SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Addressing the climate crisis and ensuring a just transition to regenerative agricultural practices will take forward-thinking public investment combined with strong regulation. (Photo: Guido Lois)
A False Solution: Why Carbon Markets Don't Work for Agriculture
"Carbon markets will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All they will do is create another way for polluters to profit from their lack of environmental concern."
Feb 16, 2020
After too many years of inaction, climate policies are rapidly being introduced at the state and federal levels. Despite their poor track record, carbon markets feature heavily in many forthcoming climate policy proposals. A new factsheet jointly released by IATP and the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) details why carbon markets will not work for agriculture.
A carbon market sets a cap on allowable greenhouse gas emissions. The government issues emissions credits that add up to this cap, and covered entities (e.g., industrial facilities, utilities, fuel suppliers) can buy and sell these credits as necessary. In practice, these markets are full of loopholes that allow polluters to continue to pollute.
Treating agricultural land narrowly as a carbon sink undermines more effective and holistic agricultural practices.
Many carbon markets allow offsets, where a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in one sector is allowed to compensate for emissions elsewhere. Agriculture is a unique industry in that it can act as a carbon sink; certain agroecological practices - including diversifying crop rotations, planting cover crops and reducing tillage - can sequester carbon. In the context of a carbon market, carbon sequestered through agriculture can be used to offset another industry's pollution.
Treating agricultural land narrowly as a carbon sink undermines more effective and holistic agricultural practices. Other benefits of regenerative agriculture become secondary, including production for local food systems, healthier soils and water and farm resilience to climate impacts. This brings a range of social, economic and food justice concerns, particularly in areas where corporate retailers are divesting from rural communities.
Elizabeth Henderson, a farmer in New York, says, "As a farmer, I reject solutions like carbon markets that leave power in the hands of the dominant corporations that have led us to the farm crisis we have been living through. Instead, we need public policy that incentivizes a culture of soil health, paying farmers for healthy soils practices and the ecological services that come with them, like reducing erosion, building farm resilience to climate extremes of drought and heavy rains and increasing soil carbon."
Offset projects in a carbon market tend to work best for large-scale farms, raising concerns that corporate investment in carbon markets will contribute to further consolidation of agricultural land and disadvantage small to mid-sized farmers. Focusing on resilient agroecological systems rather than on the amount of carbon sequestered can benefit farmers of all sizes.
Addressing the climate crisis and ensuring a just transition to regenerative agricultural practices will take forward-thinking public investment combined with strong regulation. This must be linked to strong antitrust enforcement, checks on corporate power and limitations on industry access to public programs targeted for family farmers. Carbon markets will not get us there. They let big polluters off the hook, fail the needs of the family farming sector and ignore innovative community-based approaches.
As Wisconsin dairy farmer Jim Goodman says, "The last thing we should be doing is turning carbon into another commodity to be sold or traded in the global economy. Carbon markets will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All they will do is create another way for polluters to profit from their lack of environmental concern."
You can read the full factsheet here.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Tara Ritter
Tara Ritter is Program Associate for Climate and Rural Communities with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
After too many years of inaction, climate policies are rapidly being introduced at the state and federal levels. Despite their poor track record, carbon markets feature heavily in many forthcoming climate policy proposals. A new factsheet jointly released by IATP and the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) details why carbon markets will not work for agriculture.
A carbon market sets a cap on allowable greenhouse gas emissions. The government issues emissions credits that add up to this cap, and covered entities (e.g., industrial facilities, utilities, fuel suppliers) can buy and sell these credits as necessary. In practice, these markets are full of loopholes that allow polluters to continue to pollute.
Treating agricultural land narrowly as a carbon sink undermines more effective and holistic agricultural practices.
Many carbon markets allow offsets, where a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in one sector is allowed to compensate for emissions elsewhere. Agriculture is a unique industry in that it can act as a carbon sink; certain agroecological practices - including diversifying crop rotations, planting cover crops and reducing tillage - can sequester carbon. In the context of a carbon market, carbon sequestered through agriculture can be used to offset another industry's pollution.
