to give government officials a message: enough already.

For those of us old enough to remember, this moment has a bit of historical déjà vu to it. Flash back to the late 1970s when on this side of the pond, Washington, D.C. was stormed by thousands of farmers driving their tractors to protest critically low commodities prices, higher input costs, falling land values and rising interest rates. This was the warning shot signaling even more dire times to come as the farm crisis of the 1980s followed.

Now, nearly 45 years later, the flame still burns. But this time the fire is taking off in Europe. The ingredients for the discontent are much the same—low prices, costly inputs, high interest rates and so forth. However, the recipe has added an ingredient that has quickly become the biggest fly in the soup as far as European farmers are concerned.

Policy Pushback
The European Green Deal, approved in 2020, is a set of policy initiatives established by the European Commission. Its overarching aim is to make the European Union (EU) climate-neutral by 2050. For European farmers, one of the most controversial components of the deal was the goal to reduce chemical fertilizer and pesticide use by 50% by 2030. That, combined with plans to idle more farmland to increase land biodiversity and forests, along with very little funding directed to farmers to facilitate and harbor such a transition, set the stage for a revolt.

From Berlin and Paris to Brussels and Bucharest, European farmers have driven their tractors to the streets in protest in recent weeks. In Germany, an estimated 30,000 protestors and thousands of tractors brought Berlin’s city centre “to a standstill” in mid-January due to dissatisfaction with the government over the cutting of agricultural fuel subsidies. The protests in France erupted over plans to reduce agricultural fuel subsidies and the government’s push to halve pesticide use by the end of this decade.

The situation escalated to a point where farmers sprayed manure on a local government building in the city of Dijon. In Paris, hundreds of tractors blocked off major roads into the country’s capital in what was called the “siege of Paris” by many media outlets—one of which being BBC News.

By mid-February, protests had spread to other European countries including Italy, Greece, Belgium, Poland, Spain and even Romania and Lithuania. There seems to be no sign of this fire going out any time soon. All the politicians can hope for is that springtime and Mother Nature will draw the farmers and their tractors back to their fields to sow their spring crops and allow the political firestorm to cool off.

But hope is not a strategy, and European farmers know it. Now the question may be how much of the “green gains” are EU’s leaders willing to concede in order to save their political hide. The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, now intends to scrap the plan to halve pesticide use. It also decided to exclude the agricultural sector from the strict timeline for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 90% before 2040. In Germany, farmers gained some concessions from the government on the issue of fuel subsidies but continue their demand for full reinstatement. On Feb. 1 in France, the main farmer unions called for an end to the protests after “securing promises of governmental assistance” on finance and regulatory issues. And in the EU’s home base, farmers “won their first concession from Brussels” after the commission proposed to delay rules for setting aside land for biodiversity.

Whether it is luck, strategy or irony on the part of the farmers, Europe’s reassessment of its climate policies comes as the bloc approaches EU parliamentary elections in June. The elections are expected to bring more far-right and fringe lawmakers into Parliament. Already, the continent’s political pundits are saying the next political cycle (2024-29) “will undoubtedly be less green to the point of putting into question the implementation of the green new deal.” Plus, the recent protests “are just a prelude of the further clashes to come.”

Too Many Sticks, Too Few Carrots
Will this fire jump the pond, and could we once again see tractors showing up on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.? Need I remind you, it is an election year here, too.

It is unfair and unwise to think farmers—no matter the continent where they live—are going to carry the costs of going green on their backs alone. At some point, all this needs to stop being an academic exercise and become an economic one. Start paying more to the farmer for carbon credits. Provide the tax incentives to finance the transition to “greener” farms. And stop with the rhetoric that burping cows are going to cause the next apocalypse.

Down on the farm in the U.S., the green agenda is at a crossroads. The question will be whether we will make the same mistakes Europe did and try to drive a green agenda too fast with a stick-heavy approach. The first litmus test may come sooner rather than later as Congress still has a new farm bill to pass. It is expected to be the “greenest” farm bill on record. This election year, given what’s happening in Europe, will our politicians pile on the carrots instead of giving us more sticks? Come November election time, we will see which road we are headed down.

Integrating food systems into COP28's climate plans

Wed, 03 Jan 2024 14:23:49 GMT

In a groundbreaking move, government representatives at the recent COP28 (the United Nations’ climate change conference) have taken a pivotal step by committing to include food systems in global climate plans going forward.

For the first time, the world is officially acknowledging not only the significant role that food systems can have on climate change, but also the major impact climate change will continue to have on our food systems. While this new development holds promise, it also raises important questions about the potential impact on the broader climate agenda.

