Farmers in US midwest squeezed by Trump tariffs and climate crisis
And still, the past two years have been immensely challenging amid the twin threats of the climate crisis and the Trump administration.
Last year, regions of the eastern corn belt saw just 20% of crops harvested due to a drought that brought little precipitation between June and October. It was part of a climatic cycle that involved drought, heat and wildfires that cost crop producers $11bn nationally.
'Last year, we got a good crop started, and then it just quit raining. Our yields were definitely reduced by at least 25-30%,' says Harbage.
This year, it's been almost the complete opposite.
Excess rainfall has fueled severe disease and pest pressure on the several thousand acres of soybeans and corn he planted in the spring.
'There were three-day windows, it seemed like. It would just start to get dried out and it would rain,' he says.
'We finished up [planting] at the beginning of June. We like to be finished by 15 May. Anything that's planted later means that it was probably planted in marginal conditions since we were rushing to get it in, and secondly, it doesn't have near enough time to mature before harvest.'
With the 2025 harvest of corn and soybeans approaching – America's biggest two crops and the linchpins of agriculture – crop growers are facing down the gauntlet. Climatic swings, rocketing operating costs and low international demand, caused, in large part, by government policy in the shape of tariffs, has created the perfect storm.
'Farming is not for the worrisome,' says Harbage. 'We always kid that we are crisis managers.'
Suicide rates among farmers are 3.5 times the national level.
In 2023-24, China bought 24.9m metric tons of soybeans worth $13.2bn, largely used to feed its 427-million-strong pig herd. At under 6m metric tons, US farmers' second biggest international soybean market, Mexico, lags far behind.
Since 2017, when tariffs were first introduced by President Trump, crop farmers have been struggling with the decline of China as the leading market for soybeans and an important market for corn exports.
Last month, reports emerged that exports of soybeans – America's largest grain export by value – had hit a 20-year low.
'Tariffs are probably something that will help in the long run, for the whole country; in the short run it's terrible for farmers,' says Harbage.
'We're really taking it on the chin now because if we can't export, our prices are low. And if we can't export and we have a terrible crop then it's a one-two punch. I see what the government wants to do, but it's hurting me in the near term.'
Farmers and rural Americans are keen to highlight that their political and voting preferences are rarely fueled by a single issue or event such as tariffs. Many continue to back Trump, despite the obvious financial challenges the president's policies are fomenting.
Trump has been largely silent on addressing the pain his tariffs have caused farmers and ranchers, despite rural voters being a cornerstone of his political base. On 10 August, he posted to Truth Social a demand that China quadruple its purchases of American soybeans. The president claimed that China was 'worried' about having a soybean shortage, although China has vowed to increase its domestic soybean production yield by 38% by 2034.
What's more, some market analysts say that Trump's post didn't make the rounds on Chinese social media, suggesting his demand may not have been heard by the country's political leaders.
With the soybean harvest in the midwest set to start about a month from now, and corn following weeks later, the fear that China may not buy a single shipload of grain this season is growing for many.
'With [tariffs] in place, we are not competitive with soybeans from Brazil. Our marketing year starts 1 October and usually by now we'd see China making commitments to pre-purchases for soybeans. China has not made a single purchase for US soybeans,' says Virginia Houston, director of government affairs at the American Soybean Association, a lobbying organization.
'No market can match China's demand for soybeans. Right now, there is a 20% retaliatory duty from China.'
To appease his farming base, the Trump administration announced $60bn in subsidies for farmers over the next decade in the recent tax bill, but that has drawn criticism from those who say that farmers shouldn't be subsidized on taxpayers' dime.
Others have reported that funding is going to select producers in specific regions of the US, benefiting bigger producers rather than family farms. Adding to the export challenges, the price of commodity crops in the US has been in steady decline for the past three years due to a smaller cattle herd and falling ethanol production.
Houston says that when she speaks with the White House and Congress to share the struggles farmers are facing due to tariffs, the response is that 'they support farmers [but] we are one cog in the wheel of this complex relationship.
