The State of Climate-Informed Agricultural Policy

The climate crisis is decreasing agricultural production, threatening both global food security and local food systems through changing weather patterns and weakened ecosystems. Farmers are struggling to meet average crop yield across the globe, and what crops are being grown are often less nutritionally dense than pre-industrial levels. At the same time, the climate crisis has resulted in a number of social vulnerabilities that have led to heightened tension within and between nations. These tensions impact regional food production and trade agreements via changes to international policy and the climate-driven migration of agricultural workers.

These issues challenge policymakers to consider agriculture in a new way; they must preserve the quantity of food produced while protecting the quality of the crops and their environment. This directly conflicts with the industrial agriculture model that has become dominant in the US and abroad over the last century, which seeks to produce more food regardless of any environmental damages or threats to food safety and nutritional density. Our industrial model has created a dangerous feedback loop. The more we deteriorate our environment, the more difficulty we have growing enough food to feed our growing population, and the more we rely on harmful agricultural practices to meet the demand. With climate threats growing steeper each passing year, we must develop new technological and social tools to meet growing demand.

The current federal approach to agricultural policy hinges on a recurring Farm Bill, passed approximately every five years. This bill addresses a wide range of agricultural needs and rural living standards. Policies are written and passed between Farm Bill cycles, but the Farm Bill retains the ability to modify all policies under these areas. In the interim, advocacy measures from public education campaigns to lobbying are utilized by private actors and grassroots organizations alike to draft policies they seek to implement in the next cycle. It’s critical we give this policy cycle our attention during public comment periods and beyond.

Just recently, The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, or H.R.7567, has been introduced to the House and is in position to replace our current Farm Bill. While the bill includes far more meaningful conservation policies than its 2024 namesake, it continues to fall behind necessary goal posts for climate action.

The proposed bill includes provisions for conservation, though, like the previous revision, it does so with a focus on natural resource protection rather than climate health (R-PA-15, 2025). For example, The Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA 2026) provides farmers in Southern Texas with funding to repair damaged agricultural land and farming infrastructure through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This provision will benefit Texas farmers and the whole of the US, as Texas is one of the primary domestic agricultural states. However, like so much environmental policy in the US, this provision can only repair rather than prevent damage driven by climate change. This results in more spending overall while harming our planet and communities.

Yet, FFNSA 2026 fails on several environmental issues that threaten our long and short-term climate resiliency. Like the previous year’s extension, FFNSA 2026 directs far too great a proportion of total funding to precision agriculture programs. Precision ag. might look impressive on the surface, but environmental justice groups have found precision ag. to be a costly technology without significant positive impact on crop yield or environmental quality. Other policies within the farm bill directly conflict with the guidance born from climate science. The bill incentivizes meat and dairy production by providing $3 million grants per year for five years to related operations despite the well-studied negative impact of livestock production on planetary health. 11% of US emissions come from the agriculture sector, 57% of which is exclusively derived from livestock production.

This counterproductive policy comes from the Make America Healthy Again Guidelines, which nonsensically promotes red meat and whole milk as necessary elements of the American diet. The provision sends a clear message, party interests come before constituent well-being. It doesn’t stop there. FFSNA 2026 contains clauses to boost economic growth in rural communities through local industrial job creation without addressing the environmental and public health costs of many of the predatory industries moving into rural areas. Additionally, the bill may stunt the emerging growth of agrivoltaics, the practice of utilizing farmland to generate solar energy through mixed-use practices. While FFSNA 2026 allots research funding for agrivoltaics, it limits the USDA’s ability to invest in these projects, which may bar farmers from installing solar panels. This, again, seems to have been written from the administration’s stated goal to increase fossil fuel production, sacrificing public health for profit.

Sadly, this just isn’t shocking. Much of the focus of recent years’ farm bills has been on decreasing the budget allotted to the USDA and its subsidiaries or directing funding toward the most economically beneficial projects rather than those with the greatest environmental impact. This is short-sighted. It overlooks the vast payoffs in reduced healthcare spending, disaster coverage, and environmental remediation that can be gained from allotting adequate resources to agricultural improvements. Many grassroots advocates argue for a different approach.

Farm tour at Global One Farming, a RAF partner

The Regenerative Agriculture Foundation (RAF) stands out as a prime example of a grassroots organization that advocates for political reform without waiting for policymakers to enact meaningful changes. Like many groups working at the intersection of environmentalism and agriculture, RAF recognizes the importance of learning from climate science and social justice to create holistic support for sustainable, equitable agriculture practices. That’s why the organization has decided to prioritize the restoration of Indigenous food system techniques, soil health, and local food system reliability. RAF also trains volunteers to become the next generation of climate-smart land managers and farmers, and researches the specific climate impacts and local solutions to agricultural problems within marginalized communities. Their methods have garnered significant support from many researchers of climate and agriculture. Grassroots initiatives like these address decreased crop yield, nutrient deficiency, and unstable food production with much greater precision than current state and federal policies, like the Farm Bill. Could these larger organizations learn from groups like RAF?

In summary, the Farm Bill creates and modifies a wide range of agricultural policies in the US. Though the bill has made some substantial contributions to sustainable food production in its long history, it fails to understand the implications of environmental conservation on all elements of food production. Contrarily, environmental researchers and advocates find that a holistic approach is needed to address climate concerns while tending to farmers and their communities. The techniques recommended by these groups, including regenerative agriculture and financial protection for farmers, acknowledge the two-way relationship between climate and agriculture by responding to the risks created by the climate crisis and transitioning farming practices away from the norms that have contributed to warming temperatures and ecosystem distress.

Food security policy impacts every one of us, what may begin as rising grocery store prices can quickly become famines when left unattended. This is why each person’s voice is valuable in pushing policy makers to create a just food system, one that fosters planetary health by restoring natural systems, nourishing consumers, and protecting workers. At the same time, we can learn from grassroots organizers who prioritize hands-on work while pushing for legislative reform. The planetary boundaries made obvious by industrial agriculture present us with the opportunity to redevelop our connection with our food and our community. Let’s not waste it.

Rachel Carson National Environmental Leadership Fellow Miles Levesque

Miles Levesque (he/him) is a first-year Environmental Studies and Sustainability student at Drexel University, committed to advancing local environmental policy and education through his studies, academic projects, and local advocacy. Currently, he is working as a research assistant in the Climate Pedagogy Incubator, an experimental learning community primarily composed of Drexel University professors dedicated to implementing various pedagogical techniques to teach climate justice across all fields.