The integration of food systems into climate plans signifies a shift from the exclusive focus on fossil fuel phaseout, and it opens up a realm of opportunities and challenges for the agricultural sector, particularly those engaged in climate-smart agriculture.

The cynics among us may question whether this inclusion is a strategic move to divert attention from the critical task of phasing out fossil fuels. I, however, am an optimist, and I believe that while this new scrutiny on ag may present some challenges, it is the perfect opportunity for produce in particular to shine through.

While much of the climate change conversations at COP28 were about phasing out unsustainable practices, we have to remember that we can’t phase out food. While there are definitely going to be some new challenges, it is incredibly important for governments and organizations creating these plans to remember that these plans have to be as much about building and reinforcing strong, sustainable food systems as much as they are measuring where we’re falling short.

Let’s acknowledge the obvious challenges. Incorporating food systems in climate plans around the world means increased inspection of our industry practices and our collective footprints. Objectively, when these conversations arise, agriculture doesn’t score well. There are stories of deforestation, increased methane levels and more. Not all sectors are created equally, though, and this is not representative of produce and specialty crops. For the most part, we have a very small footprint comparatively, and we grow on land that has been farmland for generations.

Not only is produce unique to agriculture for our small footprint, we also are one of the only sectors that can be the solution to climate change challenges. By increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables, we can not only improve global health, but we can also decrease the press on some of the other segments of the ag sector that have a great environmental impact.

Now, on the other hand, with this newly acknowledged consensus that, globally, governments have responsibility for a healthy, safe and sustainable food system, there comes new opportunity. As an industry, it makes our attendance and participation at global events like COP28 or national events like the Washington Conference so important. We must be present in the conversations around climate so that we are included in the development of solutions.

It is imperative that global leaders and policymakers alike understand the global responsibility in addressing food systems includes a shared responsibility for innovating and removing barriers. I look forward to the investment and funding opportunities for those in the industry who have the creativity and intimate, expert understanding of the food system to create transformative solutions.

We must stay engaged to ensure that we don’t leave the map to be drawn by those without a full understanding of the food system. The consequences of overlooking the intricacies of the food supply chain could be severe, underscoring the need for a thoughtful and nuanced approach.

The integration of food systems into COP28’s climate plans is a step in the right direction. It offers a chance for the agriculture sector to contribute meaningfully to climate goals and, ideally, to benefit from this shared commitment.

It is clear from what we learned at COP28 that policy does not drive innovation, it drives compliance. Innovation is possible with investment, partnership and commitment to a shared goal of creating a healthier and more vibrant future for all.

Tamara Muruetagoiena is the director of sustainability for the International Fresh Produce Association.

The Conservation Cliff and Redirecting Climate Funds, Two of the Latest Controversies in Passing a New Farm Bill

Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:53:05 GMT

Odds of a new farm bill in 2024 are declining, with Senate leadership continuing to spar over climate funding and Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman rejecting the GOP’s proposal to redirect climate funds into the commodity title of the new farm bill.

The Republican staff of the Senate Agriculture Committee published a report on conservation in the farm bill earlier this week. Senate Ag Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) has said she is unwilling to reprogram conservation money in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA/Climate Bill), but the GOP report says, “Any discussion about ‘protecting IRA resources’ that does not begin with prioritizing additional baseline for the conservation title risks missing out on this investment.”

The report discusses a potential bipartisan solution to address a looming “conservation cliff” resulting from the IRA of 2022. This act allocated significant funds for climate-smart agriculture and forestry activities (CSAF), but these funds are set to expire by 2031, creating uncertainty for conservation efforts. The proposal suggests moving the IRA funds into the farm bill to create permanent funding streams for conservation activities.

(Farm Journal)

Key takeaways from the GOP staff report include:

Opportunity for increased funding: Congress has an opportunity to increase funding for conservation, natural resource preservation, and wildlife habitat needs by moving IRA funds into a bipartisan farm bill.
Potential impact: By reallocating IRA funds, there could be a substantial increase in conservation spending over the next 25 years, totaling more than $44 billion, which is three times larger than the expiring IRA resources.
Bipartisan solution: Moving IRA funds into the farm bill could represent a historic bipartisan investment, benefiting farmers, ranchers, foresters, conservationists, and other stakeholders.
Mechanism for funding: By utilizing Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the new increased funding levels for conservation programs would continue into perpetuity, subject only to Congressional reauthorizations.
Potential agreement: The report suggests rescinding funding for IRA agriculture conservation programs in fiscal years 2025 and 2026, redirecting these funds to provide nearly $1.8 billion per year for local communities, farmers, and ranchers for conservation efforts.
Need for action: The report emphasizes the urgent need for Congress to act to address the conservation cliff, highlighting the demand for conservation program spending that exceeds available funds.
Stakeholder involvement: The proposal involves various stakeholders, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, and conservationists, who rely on voluntary conservation programs to meet their local conservation needs.
Environmental benefits: Redirecting IRA funds into the farm bill could help improve soil health, water quality and quantity, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and sequester carbon, contributing to the economic and environmental sustainability of farming for generations to come.

