Pottinger, Lorri. “California Agriculture in 2050: Still Feeding People, Maybe Fewer Acres and Cows.” Public Policy Institute of California, 18 Feb. 2020, www.ppic.org/blog/california-agriculture-in-2050-still-feeding-people-maybe-fewer-acres-and-cows/. 

In Lori Pottingers, “California Agriculture in 2050: Still Feeding People, Maybe Fewer Acres and Cows.” and published by the Public Policy Institute of California, Pottinger talks about California’s effort to lower its agricultural carbon footprint. In the article shwe interviews Dan Sumner, the director of UC Davis Agricultural Issues Research Director and board member of the PPIC water policy center research network who is researching Californian agriculture and how he wants it to change by the year 2050. He also talks about how farmers will adapt to the rising temperatures and climate change to make up for production and loss of land use.

This article is very interesting in the fact that it tals about the future of agriculture in California without really talking abou the present. The interviewee, Dan Sumners is very well versed in the aspects of climate change affecting agriculture and explains how the rising climate will have to be met with not just more research but also adaptation from the farmers. I think the belief that farmers will have to make a change in order to preserve the environment will be a deciding factor in the year 2050 if we really want to change the outcome of climate changes affecting agriculture. In all this idea of future adaptation could bring a huge change with less land but still food being produced will stabalize the inflation of crops while still saving the environment.

Pollack, Nicole. “For Some California Farmers, a Virus-Driven Drop in Emissions Could Set Back Their Climate Efforts.” Inside Climate News, 7 Dec. 2020, insideclimatenews.org/news/26062020/california-farmers-coronavirus-emissions-climate-change/. 

In Nicole Pollacks article, “For Some California Farmers, a Virus-Driven Drop in Emissions Could Set Back Their Climate Efforts.” Published by Insider Climate news. In the article she explains how California’s “cap and trade” program will have a lack of funding do to lack of carbon emission taxes from the recent covid pandemic. The reason how this relates to agriculture is the funding to go to these research programs only heightens the risk of future climate change that is then directly impacting the produce and health of agriculture in California. This lack of money could also endanger the farmers’ subsidization forcing them to go back to perennial or traditional farming practices.

I think that the lack of money to go to the researchers is a detriment to the overall effort of reducing California’s agricultural carbon footprint, but I think that they are not giving enough money to the people that they directly affect. The lack of petroleum use during the pandemic has hindered the research programs from making any further progress while the farmers continue to provide for themselves and others with little help from the government, the people by their food from this farmers but they get little in return for how much work they put into their product which in turn creates more carbon emissions while the money goes to researchers. I think the way the money would make the most change is if it was given to farmers to free up and subsidize their land to the government so there is less room for carbon emissions while they are still receiving money to take care of themselves. In all, I think that putting that much money into research instead of giving it directly to the source is detrimental to California’s climate change efforts.

info@sustainablefoodtrust.org, Sustainable Food Trust -. “Farming as the Climate Changes: Straus Family Creamery, Marshall, California.” Sustainable Food Trust, 3 Dec. 2020,sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/farming-as-the-climate-changes-straus-family-creamery-marshall-california/. 

In an article by Sustainable Food Trust, the writer talks about how the challenge of climate change is affecting farmers, but the Straus Family Creamery in Marshall, California has found a new way to mitigate the carbon emissions from their farm. The article interviews the CEO and founder of Straus Family Farms, Albert Straus who has been running the dairy farm for about a year since November twenty-seventh. They also have been awarded the TRUE Zero waste emissions award by diverting 1 million in waste, powered by 100% zero carbon and with bottled reusable bottles for their product. With all these accomplishments they claim to be carbon neutral by 2022.

I think this article shows a lot of accomplishments from a farm that is able to make money from the product, but not have access waste. In the article they mentioned they wanted to be an example for other farms in the future and to have a smaller footprint while still making a profit. I think that the methods they have been using are a very good way to preserve the farming economy and still feed people without having excess or lost yields of produce. The main reason I think that Straus Farms is able to accomplish these things is because they are able to find ways to cancel out their waste instead of always preserving it. This model of farming could be used around the US but most government money goes to researchers instead of actual farms to make this change, and with the right money I think we could change the way farmers cultivate their land and benefit California’s agriculture. 

“California Crops Under Climate Change.” California Crops Under Climate Change | USDA Climate Hubs, US Department of Agriculture, 2021, www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/california/california-crops-under-climate-change

This article written by the United States Department of Agriculture was a summary of the agricultural practices used in California. They describe the trends in agriculture as it relates to climate change. It also discussed a cap trade program with farmers and how they plan to subsidize farmers for land. Also, they expressed the challenge of the tasks and their plans for the future. 

I agree with the practices that California is using to establish a good economy with its large agricultural presens in the US. However, the carbon emissions coming from California put a huge way on the ozone layer and disrupts the growth of plants that can not adapt to the rising climate fast enough. These practices used by California are often perennial which means more modern anc carbon heavy practices which in return create a positive feedback loop of carbon then adding on to and wasting yields of crops. Ultimately, I think that California needs to change its ways of agriculture if we really want to change the outcome of our carbon emission footprint.

 McGrath, Justin. “Climate, Pollution and California’s Crops.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 16 Mar. 2020, www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-0052-7. 

In the article “Climate, Pollution and California’s Crops” written by Justin McGrath, he talks about the historical impact on the ozone and climate change due to California’s perennial crops. First he addresses the slowing of plant adaptation in Tropospheric or tropical like environments due to carbon release in perennial or traditional farming methods that produce heavy carbon. Also, McGrath mentions the loss in Tropospheric yields due to lack of adoption in plants because of increasing temperature in these environments. These crop losses would only be battled by reducing Ozone damage which authors believe would cost 1 billion dollars. McGrath believes that these efforts will only be stopped with mass effort and can only be saved by limiting more damage to the atmosphere.

The facts in this article as well as McGraths opinions are very valid and hold a lot of truth. However these efforts to battle the environment change would not just require effort through money but also the farmers. The Californian government relies heavily on taxpayer money to go towards these funds, but fails to make direct change to the farmers. I do not agree with California’s efforts because they are trying to find people to solve the problem instead of doing it themselves. Subsidization to the farmers would drastically change the outcome of agricultural carbon emissions in California.