Laughing All the Way to the Carbon Bank

Let’s start with a very strange system that allows polluting companies to continue to pollute within negotiated limits (that reduce, year-to-year), a nod to “realistic” global industrial practices, as we “transition” to a vast reduction of fossil fuel dependence. It’s based on “carbon credits,” and it seems counterintuitive that it permits continuing pollution: “A carbon credit is a permit that allows the company that holds it to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. One credit permits the emission of a mass equal to one ton of carbon dioxide.

“The carbon credit is one half of a so-called ‘cap-and-trade’ program. Companies that pollute are awarded credits that allow them to continue to pollute up to a certain limit. That limit is reduced periodically. Meanwhile, the company may sell any unneeded credits to another company that needs them…

“Private companies are thus doubly incentivized to reduce greenhouse emissions. First, they will be fined if they exceed the cap. Second, they can make money by saving and reselling some of their emissions allowances.” Investopedia.com. We do play that game. 

There is no question that one of the core planks of the Republican Party is to remove regulations that cost business money. The Trump administration’s dismantling of the Environmental Protection Agency and the GOP refusal to enforce anti-pollution regulations at both state (in red states) and federal levels make this platform abundantly clear. Anti-fracking limitations, stiff emission requirements on cars and track, caps on industry effluents, and the like always draw the wrath of Republican politicians. Climate change – despite the obvious escalation in severe and very costly natural disasters – continues to be on a distant second burner well behind “business priorities.”

Further, there is mythology mixed into environmentally “conscious” programs. Carbon credits are just one such assumption. You often read about “clean coal.” First, there is no commercially viable process to eliminate the greenhouse and other toxic gasses from using coal as a basic fuel (e.g., in electrical power generation). Mostly, “clean coal” is nothing more than pumping its toxic effluents underground with hopes that we figure out what to do with them later. Sweeping dirt under the rug, literally. And that assumes that nothing leaks out, not always accurate.

So now the Biden administration, despite the obvious signs that Congressional bipartisanship is an unrealistic expectation, is trying to figure out how to advance climate change necessities that have accommodations that Republicans might buy into. Good luck with that. Looking at the vast tracts of American farmland, the Biden administration is trying to start by literally paying farmers to help deal with effluents – emissions and absorption – at an agricultural level. Remember that cattle are a major source of methane (a greenhouse gas that is 23 times heavier than carbon dioxide) while green flowering plants literally suck carbon dioxide out of the air, emitting oxygen instead. Addressing the quality, absorptive capacity, and maintenance of agricultural soil is now a major focus.

The first issue is how to generate a reasonably accurate measurement of the benefits and detriments of various agricultural practices, one everyone can agree on. For example, California has been a pioneer in rewarding farmers for carbon containment success. Experiments with “regenerative soils” is part of the program. One example: “the walnut trees, sunflowers and melon vines at River Garden Farms in Yolo County, where the state of California spent $97,000 this year to create a 15,000-acre emissions sponge…

“The state offers its own surprisingly precise accounting: It credits River Garden with keeping 458 metric tons of harmful carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere per year. It is an impressive number, but one that could be wildly inflated. Scientists caution that calculations of emissions consumed by soil are often wrong.

“Yet the Biden administration is so impressed by the kinds of numbers posted by pilot projects such as California’s $21.8-million Healthy Soils Program that it is angling to replicate them on a much grander scale, creating a potentially billion-dollar ‘carbon bank’ that would make payments available not just to modest companies like River Garden, but also to the nation’s industrial farming giants.

“The uneven evidence supporting the climate promises of carbon bank proponents, who include Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and top environmental advisors in the Biden administration, is raising red flags among some climate economists and other sustainability experts. They worry that what the administration is pitching as a bold step to confront warming could turn into a giveaway to Big Ag.

“‘The science just isn’t there yet to show these agricultural practices can sequester large amounts of carbon in the soil,’ said Anne Schechinger, senior economic analyst at the Environmental Working Group. ‘It seems another way to line farmers’ pockets with taxpayer dollars, while masquerading as a climate change solution.’” Los Angeles Times, March 13th. 

The agricultural sector is a pretty significant part of the US economy, with most family farms accounting for spreads of between 1 and 1.2 thousand acres. But the sector is not a particularly large source of jobs: “The U.S. agribusiness industry is expansive and provides important support to the economy and its workers. More than 2 million farms across the country cover over 900 million acres. The U.S. agribusiness industry produced $388.5 billion in agricultural products in 2017 [an average pre-pandemic year]. The industry directly employs over 311,000 workers in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations as of May 2018 and more than 115,000 in other occupations such as engineering, production, and food science. In the same year, inward FDI [foreign direct investment] in the U.S. agribusiness sector directly supported 14,700 jobs in the United States.” SelectUSA.gov. Effectively, agriculture accounts for a little over 5% of our GDP (vs 94% in 1789).

But the U.S. agricultural sector also has mega-billion-dollar agribusiness corporations (many with international operations), like Cargill and Archer-Daniels-Midland, that could stand to earn millions if not billions from new farm-focused, dollar-incented environmental programs. Making a mistake in metrics rewards big fat corporations with tons of taxpayer money, very much in line with GOP acceptance of corporate “socialism,” but often not in line with what America really needs to address core issues. Including water management during climate change. We need to get this right. Now!

I’m Peter Dekom, and we must upgrade the reliability of our environmental metrics, eradicate mythology from our policies, or we could just be creating ineffective environmental “solutions” while giving away taxpayer money only to build corporate profits.