Our most recent family trip across Nebraska felt gloomy, and it wasn’t just my 10-year-old son sobbing in the back seat about leaving Colorado and the cousins behind. A blizzard was forecast.
We were on track to miss it, but still signs of peril were all around. Over much of the horizon hung a menacing gray cloud. In front of us were Interstate signs, flashing warnings about strong winds and snow to come. In my hand were weather tweets and texts, all saying: Danger!
Maybe it was nature’s way of foreshadowing another story of doom on the horizon: the latest news on climate change. The federal government had released a bombshell report that put a price tag on what climate change could cost the United States.
The Fourth National Climate Assessment wasn’t just talking about California burning or Texas swamping or Florida falling to hurricanes. It also focused on the nation’s agricultural midsection, which already is seeing wetter springs and hotter summers. One nightmare possibility: plunging crop yields.
The report felt like a sign over the Interstate, a warning for the farm country we were traveling through. Curb emissions now, the report says. And be prepared to adapt.
Climate change has become a charged issue in this volatile political environment. Though President Donald Trump’s administration released the report, which was mandated by law and produced by 300 scientists, the president immediately said he didn’t buy it.
As our van rolled across the Nebraska landscape, I peered at a view that is achingly familiar and also overlooked. Colorado might have us on mountains. But Nebraska’s vastness always struck me as promising, stable, solid, infinite. For the first time, I saw the state as fragile. I felt like crawling into the back seat with my son. And crying too.
What about other Nebraskans, those who spend far more time outdoors, whose livelihoods depend on the soil and the air? What are they seeing? How are they adjusting? And do they, too, feel like crying? Or are they like my husband at the wheel — warned, prepared and resolute about getting to safety?
Del Ficke and Keith Dittrich are climate change believers. But the two eastern Nebraska farmers — Ficke farms west of Lincoln; Dittrich farms near Tilden, about two dozen miles west of Norfolk — say they aren’t typical of most farmers they know.
Many of their fellow farmers chalk up the changes that are happening beneath their feet to fickle Mother Nature and Nebraska being Nebraska, Ficke and Dittrich said.
“They don’t want to talk about (climate change),” Dittrich said. “Can’t bring up the subject.”
But Ficke, 51, is a convert. Dittrich, 59, has long bought in. He is trying to boost wind production and has a wind turbine. Both pride themselves on no-till farming, which they say is one thing farmers could do to preserve soil that gets depleted by constant turnover, requires more water and more easily erodes with rainstorms that are happening with much greater intensity.
Ficke says it seems like his farm in Seward County doesn’t experience gentle rainstorms but “crazy 3- or 5-inch or 10-inch events.” The National Climate Assessment warns that the Northern Great Plains, which includes Nebraska, and the Midwest, which includes Iowa, will become hotter and more humid with more extreme weather events. The report says that wetter soil can increase yields in some places but pose other challenges: pests, wilt and a destabilization of the soil, putting roads, bridges and railroad tracks at risk.
Ficke, whose name rhymes with “pike,” prides himself on “regenerative” farming methods that help preserve the soil. It’s also been good for business. Ficke drastically shrunk the amount of land he plants and increased his profit, by improving yields, slashing machinery and chemical costs.
Nebraska farmers and ranchers are rightfully proud of occupying property their ancestors did and will describe their ownership lineage by generation. To Ficke, a fifth-generation farmer, “the only generations that matter are the generations after me.”
If Nebraska farmers don’t change how they farm, he said, climate change will force them to do it.
Dittrich began noticing changes several years ago, when he saw June bugs appear in March. He said the too-wet soil already has shrunk a tight corn-planting window. He said he’s having to adjust by retrofitting his planter to make it do the job faster.
He has also invested in more wind insurance because fierce windstorms in recent years knocked a lot of corn to the ground. He knows of neighboring farmers using more fungicide to ward off wet-weather blights.
“I’ve never seen that happen before in my life, and I’ve just harvested my 40th crop,” Dittrich said.

Sandhills rancher Barb Cooksley answered her phone in her “office,” a souped-up all-terrain vehicle that she spends all day in to check on her 900-head cattle herd on a ranch she and husband George own west of Broken Bow. I could hear cows low, a tractor whoosh by and a clank-clank-clank sound.
“I’m breaking ice on tanks for the cattle,” said the 60-year-old, adding, “which is not surprising to do in late November.”
Cooksley believes that the climate has been changing for millennia. She has well-digging records that show her ranch’s past lives under different climates. She is also participating in a state effort to collect climate data at various places around Nebraska. Twice a year, she submits anecdotal descriptions of what’s happening on her ranch — “a reality check on the ground.”
Cooksley, former president of the Nebraska Cattlemen, knows climate change is a problem and wishes it wasn’t so politically charged. She doesn’t prescribe a fix; that question is too huge, she says. She said people need to communicate, work together and explore different ideas.
