Biden's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. is centered around farmers. Although American agriculture only contributes 9 percent to the nation's total emissions, it has the potential of more than compensating its own carbon footprint. Biden has the rare opportunity to include agriculture in his ambitious climate agenda due to recent interest from farmers and buy-in by powerful food and agricultural industry groups. As the midterm elections approach, the window of opportunity for action is likely to shrink as the president's political capital wanes and the new president becomes less powerful.During an event commemorating Pride Month in Washington's East Room, President Joe Biden speaks. AP Photo/Evan Vucci, FileAccording to POLITICO's analysis of the existing markets, despite talk of putting farms in a position to save the environment, the actual number of these carbon programs on the ground is very small. Scaling up to the point where these efforts can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere is not without technical hurdles.These challenges have not stopped lawmakers pushing for voluntary programs that involve farmers rather than mandating emissions limits or other regulations. Last week, the Senate approved an overwhelming bill to support these voluntary markets. This is a rare bipartisan step on climate legislation.Capitol Hill is not the only place where agricultural carbon offsets are gaining momentum. CME Group, which manages major agricultural commodity trading platforms announced that it will soon launch an offsets futures market for nature-based offsets. This includes projects on farm land and forest land.Officials have made it clear that farmers are not required to participate in the Biden administration's efforts to scale up carbon farming. This is crucial for maintaining the industry's support.However, environmental scientists are warning that we should not rely too heavily on carbon offsets to reduce the global warming caused by pollution.Jonathan Foley, Project Drawdown's executive director, stated that if your bathtub is full, it's best to turn off the faucet before looking for a sponge. Project Drawdown is a non-profit focused on climate solutions. I don't know why people reach for the sponge so much more than they are turning off the faucet or turning it down. It won't work.This is the big opportunityAgriculture industry is eager to generate new revenue and avoid regulation. The push to transform American farmland into an enormous carbon sponge has steadily won over the agriculture sector. According to some estimates, the country's agricultural soils could sequester as much as 10% of its greenhouse gas emissions each and every year.This scale is only possible if the hundreds of millions of acres that make up the farmland can be managed more climate-friendly. For example, reducing the amount of soil disturbances and tilling, which is a widespread practice in the heartland that emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, will help.Cover crops are another climate-friendly option. They improve soil health and draw down CO2 through keeping the ground covered during crop rotations.Biden suggested that farmers could be paid to grow cover crops in his April address to Congress. This was part of his big jobs plan and climate plan. This idea is growing in popularity. However, cover crops, which include plants such as cereal rye and oats can only be grown on about 4 percent of all cropland acres according to the latest government estimates.Biden's challenge is to find ways to offer enough incentives for an industry to change its operations, especially one that has historically been resistant to change from the Beltway.USDA is currently trying to solve one problem: how to make carbon offset markets more beneficial for farmers and ranchers, who only generate a small percentage of the credits that corporations can purchase.These markets don't work very well for agriculture, Bill Hohenstein (director of USDAs Office of Energy and Environmental Policy) said in an interview.Ag plays a small role in the market, said he, noting that there are many barriers.Administrators are trying to find the best way to eliminate these obstacles. They are currently reviewing thousands of comments from farmers and other interest groups on how to approach climate incentives.It is extremely difficult and costly to determine the amount of carbon stored in soils. It can be dangerous to rely too heavily on computer modeling. This is much cheaper than soil testing. The soil can be very different from one region to another and even from farm to farm. Another challenge is to ensure that carbon remains in the soil. It is possible to release CO2 back into the atmosphere by reverting to older practices like conventional tilling.Scale is another barrier. A farmer on a medium-sized farm might be able to sequester several hundred tons of carbon credits. One credit is equivalent to one ton.Other industries, such as landfills, that produce greenhouse gas offsets can generate up to 100,000 credits per project. Verifying credits on a larger scale can help to offset the high cost of verification, which can easily run into the thousands.Officials are looking at ways to make it easier for farms to combine credits from multiple operations in order to lower the project cost and increase participation.Beyond carbon marketsMany climate activists believe that the Biden administration should avoid promoting complex carbon markets. They recommend that the Biden