It is no secret
and not disputed that there is some ambiguity in carbon offset markets. New
research suggests that soil carbon sequestration may not be as good as often
proclaimed. Soil carbon sequestration via “carbon farming” (CF) is largely
based on estimates, according to the new study, and there is a vital need to
better quantify the carbon stored and to understand how long it will be stored.
The study suggests that there is a strong potential for carbon storage to be
overestimated. The carbon farming methods analyzed include agroforestry,
intercropping, conservation tillage, and the optimized use of fertilizers.
Carbon farming can be classified as a major subset of land-based carbon
sequestration, which also includes reforestation and prevention of deforestation.
One of the paper’s authors, Tobias Haas, noted:
"Carbon stored in the soil using these
methods can be released back into the atmosphere as a result of changes in land
use, climate fluctuations, or soil disturbances, which can lead to a reversal
of the sequestration gains."
The paper. published in Environmental Science and Policy, suggests that most
forms of measurement of soil carbon sequestration are really estimates. I would
point out that there are methods of measuring greenhouse gas emissions,
particularly CO2, N2O, and methane (CH4) from agricultural soils. See my post
about ‘The Science Behind Soil and Water Conservation’ from
a webinar put on by researchers at the University of Arkansas who are doing
such measurements in detail. These researchers are also comparing greenhouse
gas releases under different farming scenarios. Rice is grown in Arkansas, so
methane emissions from rice paddies occur.
Haas betrays some bias in the
following quote, where he suggests that big agribusiness companies may be
overestimating the benefits of carbon farming, much like petrochemical
companies wanting to be seen as helping to solve the problem while emitting
carbon. The fact is that these companies are part of the problem and part of
the solution. The only uncertainty is to what extent they are helping. Another
indication of bias is their use of the term ‘climate crisis’ in the abstract.
The researchers are from Germany, so one can expect perhaps a European bias,
which in agriculture is well-documented as the EU has much stricter
environmental rules and curbs on agriculture than the U.S. In this, they have
been accused of unnecessarily overcompensating in favor of the Precautionary
Principle.
"In the wider debate on carbon farming large
agribusiness corporations want to position themselves as part of the solution
to the climate problem—much like the petrochemical industry. However, the ideas
they propagate raise false hopes and divert attention from the need to reduce
emissions and bring about profound changes in the agricultural system.”
I think they are correct to
call for better verification of soil carbon sequestration and point out how the
uncertainties make soil carbon markets uncertain, and to a certain extent,
unvalidated or not fully validated. They talk about climate-smart farming,
precision agriculture, and automated digital agriculture as practiced by
agribusiness corporations and the development of methodologies and monitoring,
reporting, and verification (MRV) protocols. They consider what have been
called the three most important soil and water conservation methods:
conservation tillage and no-till methods, cover cropping, and fertilizer
efficiency. I wrote about these in some detail recently in another post
about SWAPA-E conservation.
In fact, after reading the
paper, and the title suggests it as well, this is more a paper about politics
than one about science, and it favors a political bias against the biotech
corporations.
“We argue that CF is employed by agribusinesses to
secure their established business model and to avoid a structural
transformation of agricultural production. This reshaping of the existing
agricultural system is very likely to deprioritize efforts to reduce emissions.
By interrogating the strategies of large transnational corporations in their
engagement with CF, this article sheds light on a highly dynamic but
under-researched development at the intersection of climate and agricultural
politics.”
The authors’ conceptual
framework is based on cultural political economy (CPE) and emphasizes two
ideas: 1) accumulation – based on Karl Marx’s notion of capitalism, where
businesses try to maximize growth, to accumulate by maximizing profit; 2)
imaginary – this is define somewhat vague as a system of meaning. One aspect of
‘imaginaries’ that they mention is the tendency to overpromise emissions
reduction. While that may happen with corporations, it has happened with most, if
not all, of the aspirational net-zero pledges that have been proclaimed, many
with little chance of success in the desired timeframe. Not only corporations
and what they are calling the “neoliberal food regime,” but everyone seems to
have exaggerated their ability to reduce emissions. The success of emissions
reduction efforts is checked by the limitations of cost and technology.
The authors selected six of the biggest ag firms and their carbon reduction programs, shown below, for their analysis. These companies represent about 65% of global agrobusiness corporations.
Below, they show the CPE of CF in terms of accumulation and
imaginary.
The authors note three
strategies of accumulation: infrastructuring, assetization, and incorporation.
Regarding infrastructuring, they note that:
“Carbon markets heavily rely on agricultural data
collection and digital MRV technologies, including soil sampling, laboratory
analysis and computational modeling of carbon levels. Consequently, companies
leverage existing digital platforms and tools while further expanding their
technological infrastructure in conjunction with their CF activities. All
companies are actively developing digital MRV technology and offer carbon
credit programs.”
This is no doubt a good thing
and shows that the companies are using science and technology to better
quantify emissions. This MRV infrastructure allows the companies to participate
in established carbon offset markets and to better quantify soil carbon
sequestration.
Assetization refers to
relying on the future benefits of these efforts by betting on the future
monetization of them through carbon market payments. The authors note that
carbon farming is not currently offering much in the way of monetary benefits,
but that companies hope to collect in the future. O know in the U.S., many of
these markets are what are termed voluntary markets, but with solid MRV will be
monetized to some extent. The payments help to incentivize the activity, like
in other clean energy incentives. One executive acknowledged the hope for
future profits for farmers as well as ag companies. Right now, the cost to
produce those carbon credits is much higher than the credits acquired, so the
companies are essentially investing with the hope of some return in the future.
Right now, they are losing money, but at some point, when more acres are under
CF, they may break even or even show a profit. I don’t know if that will happen
or not. Right now, all they are getting is acknowledgement that they are part
of the solution, at least by some of us. These authors, instead of praising
them for that, seem to be calling their motivations into question, without
evidence of that.
They define incorporation as:
“… the alignment of new soil carbon market schemes with
established business models to reconcile established practices with changing
conditions and the need for transformation.”
This is the same argument as
the tired one that oil companies embrace CCS to keep producing fossil fuels. Of
course, they do, and why the hell wouldn’t they? That is not the only reason
they support decarbonization. They also want to be seen as part of the
solution. They want what has been called their “license to operate.” In fact,
for the ag companies, they are not only decarbonizing for some future profit,
but they are helping their customers, farmers, to do the same, much of it based
on the companies’ investments. They may also bind their customers to a certain
extent to their own products and services in that process, which, depending on
the details, may be fair or not. I suspect it is fair and helps the farmers.
One executive noted:
“Doesn't matter whether it's a digital solution or (…)
better fertilizer management through the use of nitrification inhibitors, or
whatever we have in portfolio. (…) Just because you are carbon farming, pests
and diseases are still going to be out there in the field–so you are still
going to need herbicides, you are still going to need fungicides to protect and
maintain yields, because if you get a dip in your yield you may not get a
carbon credit. (…)” (interview A1).”
The authors suggest that the
companies use this as well to promote practices which they can best provide
products and services for, such as reduced tillage, monocropping, and cover
crops, rather than practices which they cannot offer them such as agroforestry
and intercropping. While that may be true, it should not make the ag companies
seem to be manipulative, as the authors seem to suggest. Why should they not
work on and promote what they do best?
Another method of
incorporation is called insetting, described below by an executive, followed by
the authors:
“There’s another side of the carbon market, which is
called an ‘inset’, which is basically where the value chain comes together (…)
to reduce and measure and monitor that reduction in carbon intensity or the CO2
emitted along that value chain.” (interview A1). With insetting the firms aim
at the decarbonization of their supply chains by trading carbon credits among
value chain players, for instance between a farmer and a food processing and
trading company (Bayer, 2024).
The corporate practice of insetting
has been accused of ‘greenwashing’, but that is likely to be an overstatement,
since the argument is simply that it lacks third-party verification, which may
come in the future.
Regarding imaginaries, they note
three components of an imaginary promoted by ag companies: 1) robust soil
carbon measurement, 2) soil carbon markets, and 3) co-benefits.
Robust carbon measurement
involves measuring carbon emissions before, during, and after specific
practices such as rotational grazing or cover cropping have been implemented.
