Markey and Waxman cut the crap

New climate legislation overlooks a major GHG source: industrial ag 21

Cow butts.

Like many others in the climate movement, I have been waiting for weeks (well, years actually) for broad and sweeping climate change legislation.  Back in January the economy captured Congressional attention and I knew global warming legislation would simply have to wait.  Finally, yesterday, Representatives Markey and Waxman introduced their “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009”, a wide-reaching cap and trade initiative with more ambitious emission reductions (83% below 2005 levels by 2050) than President Obama had even advocated for.  For that, and for a variety of other progressive initiatives including those for energy efficiency, green jobs, and climate change adaptation, the bill is commendable.  But, Markey and Waxman had one large oversight in drafting the bill—they cut the crap, literally.

Buried about halfway through the monster 648 page draft is a crucial statement: “controlling emissions in small as well as large amounts is essential to prevent, slow the pace of, reduce the threats from, and mitigate global warming and its adverse effects.”  I couldn’t agree more, which is why I was shocked to see that the bill fails to address greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, factory farms, and animal manure whatsoever—and even goes the extra mile to specifically exempt the entire sector from any type of regulation.  

Under the proposed legislation the agricultural sector is explicitly exempted under the definition of “capped sector”.  Since capped sectors will be those that will be required to reduce emissions under the compliance portion of the bill, this means that the entire sector has been given a free pass from any type of emissions reductions.  Unfortunately, the bill goes one step farther and makes additional exemptions under the uncapped sector section as well, where sources of emissions will be listed and then, in several years, formed into standards and promulgated into regulation.  The bill specifically designates that sources of methane emissions be a separate category of this uncapped sources list, but then explicitly exempts enteric fermentation (i.e. livestock burps and farts) from being included on this list.  Enteric fermentation is literally the largest source of methane emissions in the entire country.  This means that not only are livestock left out of this bill, but the largest source of methane emissions would be left out of all future regulations for methane emissions in the United States from the uncapped sector.

So, big deal right?  Who really cares about cow farts anyway when we have coal fired power plants to deal with?  I respectfully disagree.  Energy and climate policy that doesn’t consider the impact of our food and agricultural systems on greenhouse gas emissions is missing a big chunk of the problem.  Collectively, our entire food system and associated emissions may be contributing up to 1/3 of global greenhouse emissions by some scientific accounts.  Domestically, the agricultural sector (which doesn’t include things like food processing, packaging and transportation) accounts for nearly 2/3 of all nitrous oxide emissions, which by the Markey and Waxman bill is 298 times as potent as CO2.  About 1/3 of all methane emissions (which is 25 times as potent as CO2) in the United States are solely from enteric fermentation and manure management.  

To put it in perspective, according to the US EPA 2009 Draft GHG Inventory the agriculture sector produces 413 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents a year, and the entire Industrial Processes sector produces 328 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents.  Let’s couple that 328 Tg with the methane emissions produced by coal mining and petroleum systems (collectively about 86 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents) and then we’re talking about what the Markey and Waxman bill exempts.  If you think agricultural emissions don’t matter, ask yourself if you would feel differently if the bill completely exempted the entire industrial processes sector, and certain emissions from coal mining and petroleum.

What is so interesting about the bill is the lengths it goes to make sure that agriculture is uniquely left out of the regulations.  For example, agriculture does play a prominent role in the bill as a source of potential renewable electricity credits with manure digesters and crop biofuels.  But while ethanol production plants are explicitly included as an industrial sector that will be regulated under the cap, livestock and manure management are not.  So, in essence, biofuels may be eligible for offset credits, but they’ll also be responsible for the emissions they may be producing as well.  But, not so for livestock manure, which will be eligible for offsets, but not actually have to do anything to reduce its emissions in the first place.  It should also be noted that in the forthcoming EPA’s proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule, manure management is specifically identified as a source of emissions that would be required to report their emissions.  This means the problem is not that we can’t measure agriculture and livestock emissions- we obviously can if we can give potential offset credits to the sector and the EPA is going to require that they report emissions.

To be more hopeful, I will say that the bill does have excellent standards in place to regulate other food system greenhouse gas emissions.  The bill would require emissions standards for heavy duty nonroad equipment including tractors, combines and other heavy agricultural machinery.  As well, nearly every food processing industry would be included under the cap if they produced above the threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalents a year.  This would include everything from animal slaughter facilities to wet corn milling and snack food processing plants.  In the Green Jobs section, the bill specifically notes the importance of establishing education and training programs for sustainable agriculture and farming and sustainable culinary practices.  And, the bill includes fantastic initiatives to establish a National Climate Change Adaptation Council, which would examine the broad impacts of climate change on a variety of areas including agriculture.