'The farm economy is in a much tougher place than where we were in 2018 [during Trump's previous China trade war]. Prices have gone down while inputs – seed, fertilizer, chemicals, land and equipment – continue to go up.'
All the while, unpredictable weather conditions continue to make planning more difficult.
For much of this summer, afternoon storms had been a near-daily occurrence in Indiana, Ohio and elsewhere in the eastern corn belt, causing ponding that kills early plant growth. Diseases such as northern corn leaf blight, gray leaf spot and tar spot soon followed.
'When it's being attacked by disease, it's not growing to its full potential because it's trying to fight off the disease,' says Harbage.
Although he treated his crops for disease, the heat and humidity that have been an uncommon feature of life this summer can overcome the effects of fungicides.
On top of that, Harbage says he'll have to spend additional money on propane to dry his corn before sending it to consumers, again due to the high moisture content.
If Trump walked into his farm today, Harbage says he'd have one message.
'The exports is number one. That's the number one fix. We have to get rid of what we're growing, or we have to be able to use it,' he says.
'China, Mexico and Canada – we export $83bn worth of commodities to them a year. So if they're not buying, we're stuck with our crop.'
In the US, you can call or text the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 988, chat on 988lifeline.org, or text HOME to 741741 to connect with a crisis counselor. In the UK and Ireland, Samaritans can be contacted on freephone 116 123, or email jo@samaritans.org or jo@samaritans.ie. In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. Other international helplines can be found at befrienders.org
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How can England possibly be running out of water?
During the drought of 2022, London came perilously close to running out of water. Water companies and the government prayed desperately for rain as reservoirs ran low and the groundwater was slowly drained off. Contingency plans were drafted to ban businesses from using water; hotel swimming pools would have been drained, ponds allowed to dry up, offices to go uncleaned. If the lack of rainfall had continued for another year, it was possible that taps could have run dry. That, however, was just a taster of what could come down the line. On Tuesday, the government announced a 'nationally significant' water shortage in England, which means the whole country is at risk of running out if the dry weather continues. People across England are already banned from using hosepipes, with more restrictions probable over coming months. The UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UKCEH), an independent research institute, has warned of exceptionally low river flows. Reservoirs are also at extremely low levels and groundwater is dwindling. Droughts are generally two-year events. A year of dry weather means water supplies are running out – that is what is happening now. Things really come to a head if the following year does not bring above average rainfall. That is when the shortages start to bite, with farmers unable to irrigate and households and businesses hit with sweeping restrictions. With reservoirs at record lows and stream flows exceptionally low, England is desperate for rain. Forecasts indicate that by 2055 England's public water supply could be short by 5bn litres a day without urgent action to future-proof resources, the equivalent to more than a third of the supplies available today. The effect on the economy will be profoundly negative. The thinktank Public First has estimated that the economic cost of water scarcity could be £8.5bn over this parliament. So how on earth did famously rainswept England, notorious the world over for being green and wet with our national symbol pretty much a furled umbrella, come to this? Britain's geology and climate means there should be plenty of water. Underground in the south of England the rock is made of chalk, which is very soft and porous. These layers of rock filter rainwater into some of the cleanest water in the world, collecting in huge aquifers that have been tapped by local residents for centuries. Water companies now use those aquifers to provide the majority of the drinking water in some parts of the south. Further north, the rock underfoot is harder; sandstone and limestone, so lacking the benefits of the chalk aquifer. But it tends to receive more rainfall than the south, so there has generally been plentiful water from the skies to fill the reservoirs on which the northern water companies rely. There are also the rivers that crisscross the country, which (when clean) include gin-clear chalk streams buzzing with mayflies and thronging with salmon and other fish. The UK is one of the rainier places in Europe. Some areas are wetter than others. In England, the Lake District generally receives an average of 2,000mm of rainfall a year, while in parts of the south-east it is as low as 700mm. Perhaps it is because the country has always had such rich resources, that they have been taken for granted. Running out of water has never really been in question. But with