Simply put, rural US districts tend to be more conservative so tend to vote Republican. And the rejection of climate change theory has been a bedrock of Republican politics for years by now.

If one assumes* that we are seeing early signs of persistent changes in weather pattern, then farmers, who professionally have been very attuned to long term weather conditions to be successful, ought to be aware of them.

Some examples of persistent weather patterns:

  • California has had multiple years of drought.
  • BC has had massive forest fires for 3 out of the last 4 years.
  • Extremely deadly forest fires in Portugal and Greece.
  • Global land and ocean temperature anomalies
  • the Mountain Pine Beetle decimated pines in the BC Interior Plateau. This happened because we didn't enough -35C winter temperatures, which are the only real natural constraint to this pest.

Now, clearly, some of these can be attributed to modern forest management practices. But farmers are precisely the kind of people who analyze weather trends for a living. So I would expect at least some of them to be worrying about long term temperature and precipitation trends.

Has there been any grassroots movement among the US farming and ranching communities (specifically, on the Republican side of things), questioning the wisdom of continued rejection of the IPCC findings? Even if they retain conservative views on other issues such as crime, abortion and immigration.

* If you disagree with climate change or any signs of it happening at all, that's fine and you can put that as an answer. That's self-explanatory as to why farmers wouldn't worry then.

  • 4
    Remember that the process so far has been relatively slow and people tend to adjust rather quickly. This is why fishery communities often don't realize that they are overfishing; they just think the catch has always been what it is. Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 11:11
  • re. the close vote. this question is certainly about trends within political parties so does that leave it off-limit? there are numerous questions on this site about party positions, for example politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40461/… Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 19:08
  • Vineyards in the south of England started out using German grapes. The result is a wine that is of slightly lower quality, but these German grapes are much less sensitive to bad / cold weather than French ones. About ten years ago, they have been replaced (source: Talking to the guys running Chapel Down in Kent) with French grapes which could then be grown successfully in England.
    – gnasher729
    Commented Apr 13, 2019 at 13:48
  • 3
    Note that climate change can have a positive impact locally, not just a negative one. Most of Canada will benefit from an increase in global temperatures. Commented Apr 14, 2019 at 6:22
  • About that supposed Canadian benefit... I live in Canada. We don't benefit. And the extent to which we don't benefit at +1.2 makes for plenty of concern about how nasty it will be, for Canada, at +2.5 (which is likely where we'll end up later, before stabilizing). Commented Aug 14, 2023 at 16:12

2 Answers 2


Many farmers do seem to recognise that there are climate-related effects (even if they don't name it as such),

however, farmers don't always agree climate change is a result of human actions. The reason I think that's an important distinction is because if we're not the cause (link to myth) and it's not something we have influence on, then we don't need to take action. The reasoning is, that if we cannot do anything to change it, then it's not worth trying and putting money into.

I will quote some research to illustrate my point.

The first few lines of the conclusion of an article titled: Skeptical but Adapting: What Midwestern Farmers Say about Climate Change in the American Meteorological Society:

The farmers in our focus groups expressed skepticism about global, human-induced climate change and yet articulated climate change impacts they have experienced on their farms. They struggled to separate climate change adaptation actions from all the management decisions they make in an ever-shifting agricultural world. That farmers struggle to define the term, referring instead to “management decisions,” reflects this disconnect.

Another more accessible article by Scientific American:

In 2011, Arbuckle and his colleagues used the annual Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll to survey over 1,200 farmers in the state about their views on the subject.

Only 10.4 percent of participants agreed with the statement, "climate change is occurring and it is caused mostly by human activities."

The highest number of respondents, 35 percent, said climate change was caused about equally by natural changes in the environment and human causes. Just under a quarter (23 percent) said climate change was mostly caused by natural changes, 27 percent said there was not sufficient evidence, and 4.6 percent said climate change was not occurring.

  • 2
    Given that the Dust Bowl was caused by more "local", i.e. regional rather than global "management decisions" I'm not too surprised to see that view among US farmers regarding the current changes. Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 13:50
  • N.B. there's no guarantee the Dust Bowl won't return if the irrigation water runs out; at least the farmers interviewed by PBS were aware of the possibility. youtube.com/watch?v=o7Uwg8BT6qQ Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 14:01
  • @Fizz I can see why your comparison to that Dust Bowl is relevant from a scientific perspective, but do farmers nowadays know about it that much? It's been so long ago. If they did that much research, surely they would also be more knowledgeable about research on climate change?
    – JJJ
    Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 14:04
  • I think it's a good question how much awareness there is regarding that: politics.stackexchange.com/questions/40540/… Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 14:15

Whereas one would expect farmers to notice changes in climate locally, it doesn’t follow that they are well placed to judge whether there is a broader pattern and whether the change is due to natural processes or due to anthropogenic change.

As rural areas tend to be conservative, one would expect, if all things are equal, that farmers would tend to favour initiatives to keep or conserve the climate as is rather than those promoting more climate change. However, all things are not equal: the climate change debate is heavily politicised as one would expect given that the fossil fuel industry has had several centuries to embed itself within the industrial fabric of a nation and has huge investments and industries at stake.

Given the nature of the debate, the proper forum for understanding what’s at stake, disentangling misinformation from information is the legislature. One instance of this is the Texas legislature which at the beginning of the millennium mandated that utilities get part of their energy from renewable sources, a mandate that was promoted by a tax credit. This has led to 18% of the states energy being sourced from renewables.

This remarkable achievement in only two decades has been so successful that it has attracted the attention of fossil fuel lobbyists. For example, the Texas Public Policy Foundation who employ around 20 lobbyists to target renewable energy subsidies.

  • 1
    I'm surprised that this answer is upvoted. It's full of unsourced claims about the "fossil fuel lobbyists" and other conspiracy theories.
    – Sjoerd
    Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 18:09
  • 7
    @Sjoerd Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's not a conspiracy theory (it's not even a secret) that the fossil fuel industry (like all other industries) employs lobbyists to advance their industry's interests.
    – divibisan
    Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 18:52
  • @Sjoerd. I kinda of agree. I was asking about the effect on rural Republican voters of seeing (or not) signs of long-term changes in the weather. Not about what lobbyists might be doing to further the interests of their clients. Commented Apr 12, 2019 at 19:06
  • @Sjoerd: With search engines it’s easy enough to check out how valid these claims are. It’s not at all controversial that there is such a thing as a fossil fuel lobby. Commented Apr 17, 2019 at 11:27
  • @Italian Philosopher: I answer that in the first two paragraphs and then go on to explain why people interested in the Climate Change debate should take note of what fossil fuel lobbyists say and why. Commented Apr 17, 2019 at 11:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .