\nmajority of analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill has focused on the energy components of the bill,
\nincluding an extension of nuclear power, “clean coal” from carbon storage and
\nsequestration, and offshore drilling expansion. The bill also provides
\nunprecedented programs for agriculture and food systems in the U.S. and
\ninternationally. Unfortunately, while the bill contains strong language
\npromoting sustainable agriculture, it also offers support for troubling agricultural
\npractices that have yet to significantly prove their capacity to reduce
\nemissions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I was at a meeting recently where someone said, “Agriculture
\nis a culprit, a victim, and a solution,” which poignantly encapsulated the
\nchallenges and promise of agriculture in the future. Agriculture is responsible for problematic
\nemissions—particularly methane and nitrous oxide, which
\nare generated by manures, livestock, and soil management, including nitrogen
\nadditions, and are considerably more potent than carbon dioxide. Agriculture stands to
\nbe greatly affected by climate change, from crop ranges to yields and water
\nallocation. Yet farmers can do more than minimize their impact.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
So, what does this climate bill ultimately mean for farmers, for the role of agriculture in the climate debate, and ultimately for
\nreducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
First and foremost, the K-L bill follows in the footsteps of
\nthe Waxman-Markey legislation, passed last summer, by establishing an
\nagricultural and forestry offsets program. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency predicted
\nthat such a program could provide annual net benefits to farmers as high as $18
\nbillion—an amount that could fundamentally change the way America
\nfarms. Yet, while these benefits
\nare attractive, achieving true GHG reductions must mean that legislation is
\nincentivizing effective and real practices.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Under the K-L bill, the offsets program is run under the <\/p>\n One notable difference, absent from the Waxman-Markey bill <\/p>\n The K-L bill also goes one step further than just a carbon <\/p>\n The bill’s list includes several practices that have questionable <\/p>\n Close board oversight and quality methodologies will be <\/p>\n A climate bill that establishes a carbon offset program in <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n American PRIDE Alternative to Lieberman-Kerry Climate bill -short executive summary<\/a><\/p>\n Climate Change: Four Futures<\/a><\/p>\n Solid at the core: the integrity of the emission limits in the American Power Act<\/a><\/p>\n
\nUSDA with significant input from an advisory committee that could be made up of
\nacademics, business representatives, NGOs, and government officials. Though the projects that will be
\neligible for the offsets program are not officially set in stone, the bill does
\noutline a “minimum number of practices” which must be considered for inclusion
\nby the advisory committee. The list of practices is largely similar to the one revealed
\nin the Waxman-Markey bill last year after House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin
\nPeterson added a 50-plus page markup to the bill. The full list of “potential practices” is a diverse array,
\nincluding altered tillage, cover cropping<\/a>,
\nnitrogen fertilization efficiency, farming methods used on certified organic
\nfarms, pasture-based livestock systems, reductions in animal management
\nemissions, rotational grazing<\/a>,
\ncrop rotations, and methods for increasing carbon sequestration in soils. <\/p>\n
\nand other earlier versions of the Senate bill, is the inclusion of certified
\norganic agriculture practices. A variety of research has found organic
\nagricultural practices can increase carbon storage<\/a> and decrease fossil fuel energy
\nrequirements<\/a> and GHG emissions<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\noffset program. It establishes a “Carbon Conservation Program” designed to
\nencourage GHG reductions and sequestration activities for landowners and others
\nwith grazing contracts not eligible for the offset program. The CCP does what a lot of farmers wanted:
\nit provides a way to reward the early adopters of beneficial practices. It will provide incentives for farmers
\nalready practicing organic practices—or cover cropping or reduced tillage—to continue to do so. This is
\nvital, but also has the potential to backfire if the practices being rewarded are
\nnot actually providing climate change benefits. <\/p>\n
\nbenefits to the climate and that could create additional environmental problems.
\nFeatured prominently is no-till agriculture, which is widely associated with
\nRoundup-Ready genetically modified crops and often accompanied by increased herbicide use<\/a> to control weeds in lieu of tilling. Biofuels are also weighted heavily in the
\nbill, even though certain kinds have been
\nshown not to reduce greenhouse gases<\/a>. The inclusion of composting in the
\nbill ought to be positive, but “compost” can sometimes be a cover word for
\nchemical-laden sewage sludge.<\/p>\n
\ncrucial to verifying that any practices promoted by an offset program actually
\nhave the science to back up their measurable net reductions in GHG
\nemissions. If a practice such as no-till
\nagriculture reduces carbon dioxide emissions by limiting the number of tractor
\npasses on a field, but simultaneously increases emissions of nitrous oxide—a
\ngreenhouse gas 300 times as strong as carbon dioxide—and use of herbicides, the
\noverall benefit to the climate could be nil or worse. Technical assistance and outreach for farmers and landowners
\nwill also be incredibly important, but thus far, little research exists to
\nunderstand the types of farms and farmers willing and able to participate in offset
\ninitiatives.<\/p>\n
\nagriculture and forestry is only going to be effective if those offsets are
\nlegitimate and if they are accompanied by strong efforts in other sectors. Unfortunately,
\nthe offshore drilling, expansion of carbon sequestration and storage practices,
\nand nuclear power touted in the K-L bill not only have questionable benefits
\nfor reducing GHG emissions, but carry serious environmental risks such as has
\nbeen clearly demonstrated by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Agriculture can and
\nshould be part of the solution by reducing its own emissions and sequestering
\ncarbon with proven techniques, but it’s not the only solution, and it cannot
\nstand alone in a climate bill that falls so short of true environmental
\nprogress.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pixel.quantserve.com\/pixel\/p-8bUhLiluj0fAw.gif?labels=pub.29804.rss.News.18590,cat.News.rss\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"