population growth and climate breakdown, this is starting to look like folly. It was in the 17th century that the New River Company began piping water into London's homes from the springs in nearby Hertfordshire for the very rich. Slowly the technology began to spread and grow in popularity. Over the next decades, England's population would rise dramatically and the water systems of its rapidly growing cities would come under increasing stress. When the Great Stink hit London in 1858 during a heatwave, the civil engineer Joseph Bazalgette had already been commissioned to draw up plans to urgently update the city's sewage system. Known for his tirelessness, Bazalgette checked every connection himself, making thousands upon thousands of notes, and saved many lives as the system diverted sewage away from the city and into the Thames estuary. Later, treatment centres were added to purify the water. Today, consumers are used to having water coming out of a tap and they want to use a lot of it. Future generations, who will be dealing with long, dry summers, would probably be shocked at the profligate way clean tap water was used to flush toilets, water gardens and run washing machines. UK households use more water, mostly on showering and bathing, than other comparable European countries, at about 150 litres a day per capita. For France the average is 128, Germany 122 and Spain 120 (although in Italy its 243 litres a day). And the waste starts long before it gets to people's taps. Water companies in England and Wales lose about 1tn litres of water through leaky pipes each year. The industry has said that about 20% of all treated water is lost to leaks. The water firms have pledged to halve leakages by 2050. Meanwhile, the annual pipe replacement rate is 0.05% a year across all water companies: much of the sewage system in London, for example, has not been significantly updated since Bazalgette and his colleagues installed it in the 19th century. No new reservoir has been built in 30 years despite significant population growth and climate breakdown meaning longer, drier summers during which the country desperately needs to store water. The reservoirs England does have are at their lowest levels in at least a decade, just 67.7% full on average. According to Dr Wilson Chan, a hydroclimatologist at UKCEH, 'above average rainfall over several months is needed to ease pressures on water resources'. Was it the privatisation of the water and sewerage industry in 1989 that has led to this situation? England's water system has been widely criticised, and privatisation has been blamed for a lack of investment in infrastructure. Some say this is owing to the water companies paying out dividends rather than using the money raised by customer bills solely for investment in infrastructure; others blame a privatised regulated monopoly system that has prioritised low customer bills over investment. Experts have also pointed to the regulatory system. Water company drought plans compel firms to follow a series of steps before they can increase abstraction, taking more water from reservoirs, rivers and the ground to supply customers, beginning with reducing consumption (a hosepipe ban). 'Water companies must now take action to follow their drought plans – I will hold them to account if they delay,' says the water minister, Emma Hardy. 'We face a growing water shortage in the next decade.' But water companies believe that people hate being told to reduce their water consumption, so avoid hosepipe bans as much as possible. It does not help that bans may also lead to customers giving low satisfaction marks for their company, which are then taken into account by the regulator. The end result of these incentives; unsustainably high levels of abstraction from the natural environment, most of which will not be replaced by rain on the same timescale. Stores of water such as fossil aquifers and chalk streams recharge over centuries. The Environment Agency (EA) assess that 15% of surface water bodies and 27% of groundwater bodies in England have unsustainable levels of abstraction. 'We are calling on everyone to play their part and help reduce the pressure on our water environment,' says Helen Wakeham, the EA's director of water and chair of the National Drought Group. 'Water companies must continue to quickly fix leaks and lead the way in saving water.' This is not just a management problem. As climate breakdown accelerates, rainfall patterns are changing fast, and water will increasingly become less available at certain times of year. As Sir David King, a former UK chief scientific adviser who chairs the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, says: 'Drought in England is no longer a warning. It is a clear signal that climate collapse is unravelling our water, food and natural systems right now. 