Treating agricultural land narrowly as a carbon sink undermines more effective and holistic agricultural practices. Other benefits of regenerative agriculture become secondary, including production for local food systems, healthier soils and water and farm resilience to climate impacts. This brings a range of social, economic and food justice concerns, particularly in areas where corporate retailers are divesting from rural communities.
Elizabeth Henderson, a farmer in New York, says, "As a farmer, I reject solutions like carbon markets that leave power in the hands of the dominant corporations that have led us to the farm crisis we have been living through. Instead, we need public policy that incentivizes a culture of soil health, paying farmers for healthy soils practices and the ecological services that come with them, like reducing erosion, building farm resilience to climate extremes of drought and heavy rains and increasing soil carbon."
Offset projects in a carbon market tend to work best for large-scale farms, raising concerns that corporate investment in carbon markets will contribute to further consolidation of agricultural land and disadvantage small to mid-sized farmers. Focusing on resilient agroecological systems rather than on the amount of carbon sequestered can benefit farmers of all sizes.
Addressing the climate crisis and ensuring a just transition to regenerative agricultural practices will take forward-thinking public investment combined with strong regulation. This must be linked to strong antitrust enforcement, checks on corporate power and limitations on industry access to public programs targeted for family farmers. Carbon markets will not get us there. They let big polluters off the hook, fail the needs of the family farming sector and ignore innovative community-based approaches.
As Wisconsin dairy farmer Jim Goodman says, "The last thing we should be doing is turning carbon into another commodity to be sold or traded in the global economy. Carbon markets will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All they will do is create another way for polluters to profit from their lack of environmental concern."
You can read the full factsheet here.
Tara Ritter
Tara Ritter is Program Associate for Climate and Rural Communities with the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
After too many years of inaction, climate policies are rapidly being introduced at the state and federal levels. Despite their poor track record, carbon markets feature heavily in many forthcoming climate policy proposals. A new factsheet jointly released by IATP and the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) details why carbon markets will not work for agriculture.
A carbon market sets a cap on allowable greenhouse gas emissions. The government issues emissions credits that add up to this cap, and covered entities (e.g., industrial facilities, utilities, fuel suppliers) can buy and sell these credits as necessary. In practice, these markets are full of loopholes that allow polluters to continue to pollute.
Treating agricultural land narrowly as a carbon sink undermines more effective and holistic agricultural practices.
Many carbon markets allow offsets, where a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in one sector is allowed to compensate for emissions elsewhere. Agriculture is a unique industry in that it can act as a carbon sink; certain agroecological practices - including diversifying crop rotations, planting cover crops and reducing tillage - can sequester carbon. In the context of a carbon market, carbon sequestered through agriculture can be used to offset another industry's pollution.
Treating agricultural land narrowly as a carbon sink undermines more effective and holistic agricultural practices. Other benefits of regenerative agriculture become secondary, including production for local food systems, healthier soils and water and farm resilience to climate impacts. This brings a range of social, economic and food justice concerns, particularly in areas where corporate retailers are divesting from rural communities.
Elizabeth Henderson, a farmer in New York, says, "As a farmer, I reject solutions like carbon markets that leave power in the hands of the dominant corporations that have led us to the farm crisis we have been living through. Instead, we need public policy that incentivizes a culture of soil health, paying farmers for healthy soils practices and the ecological services that come with them, like reducing erosion, building farm resilience to climate extremes of drought and heavy rains and increasing soil carbon."
Offset projects in a carbon market tend to work best for large-scale farms, raising concerns that corporate investment in carbon markets will contribute to further consolidation of agricultural land and disadvantage small to mid-sized farmers. Focusing on resilient agroecological systems rather than on the amount of carbon sequestered can benefit farmers of all sizes.
Addressing the climate crisis and ensuring a just transition to regenerative agricultural practices will take forward-thinking public investment combined with strong regulation. This must be linked to strong antitrust enforcement, checks on corporate power and limitations on industry access to public programs targeted for family farmers. Carbon markets will not get us there. They let big polluters off the hook, fail the needs of the family farming sector and ignore innovative community-based approaches.
As Wisconsin dairy farmer Jim Goodman says, "The last thing we should be doing is turning carbon into another commodity to be sold or traded in the global economy. Carbon markets will do nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. All they will do is create another way for polluters to profit from their lack of environmental concern."
You can read the full factsheet here.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.