administration focus on climate-friendly enhancements to existing multi-billion dollar farm programs.Scott Faber, the head of government affairs at the non-profit Environmental Working Group, stated that USDA should revive long-standing environmental initiatives. Farmers are already part of the established Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program. All USDA programs allow farmers to use greener practices and take land out from production.Faber stated that it is easier to move forward by setting the alphabet soup of conservation programs, than by intervening on a market still emerging where it is difficult to measure the size or scale of the widgets being manufactured.Biden's administration took smaller steps to shift existing programs towards its climate change agenda. In April, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced an expansion to the Conservation Reserve Program. This program will include higher payments rates and new incentives for farmers who are willing to give up their land to production. The USDA recently began offering a $5 per-acre benefit on crop insurance premiums for farmers who have planted cover crops in the current year.However, the department has not been clear about its more ambitious plans. The department's May climate-smart forestry strategy and 20-page summary of it in May did not include any details about its policy plans.It is difficult to convince more farmers and ranchers into participating in existing conservation programs when crops such as corn and soybeans fetch their highest prices for years.Joseph Glauber, senior fellow at The International Food Policy Research Institute, and former chief economist at USDA, said that removing large areas of prime crop land from production is going to prove costly. Vilsack is clear that he wants CRP to grow but that it should be voluntary. Now the question is, at what price and how much can you offer producers to get land?The department could try to channel new climate initiatives through Commodity Credit Corporation, a loosely controlled pot of money that Congress funds each year.It was used by the Trump administration for its trade bailout, coronavirus relief payments and trade bailout. However, when Biden's incoming officials suggested that the CCC could be used to establish a carbon bank to fund climate incentives, the Capitol Hill Republicans rejected the idea.Glauber suggests that Biden may have to wait until 2023 when the new farm bill will be written in order to make major policy changes.Even so, it is possible to create new programs by shifting funds from existing efforts. This would undoubtedly raise the eyebrows of powerful farm industry groups.Glauber stated that it is very difficult to initiate a large program without adequate authority. It is hard to imagine [USDA] doing much over the next few years, until a farm bill comes along.Advocates who believe urgent action is required find that this timeline is too slow.Ben Lilliston is the head of rural strategies and climate changes at the left-leaning Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. He said that USDA should push harder for Congress to increase the conservation programs in any future infrastructure package.This is a rare opportunity because you rarely get that chance outside of the farm bill. It would have immediate climate benefits.This is also a priority of Senator Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow (D.Mich.), who stated that the $1 billion in Bidens infrastructure package for agriculture to shift to net zero emissions over eight years was woefully inadequate. Stabenow also called for $50 billion to support climate and conservation efforts as part a larger infrastructure or reconciliation package.Biden's resistance to new regulations affecting agriculture also limits his ability to make a significant impact on climate change.Glauber stated that carbon regulation would make it so much simpler. All of these programs would be able to take care of their own costs if there were a carbon price. It would be possible to reduce carbon emissions by using lower-cost methods.Both supporters and opponents of carbon markets seem to agree that carbon prices must rise. As the market gets off the ground, farmers are currently receiving $15 per ton for carbon sequestered. To attract more farmers and gain real momentum, there is a consensus that the price should be higher in the $30-50 range.It's unclear how much carbon prices can rise if the market relies primarily upon demand from corporations that have pledged to reduce their emissions. Similar carbon offset markets collapsed more than a decade back due to a lack in demand and lack of trust in credits, right as cap-and trade collapsed in Congress.A growing concern is that USDA might eventually have to purchase agricultural carbon credits in order to boost the market. However, that may be a long way off.Acre Venture Fund partner Sam Kass was also a chef and food policy advisor to President Barack Obama. He said that he believes the federal government will eventually purchase credits even if it is just to offset its own substantial carbon footprint.Washington would be wise if it put real dollars and real policy muscle into action, Kass stated. Kass also noted that many of the other carbon sequestration options depend on technology that is at least a decade behind being ready.He said that if we don't find a way to reduce carbon dioxide in a meaningful manner now, it will be too late.This report was contributed by Tatyana Monnay.