The companies also seemingly promise farmers future carbon offset revenue from
implementing such practices. That likely depends on MRV, particularly
third-party MRV, which may or may not be available in the future.
They also suggest that
voluntary carbon markets may have a greenwashing component as well, since the
ag companies want to keep those voluntary markets flexible and not interfered
with by the (EU) regulatory authorities. Compliance markets are likely to have
more stringent third-party verification requirements
Co-benefits are well
established in many of these practices, although they are often not adopted due
to costs, risks, and a lack of education about them.
“The benefits for farmers – improved soil health and
resiliency, new income streams and overall stronger farms – will benefit
everyone else around the world, too.” (Bayer, (2024))
“The launch of our Global Carbon Farming Program is a
testament to our strong commitment to sustainable agriculture. It will enable
farmers worldwide to increase the health of their soils, reduce emissions,
sequester carbon and – at the same time – be rewarded for their sustainability
efforts to combat climate change.” (BASF, 2021)
The authors warn that a
factor may be in play: mitigation deterrence - the delay and
weakening of emission reductions in the agricultural sector. They argue that
the companies’ definitions of CF are too general, and they align too much with
the products and services that those companies provide. For instance, no-till
and conservation tillage require the use of more herbicides, often glyphosate,
which has been deemed one of the safest pesticides, except in Europe. They then
mention that measurement of soil carbon emissions often does not account for fluctuations
in emissions in time and space. In my previous post 'The Science Behind Soil
and Water Conservation, ' it was noted that there are now instruments that can
measure these emissions continuously. That solves the time issue. If more are
deployed in a field area, that would solve the space issue. The issues of
leakage and permanence of carbon removal are important ones that they bring up,
but again, ongoing monitoring can mostly solve those issues.
They suggest for future
research that we should further examine companies’ motivation across sectors by
scrutinizing their promises for future carbon offset revenue and positioning
themselves as part of the solution and their lobbying activities.
Finally, they note the
following:
“CF, based on current patterns, may further entrench the
flaws of the global industrialized food system, and it is unlikely to achieve
the necessary GHG emission reductions in the agri-food sector to bring net-zero
targets within reach anytime soon.”
While that may be true, these
desirable practices do reduce carbon emissions significantly, though perhaps
not in a massive way. Combined with other practices and new technologies, they
will likely go a long way towards decarbonizing the agricultural sector. I
should also point out that the alternatives to decarbonizing in other ways are
not appealing at present.
As a final note on the paper, I would say that the main point of this paper is simply that more research is needed to verify the long-term viability of CF and to account for fluctuations in time and space of emissions. MRV, particularly third-party MRV, is currently inadequate. That is known and can change. Thus, I would say that this paper is mostly politically-motivated bunk, an attempt to discredit good-faith efforts by ag firms by accusing them, quite subtly, of greenwashing, overpromising, and not changing enough to suit the likes of climate activists. The authors do, however, explain their methodology very well.
Some Methods Have Important Co-Benefits That Make Them Very
Worthwhile
Some of these methods have
important, desirable co-benefits, some that may exceed the greenhouse gas
reduction benefits. Reduction of soil erosion is one desirable benefit that
conservation tillage and no-till methods provide. Optimized fertilizers have
the desirable co-benefit of reducing fertilizer runoff. As noted, these methods
are considered vital for soil and water conservation efforts. These methods
also save money, so that is another important co-benefit. There are several
other co-benefits tied to specific practices that strongly benefit present and
future farmers. In the U.S., there is government help with some of these
practices through the USDA NRCS and local or county Soil and Water districts.
Farmers tend to like these programs and benefit from them immensely.
References:
Study
questions claims of carbon farming as climate solution in agriculture. Bianca
Schröder. Phys.org. July 9, 2025. Study
questions claims of carbon farming as climate solution in agriculture
The
political economy of carbon farming: Analyzing agribusiness’ accumulation
strategy and the imaginary of soil carbon markets. Sarah Hackfort and Tobias
Haas. Environmental Science & Policy. Volume 171, September 2025, 104123. The
political economy of carbon farming: Analyzing agribusiness’ accumulation
strategy and the imaginary of soil carbon markets - ScienceDirect
No comments:
Post a Comment