(Farm Journal)

Stabenow Rejects GOP’s Proposal to Redirect Climate Funds

The Senate Ag GOP report was a “pre-buttal” to event to the climate-smart agriculture expo on Capitol Hill Thursday. Stabenow and USDA Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation Robert Bonnie spoke at the event. During Stabenow’s remarks, she rejected GOP’s proposal to redirect climate funds into the commodity title of the new farm bill.

Stabenow emphasized the importance of retaining climate funds for their intended purpose during an expo on climate-smart agriculture practices. She criticized the idea of splitting the funds, with half going towards commodities, as unacceptable.

Republican staff members from the Senate Agriculture Committee suggested moving $13 billion in climate funds, provided by the 2022 climate law (Inflation Reduction Act/IRA), into the conservation title of the farm bill to bolster conservation spending in the long term. Stabenow expressed support for increasing the conservation baseline but insisted that it must align with the statute’s language on climate-smart agriculture.

In negotiations over the farm bill, farm groups and GOP farm-state lawmakers have prioritized higher reference prices and a stronger crop insurance program, both of which require funding. Climate funds have been considered as a potential source to offset these costs. However, Democrats, including Stabenow, have been firm in their stance against cuts to climate funds or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Meanwhile, Stabenow highlighted ongoing negotiations on various aspects of the farm bill, expressing optimism about reaching agreements, particularly regarding strengthening the climate funds title. She emphasized the need to ensure that climate funds are used appropriately.

Top Takeaways from Zeldin’s Confirmation Hearing for EPA Lead and the Impact On Ag

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:01:59 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, underwent hours of testimony Thursday, commenting on everything from year-round E15, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the controversial WOTUS rule. When pressed about climate and environmental policies, Zeldin stated he believes climate change is real.

During the hearing, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) asked Zeldin to ensure access to year-round E15, but he did not make a definitive commitment, responding cautiously. Zeldin stated that while he couldn’t prejudge the outcomes of any processes, he acknowledged the importance of the issue to Sen. Ricketts and President Trump.

His exact words were: “Senator, while I can’t prejudge outcome of processes to follow across the board, I know how important this issue is to you and I know how important this is to President Trump.”

Despite this non-committal response, leaders of ethanol industry groups, including the American Coalition for Ethanol and Growth Energy, expressed appreciation for Zeldin’s commitment to doing his part to ensure nationwide availability of year-round E15.

Zeldin’s Stance on Ethanol
Zeldin’s stance on ethanol has been a point of interest, given his previous opposition to ethanol usage mandates during his time in Congress. Zeldin was asked about upholding legal deadlines for new Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) standards, which are part of the RFS program.

Ricketts criticized the Biden administration for setting RVOs below industry production levels and not meeting the law’s deadlines. Zeldin expressed his commitment to implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as written by Congress.

He stated, “If confirmed, I commit to you that I will faithfully execute the law as written by Congress.” This statement was seen as an attempt to reassure senators from agricultural states who are concerned about the EPA’s implementation of biofuel policies.

Zeldin addressed his past opposition to ethanol usage mandates. He acknowledged that his views on the issue have evolved since his time in Congress.

Zeldin stated, “My position has evolved. I’m not in the same place I was years ago.”

He explained that his perspective has changed due to conversations he’s had with farmers, producers, and others in the industry. Zeldin emphasized that he now has a better understanding of the importance of ethanol to rural economies and energy security.

To further illustrate his evolving stance, Zeldin mentioned that he has visited ethanol plants and spoken with industry stakeholders.

He said, “I’ve learned a lot more about ethanol. I’ve visited plants. I’ve talked to a lot of people in the industry.”

WOTUS Rule Opposition
The EPA nominee has been vocal about his opposition to the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. He expressed strong criticism of the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate and expand the WOTUS rule. Zeldin argued that the WOTUS rule represents federal overreach and places an undue burden on farmers, landowners, and local governments.

He stated that the rule would negatively impact agriculture, construction, and other industries by expanding federal authority over water bodies and wetlands. The congressman emphasized that the expanded definition of WOTUS would lead to increased regulations and permitting requirements for activities on private property. He contended that this expansion of federal control would hinder economic growth and development in rural areas.

In his statement, Zeldin called for the repeal of the WOTUS rule, advocating for a more limited interpretation of federal jurisdiction over water bodies. He supported efforts to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in implementing the rule, arguing that states should have more control over their water resources.