'This crisis demands a fundamental shift that places real value on our planet and environment, invests in nature, restores water cycles and transforms how we use every drop. If we rise to this moment we can turn crisis into opportunity, delivering economic resilience, ecological renewal and climate leadership.' The UK is not the only country that is already struggling to deal with changing weather patterns. Almost half of Europe is in drought, with wildfires tearing across the continent and farmers struggling to grow crops. Many of the economies of Southern Europe are dependent on sunny weather that has historically made the region the perfect place to grow vegetables for export. Scientists are concerned that farming in certain southern European countries will become less and less viable. More than 90 million people in eastern and southern Africa are facing extreme hunger after record-breaking drought across many areas has led to widespread crop failures and the death of livestock. As the impacts of the climate crisis unfurl around the world, is the UK government awake to the scale of the problem? Nine new reservoirs are in the pipeline to be built before 2050, while there are consultations on reducing demand for water. But this may be too little, too late; many housing developments are on pause because of water scarcity. The first new reservoir planned for Abingdon in Oxfordshire is sited in the same place as the government's new datacentre zone, leading to fears the water will be used to cool servers rather than serve customers in one of the most water-stressed areas of the UK. Green homes experts have said government building codes for new housing should include rainwater harvesting for internal use such as in lavatories and washing machines. People with gardens could use a water butt in summer, so that clean tap water is not being pumped through a hose into garden plants. Reducing time in the shower by a minute can save water, says Waterwise, while green building groups recommend the use of water-saving shower heads. A recent government commissioned report recommends smart water meters ate installed nationally, so households who use sprinklers and fill swimming pools are charged more than those who are more frugal with their use. More broadly, farmers could build reservoirs on their land to reduce the need for irrigation. Nature-based solutions could be used too, such as releasing beavers that create dams and hold water in the system, or restoring wetlands. 'We need to build more resilience into our rivers and their catchment areas with nature-based solutions at scale, such as healthy soils that allow water to filter into the ground and not rush off taking the soil with it; riverside tree planting to provide shade and further slow the flow of water; wetlands to store and slowly release water, and rewiggling streams to raise the water table and purify pollutants,' says Mark Lloyd, the chief executive of the Rivers Trust. 'We also need to finally implement the use of rainwater rather than drinking water where we can, such as car washing, gardening, washing pets, filling paddling pools and flushing the loo. Other water-stressed countries have used this approach for decades and we need to join that party.'
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump hiked tariffs on US imports. Now he's looking at exports – sparking fears of ‘dangerous precedent'
Apple CEO Tim Cook visited the White House bearing an unusual gift. 'This box was made in California,' Cook reassured his audience in the Oval Office this month, as he took off the lid. Inside was a glass plaque, engraved for its recipient, and a slab for the plaque to sit on. 'The base was made in Utah, and is 24-karat gold,' said Cook. Donald Trump appeared genuinely touched by the gift. But the plaque wasn't Cook's only offering: Apple announced that day it would invest another $100bn in US manufacturing. The timing appeared to work well for Apple. That day, Trump said Apple would be among the companies that would be exempt from a new US tariff on imported computer chips. The Art of the Deal looms large in the White House, where Trump is brokering agreements with powerful tech companies – in the midst of his trade war – that are reminiscent of the real estate transactions that launched him into fame. But in recent days, this dealmaking has entered uncharted waters. Two days after Cook and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang had a closed-door meeting with Trump at the White House. The president later announced Nvidia, along with its rival Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), will be allowed to sell certain artificial intelligence chips to Chinese companies – so long as they share 15% of their revenue with the US government. It was a dramatic about-face from Trump, who initially blocked the chips' exports in April. And it swiftly prompted suggestions that Nvidia was buying its way out of simmering tensions between Washington and Beijing. Trade experts say such a deal, where a company essentially pays the US government to export a good, could destabilize trading relations. Martin Chorzempa, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that it creates 'the perception that export controls are up for sale'. 'If you create the perception that licenses, which are supposed to be determined on pure national security grounds, are up for sale, you potentially open up room for there to be this wave of lobbying for all sorts of really, dangerous, sensitive technologies,' Chorzempa said. 