by Meredith Niles
Thus far the
majority of analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill has focused on the energy components of the bill,
including an extension of nuclear power, “clean coal” from carbon storage and
sequestration, and offshore drilling expansion. The bill also provides
unprecedented programs for agriculture and food systems in the U.S. and
internationally. Unfortunately, while the bill contains strong language
promoting sustainable agriculture, it also offers support for troubling agricultural
practices that have yet to significantly prove their capacity to reduce
emissions.
I was at a meeting recently where someone said, “Agriculture
is a culprit, a victim, and a solution,” which poignantly encapsulated the
challenges and promise of agriculture in the future. Agriculture is responsible for problematic
emissions—particularly methane and nitrous oxide, which
are generated by manures, livestock, and soil management, including nitrogen
additions, and are considerably more potent than carbon dioxide. Agriculture stands to
be greatly affected by climate change, from crop ranges to yields and water
allocation. Yet farmers can do more than minimize their impact.
So, what does this climate bill ultimately mean for farmers, for the role of agriculture in the climate debate, and ultimately for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?
First and foremost, the K-L bill follows in the footsteps of
the Waxman-Markey legislation, passed last summer, by establishing an
agricultural and forestry offsets program. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency predicted
that such a program could provide annual net benefits to farmers as high as $18
billion—an amount that could fundamentally change the way America
farms. Yet, while these benefits
are attractive, achieving true GHG reductions must mean that legislation is
incentivizing effective and real practices.
Under the K-L bill, the offsets program is run under the
USDA with significant input from an advisory committee that could be made up of
academics, business representatives, NGOs, and government officials. Though the projects that will be
eligible for the offsets program are not officially set in stone, the bill does
outline a “minimum number of practices” which must be considered for inclusion
by the advisory committee. The list of practices is largely similar to the one revealed
in the Waxman-Markey bill last year after House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin
Peterson added a 50-plus page markup to the bill. The full list of “potential practices” is a diverse array,
including altered tillage, cover cropping,
nitrogen fertilization efficiency, farming methods used on certified organic
farms, pasture-based livestock systems, reductions in animal management
emissions, rotational grazing,
crop rotations, and methods for increasing carbon sequestration in soils.
One notable difference, absent from the Waxman-Markey bill
and other earlier versions of the Senate bill, is the inclusion of certified
organic agriculture practices. A variety of research has found organic
agricultural practices can increase carbon storage and decrease fossil fuel energy
requirements and GHG emissions.
The K-L bill also goes one step further than just a carbon
offset program. It establishes a “Carbon Conservation Program” designed to
encourage GHG reductions and sequestration activities for landowners and others
with grazing contracts not eligible for the offset program. The CCP does what a lot of farmers wanted:
it provides a way to reward the early adopters of beneficial practices. It will provide incentives for farmers
already practicing organic practices—or cover cropping or reduced tillage—to continue to do so. This is
vital, but also has the potential to backfire if the practices being rewarded are
not actually providing climate change benefits.
The bill’s list includes several practices that have questionable
benefits to the climate and that could create additional environmental problems.
Featured prominently is no-till agriculture, which is widely associated with
Roundup-Ready genetically modified crops and often accompanied by increased herbicide use to control weeds in lieu of tilling. Biofuels are also weighted heavily in the
bill, even though certain kinds have been
shown not to reduce greenhouse gases. The inclusion of composting in the
bill ought to be positive, but “compost” can sometimes be a cover word for
chemical-laden sewage sludge.
Close board oversight and quality methodologies will be
crucial to verifying that any practices promoted by an offset program actually
have the science to back up their measurable net reductions in GHG
emissions. If a practice such as no-till
agriculture reduces carbon dioxide emissions by limiting the number of tractor
passes on a field, but simultaneously increases emissions of nitrous oxide—a
greenhouse gas 300 times as strong as carbon dioxide—and use of herbicides, the
overall benefit to the climate could be nil or worse. Technical assistance and outreach for farmers and landowners
will also be incredibly important, but thus far, little research exists to
understand the types of farms and farmers willing and able to participate in offset
initiatives.
A climate bill that establishes a carbon offset program in
agriculture and forestry is only going to be effective if those offsets are
legitimate and if they are accompanied by strong efforts in other sectors. Unfortunately,
the offshore drilling, expansion of carbon sequestration and storage practices,
and nuclear power touted in the K-L bill not only have questionable benefits
for reducing GHG emissions, but carry serious environmental risks such as has
been clearly demonstrated by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Agriculture can and
should be part of the solution by reducing its own emissions and sequestering
carbon with proven techniques, but it’s not the only solution, and it cannot
stand alone in a climate bill that falls so short of true environmental
progress.
Related Links:
American PRIDE Alternative to Lieberman-Kerry Climate bill -short executive summary
Solid at the core: the integrity of the emission limits in the American Power Act