Zeldin’s position on WOTUS aligns with many Republican lawmakers who view the rule as an example of government overreach and excessive environmental regulation. His statements reflect a broader debate about the balance between environmental protection and economic development in water resource management.

Zeldin’s Criticism of EPA Staff
Zeldin made notable comments regarding EPA staff. He criticized EPA employees for what he described as their attempts to undermine the Trump administration’s policies.

Specifically, Zeldin accused some EPA staff members of leaking information to the media and actively working against the administration’s agenda. He expressed concern that these actions were hindering the implementation of policies and creating unnecessary obstacles for the agency’s leadership. The congressman’s remarks were part of a broader discussion on government accountability and the role of career civil servants in executing administration directives.

Zeldin emphasized the importance of loyalty to the current administration’s goals, regardless of personal political beliefs.

Climate Change and Climate Policies
As for his position on climate change, the hearing showed the political dynamics and implications surrounding the issue considering President-elect Donald Trump’s stance, particularly as seen through an exchange involving Zeldin with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Sanders emphasized the existential threat of climate change, framing it as a matter transcending politics. Whitehouse voiced concern about Zeldin’s ability to resist fossil fuel industry influence.

Zeldin stated, “I believe that climate change is real,” marking a departure from previous EPA leaders during the first Trump administration and from President-elect Trump, who has previously labeled climate change a “hoax.”

Regarding EPA’s role in regulating carbon dioxide emissions, Zeldin referenced a 2007 Supreme Court decision, noting that while the ruling grants the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it does not mandate such action. He emphasized that the agency is “authorized, not required” to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

When pressed on specific climate policies, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, Zeldin refrained from committing to particular actions. He expressed a desire to collaborate with scientists and policymakers, stating, “I don’t sit before you as a scientist.”

In response to inquiries about campaign donations from fossil fuel companies, Zeldin asserted that financial contributions would not influence his decisions, emphasizing his commitment to impartiality in his role as EPA Administrator.

Of note:
Throughout the hearing, Zeldin underscored the importance of protecting the environment without hindering economic development. He stated, “We can, and we must, protect our precious environment without suffocating the economy.”

Economists React to Zeldin’s Nomination

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

In the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor and prior to this week’s hearing, Farm Journal asked economists about what Zeldin’s past stance on ag issues could mean if he’s approved as the next EPA adminstrator.

Based on Zeldin’s track record, 60% of economists said they don’t think Zeldin’s policies will be positive for agriculture. 40% said they do think his policies will be good for agriculture.

In the survey, economists said:

“I expect there to be fewer new regulations in the Trump Administration. This is positive for agriculture.”
“I imagine many of the tax credits for new demand (either low carbon fuels or carbon programs) will be on the table to be cut.”
“He generally is not a fan of the RFS. My guess is that he will impact the RFS only marginally.”
“A deregulatory agenda could be positive for many farmers, but Zeldin has a record that is not favorable toward biofuels. How he (and the President) will address biofuel issues is unclear--in the first Trump administration, there were many large disputes between pro-biofuel and pro-fossil fuel interests.”
“His track record is negative toward liquid biofuels, which is a big part of our domestic demand.”

Related News:

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

USDA Releases Approximately $20 Million of Paused Inflation Reduction Act Funding That Had Been Under Review

Fri, 21 Feb 2025 02:36:01 GMT

USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins announced today that USDA will release the first tranche of funding that had been paused due to a review of Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allocations.

Following White House directives, USDA is honoring existing contracts with farmers, releasing approximately $20 million for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).

“American farmers and ranchers are the backbone of our nation,” said Rollins, citing regulatory burdens, environmental policies, and inflation as major challenges. She criticized the Biden administration’s handling of IRA funding but affirmed commitments to farmers who had already made investments.

.@SecRollins announced that @USDA will honor contracts that were already made directly to farmers and release the first tranche of funding that was paused due to the review of funding in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.https://t.co/xQdmZFzkwp
— House Committee on Agriculture (@HouseAgGOP) February 21, 2025

This marks the initial phase of released funding, with further announcements expected as USDA continues its review to ensure taxpayer dollars support farmers and ranchers rather than unrelated initiatives.

Earlier this week, while speaking at the Top Producer Summit in Kansas City, Rollins told AgriTalk’s Chip Flory asked about the paused IRA funding earlier this week, specifically the status of EQIP.

“Any commitments that were made previously, we will, of course, fulfill those commitments,” Rollins told Flory. “That’s the only way to do it. Everything that is forward leaning, that’s what we’re really focusing on reevaluating in the current environment.”

You can hear the full interview between Rollins and Flory below.

Your Next Read:
30 Minutes With Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins In Her First Week On the Job