'I think that's a very dangerous precedent to set.' Though the White House announced the deal, it technically hasn't been rolled out yet, likely because of legal complications. The White House is calling the deal a 'revenue-sharing' agreement, but critics point out that it could also be considered a tax on exports, which may not be legal under US laws or the constitution. The 'legality' of the deal was 'still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce', White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week. Nvidia and AMD's AI chips are at the heart of the technological arms race between the US and China. Nvidia, which became the first publicly traded company to reach a $4tn valuation last month, creates the essential processing chips that are used to run and develop AI. The US government has played a role in this arms race over the last several years, setting regulations on what AI chips and manufacturing equipment can be sent to China. If China has less computing power, the country will be slower to develop AI, giving a clear advantage to the US. But despite the restrictions, China has been catching up, raising questions on how US policy should move forward. 'They haven't held them back as far as the advocates had hoped. The US has an enormous computing advantage over China, but their best models are only a few months behind our best models,' Chorzempa said. For US policymakers, 'the question they've had to grapple with is: Where do you draw the line?' The AI chips Nvidia and AMD can now sell to China aren't considered high-end. While they can be used for inference on trained models, they aren't powerful enough to train new AI models. When announcing the deal with Nvidia and AMD, Trump said the chip is 'an old chip that China already possesses … under a different label'. This is where a major debate on AI policy comes in. Those who take a hardline stance on the US's relationship with China say that allowing Chinese companies to purchase even an 'old chip' could still help the country get an advantage over the US. Others would say a restriction on such chips wouldn't be meaningful, and could even be counterproductive. To balance these two sides, the Trump administration is asking companies to pay up in order to export to China – a solution that people on both sides of the AI debate say is a precarious one. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance AI capabilities,' said John Moolenaar, a Republican US representative from Michigan, in a statement. But Trump's gut-reaction to dealmaking seems focused on the wallet. On Wednesday, US treasury secretary Scott Bessent praised the arrangement and suggested it could be extended to other industries over time. 'I think that right now this is unique, but now that we have the model and the beta test, why not expand it?' he told Bloomberg. Julia Powles, executive director of the Institute for Technology, Law and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the deal opens up questions of whether similar pressure can be applied to other tech companies. 'What other quid pro quo might be asked in the future? The quid pro quo that would be of great concern to the [tech] sector is anything that reduces their reputation for privacy and security,' Powles said. 'That's thinking of government like a transactional operator, not like an institution with rules about when, how and for what it can extract taxes, levies and subsidies.' But that seems to be how the White House runs now. When explaining to the press how he made the deal, Trump said he told Huang: 'I want 20% if I'm going to approve this for you'. 'For the country, for our country. I don't want it myself,' the president added. 'And he said, 'Would you make it 15?' So we negotiated a little deal.'
Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
US-India trade talks scheduled for August called off, source says
Aug 16 (Reuters) - A planned visit by U.S. trade negotiators to New Delhi from August 25-29 has been called off, a source said, delaying talks on a proposed trade agreement and dashing hopes of relief from additional U.S. tariffs on Indian goods from August 27. The current round of negotiations for the proposed bilateral trade agreement is now likely to be deferred to another date that has yet to be decided, the source with direct knowledge of the matter said. The U.S. embassy in New Delhi said it has no additional information on the trade and tariff talks, which are being handled by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). India's trade ministry did not immediately reply to a Reuters email seeking comments. Earlier this month, U.S. President Donald Trump imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, citing New Delhi's continued imports of Russian oil in a move that sharply escalated tensions between the two nations. The new import tax, which will come into effect from August 27, will raise duties on some Indian exports to as high as 50% - among the highest levied on any U.S. trading partner. Trade talks between New Delhi and Washington collapsed after five rounds of negotiations over disagreement on opening India's vast farm and dairy sectors and stopping Russian oil purchases. India's Foreign Ministry has said the country is being unfairly singled out for buying Russian oil while the United States and European Union continue to purchase goods from Russia.