And they can do things on their own. She and George use solar and wind energy. They recycle. They graze their cattle in ways that leave grasses intact to anchor the fragile sandy soil.
“Tell people, don’t be afraid,” she said. “Get informed. Talk. Listen. Learn. But don’t be afraid.”
Another Sandhills rancher, Sarah Sortum, figures that she can’t control the weather but she can manage her family’s scenic Loup County ranch, which she dubs “a rain forest” in its ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. Sortum is proud of the fact that nearly all of her family’s 12,000 acres are native prairie grass, which soaks up carbon dioxide.
She sidestepped the climate change questions, saying the term is too charged, she doesn’t know enough about the science and isn’t comfortable taking sides in what she views as a polarizing issue. She also feels that animal agriculture is unjustly blamed as a major contributor to climate change.
She said carbon emissions from fossil fuels are causing the Earth to run into trouble, and she views her role as a land steward, helping mitigate that by growing the prairie grass to absorb what carbon it can.
Being outside so much gives her hope and makes her eager to share the beauty of her family property with others, “so that it becomes more real and tangible to them, something that matters to them on a deeper level.”
The family, including Sortum’s parents and brother, run a cow-calf operation that bears her parents’ last name, Switzer. They also do Calamus Outfitters, which supplies kayaks, canoes and other outdoor gear for the nearby Calamus River and reservoir. In addition, the family runs a popular lodge on their land. Sortum loves to ferry guests in open-air jeep rides around the landscape that offers beautiful vistas and wildlife.
The 40-year-old mother of children ages 12 and 10 does wonder what her future grandchildren will face on this property. She was raised on the Sandhills value that you take care of the land and the land takes care of you. Will it?
“It does seem like there’s not that happy balance so much anymore,” she said of weather patterns. “It’s just one (extreme) or the other, it seems like.”

Martha Shulski, director of the Nebraska state climate office, said that climate impacts are local and that addressing them takes “a village, really” of the experts and everyday people affected.
She said a lot of great work toward understanding and responding to climate change already is occurring in Nebraska. She said she begins with common, immediate concerns and tries to remain hopeful.
“It is dire. We need to act sooner rather than later,” she said. But pointing to the recent successful landing of the rover on Mars, she said that “humanity can accomplish incredible things if people put their minds and willpower to it.”
Any Nebraska farmer or rancher knows it’s better to be prepared than to be caught off guard. The state is steeped in a tradition of adaptation. As nature and our own federal government flash giant warning signs, how will we collectively respond?
Sobbing and tuning out on the Interstate didn’t get us home to Omaha. The driver did. With hands at the wheel looking fearlessly ahead, foot firmly on the pedal. Taking action.
erin.grace@owh.com, 402-444-1136
Post a comment as
Report
Watch this discussion.
(16) comments
I cringed as I started to read, but ended up surprised and almost optimistic. (Almost.) Thanks to Erin for providing a ray of hope; the folks she interviewed were willing to look at the subject, and not automatically flip into science-denial.
But the announcement this week of reaching new record highs of carbon dioxide emissions means the tsunami-wave of crises is on the horizon and approaching rapidly. And the other article, red-state politicians still not grasping what's happening, is depressing.
When the "believers" that told us we would have New York under 20' of water by now because of global warming and give up their private jet travel, huge homes on the "ever rising oceans" they might have a bit of credibility. If global warming hadn't stopped 10-15 years ago requiring a change to climate change they might have a bit more credibility. If the fear mongers like Al Gore wasn't getting rich selling his brand of social salvation while becoming extremely rich selling pretend credits he might be more credible. And finally if the solution most often proposed is taxing the use of natural fuels out of existence it might not be viewed as a scam to take the wealth of our country and turn it over to the UN. When I hear that 97% of scientists agree my warning lights start to flash. Do a little basic research and see where that phony number comes from. Finally, when the phrase "carbon pollution is used to describe CO2. every thing else that follows is likely to be lies.
Unless I'm mistaken, the experts (self proclaimed, of course) have averred climate change as a constant, since the beginning of time.
But now we're going to stop it?
Hubris much?
This issue is still driven on both sides by business and political goals when the people need to deal with the reality of the factual data presented. Many mistakes have been made the past two decades, and as I mentioned- many overstatements were pushed forward for partisan and selfish reasons. For all of us farming, working with nature in some manner, or simply living in Nebraska, planning and adapting- while doing what you can to slow the proven promoters of climate change, is what we should do. Fear mongers, and crazy deniers, please step to the side and make room for critical thinkers and visionary leadership.
Erin, you should be embarrassed. This sounds like a Victorian romance novel. “anecdotal descriptions of what’s happening on her ranch.” This is not science. Has our climate always been the same. No. Will it continue to change. Yes. Just think of all the variable that effect our planet. Write down twenty. Put them in order of importance. Man will be way down the list.
Wrong; look at the hockey stick curve.
Wrong?
Hockey stick is broken
“In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense. They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" -- substantially affecting the temperature index.” (John McLaughlin)
Terry & the other science deniers; "global warming" wasn't changed because warming stopped (each year sets new records) but because "climate change" more accurately reflects what's actually happening; the extra energy goes into not only warming but also extremes (hurricanes, droughts, floods, spread of tropical pests, etc). Only in a population that is scientifically illiterate can facts be so easily dismissed as some imaginative conspiracy.
A friend did this calculation: He estimated the diameter of the average car exhaust pipe and multiplied it by the number of cars on the planet and concluded that they could combine into a single exhaust pipe about the size of Meteor Crater in Arizona. I didn't check his numbers (as a car guy you'd probably be better qualified to do it more accurately), but the point is this: Imagine somebody standing at the edge of a single giant exhaust pipe, watching this colossal column of exhaust pouring endlessly up into the clouds, day after day, year after year, and then imagine him saying "this has no effect."
So if you are sure we should follow real science why are we allowing guys to use women's bathrooms? This is not about honest science questions because there is significant doubt about how much man's contribution of a natural plant fertilizer, CO2, has effected and continues to affect the temp changes. There is significant belief that due to a lack of solar activity we may be heading to global cooling possibly as serious as the last mini-iceage. The likely increase in overall damage from US landfall hurricanes is because we are building home on islands 1 foot above the ocean. Like I said I will be a bit more willing to give credence when the biggest promoters of adding more governmental control over my life give up their huge homes and personal jets. Oh that and when the projection models have any level of accuracy. I also love the visual of the meteor crater as an exhaust pipe. I think the surface of the earth is about 200,000,000 sq/miles. The meteor crater is about .8 sq/miles. Considering the number of volcanoes pumping out huge amount of CO2 and other chemicals that tailpipe your friend calculated would be invisible.
Gerry Brown:
The simple experiments of Fourier in 1824, John Tyndall's of 1859 and Svante Arrenhius's calculations of 1895 (look them up), not to mention the mountain of observable facts since then from ocean buoys, satellites, ice cores, etc, are real. Steyer & Bloomberg have no time machine to go back and bribe those pioneers to fake their experiments, and besides they can be duplicated in any high school physics lab -and are, frequently. Take a science course, learn about the real world, and snap out of your stupor.
Gerry's ridiculous conspiracy theory (Bloomberg pays climate scientists) was under Erin's OTHER article.
Irony. You were thinking about climate change while driving in a family vehicle on the interstate, spewing HUNDREDS of KG of CO2 into the atmosphere. This accidentally showcases another problem: Americans like to talk and fret about higher CO2 concentrations, but they won't lift a finger to meaningfully (50% cut?) reduce their CO2 emissions. In reality, commercial and residential buildings are the biggest emitters, but nobody wants to be uncomfortable, or install geothermal systems (they use lots of winter wind power - just when OPPD has too much wind). When Americans change their habits, I'll believe in "climate crisis", but until then, this is just nonsense.
This is just a way to deflect. The average American can't implement the changes that are needed. That requires collective action of a whole society and government to create the reduced carbon emission alternatives. I have a geothermal heat pump, but I didn't build it nor would I know how to. A large manufacturer did that. I'd love an electric car, but I can't afford it. I'm left to drive my small gas burners, because that's the alternative I can afford. Finally, it's a false choice that comfort and efficiency are completely in conflict with each other. My small car is both far more comfortable than the 1957 Chevy I drove to high school and it gets way better mileage.
"The average American can't implement the changes that are needed."
Hogwash. More than any one thing, that is just an excuse to do nothing. There are dozens of things that everyday Americans can do every day - and their cumulative effect would be astounding. Everything from planting trees to turning your heat down to walking instead of driving, or just staying home.
Every American could easily improve their "environmentalism" by 10%, and do so without much change to their daily lives. But the bottom line is that we don't want to. We want to be able to complain about how "somebody ELSE" needs to do something.
You do know that the US has reduced CO2 emissions to levels not seen since 1992? They lead the world in reductions and this is without punishing taxes like Al Gore's favorite income source Carbon Credits.
I am guessing everyone on here who is denying humanities impact on climate change will be dead before it is the grave threat to their grandchildren and future great grandchildren. It is a shame that people can take such a selfish and ignorant point of view. And just because you can point to one study from one rogue scientist from 15 years ago doesn't prove anything when their is 99% consensus from a diverse group of scientists and governments. Turn off Sean Hannity and read a report.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Please keep it clean, turn off CAPS LOCK and don't threaten anyone. Be truthful, nice and proactive. And share with us - we love to hear eyewitness accounts.