But, all of those things are hard to appreciate when the larger agricultural and livestock sector is completely exempted from reducing their emissions.  Agriculture is unique in the climate change debate because it is both a source of emissions and a potential for mitigation.  We clearly can not forget the role that sustainable agriculture can play in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and the ways that farmers can and should be a part of our climate change initiatives and policies.  But, rewarding the beneficial part of the system without acknowledging the downside to our industrial agricultural practices is only rewarding the largest and most polluting parts of our food system.  A cap on agriculture in this bill would not hurt small-scale family farmers, which would be nowhere near triggering the threshold for regulation.  Instead, it would target the biggest sources of agricultural emissions from large-scale corporate factory farms that are the largest emitters in the sector.  And, just like big coal needs to clean up its act, so does big ag.  As we move forward with the draft discussion of the bill I hope that Congress can recognize the importance of regulating agriculture in our climate change legislation just as any other sector should and will be regulated.

Meredith Niles is coordinator of the Cool Foods campaign at the Center for Food Safety. The Cool Foods Campaign is a national public advocacy, education and policy campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our food and agriculture systems. The Campaign is working with a variety of organizations, businesses, schools, restaurants, city councils and individuals to help reduce “foodprints”. The Campaign is also working on climate change and agriculture policies that will promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial agriculture in our food system, and reward small-scale sustainable farmers for their positive contribution to climate change mitigation.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 6:47 pm
    02 Apr 2009

    Great points.  As I pointed out in handy post on greenhouse gas emissions, the ag sector, globally, contributes about 1/8th of all ghgs (mostly methane), with 4% coming from the aforementioned "enteric fermentation" (mostly belching), about 5% from excess nitrogen from fertilizers, 3% from rice farming and biomass burning, and about 1% from manure (those stats are percentages of all ghgs).The really weird part of the IPCC accounting of GHGs, however, has to do with carbon loss in the soils -- which they assume is zero, they assume that the amount of carbon sequestered equals the amount lost from agriculture.  But that could mean a huge amount of carbon could not be lost if we didn't practice industrial agriculture.
    You can also blame livestock for much of deforestation, which is responsible for at least 12%.

    Permalink

    1. Pangolin's avatar

      Pangolin Posted 1:23 am
      04 Apr 2009

      Are those breakdown numbers percentages of total GHG emissions or are they percentages of agricultural GHG emissions? If they're percentages of ag emissions where is the rest of it?

      Permalink

      1. Jon Rynn's avatar

        Jon Rynn Posted 11:52 am
        05 Apr 2009

        Pangolin, percentage of total.  This gives me an opportunity to correct my previous figure for deforestation, which is more like 16%, then waste is about 4% -- again, of total

        Permalink

    2. piglet's avatar

      piglet Posted 5:05 pm
      06 Apr 2009

      This is a great discussion. The livestock is not to blame though. Let's keep it real simple. It is we humans who have turned them into a production line; they have, like the rest of nature, become just a number for our profit or loss regardless of consequences to the human health system. Completely leaving out our symbiotic relationship with the natural world and her ability to feed us all in healthy, responsible ways. When profit is put ahead of our well-being and we objectify nature (and each other) we are in trouble...witness the major dilemma on the planet with the break down of our human and eco-systems. We can all pull out figures to justify our position. Again, the bottom-line is restoring dignity and respect to all species; and the system that supports our very survival. Nature knows exactly what she needs to take care of us. Perhaps we should stop trying to re-engineer Her to suit our bottom-line profits. Our health is at great risk. Our human bodies can only assimulate so much of gmo-altered food; pesticides; insecticides; artificial hormones; artificial antibiotics before we humans start paying a huge health price. Then we have depleted soils, food that has little nutrient and lack of clean drinking water that is free from poisoned residuals and pharmaceuticals we defficate and urinate out, that never gets filtered out in the treatment water plants; that our fish and animals then ingest; we ingest them and it starts all over again. We truly need to reconnect to the natural cycle of life and pay attention to the end result of what we create in products and manufacturing that all eventually recycle back into our human bodies and life.Thanks everyone, keep the dialogue going.Piglet

      Permalink

  2. ed abbey Posted 7:13 am
    03 Apr 2009

    The Markey/Waxman effort might be a good start but it's back to the drawing board fellas'!  Nowhere does this legislation address the corporado's privatization of The Commons in the name of responding to the climate crisis. False solutions like the present proposed site for Cape Wind or using whole logs clear-cut from PUBLIC lands for a slew of new biomass plants is simply an invitation to loot PUBLIC SPACE for PRIVATE PROFIT.  Haven't we learned ANYTHING these past few months about the corporados and the damage they do?  Are we REALLY prepared to hand over our coasatlines and forests to fill their coffers even more in the name of responding to climate change?  Cape Wind remains "the right project in the wrong place" and much of the proposed new biomass facilities are a "biomess", but done sensibly these efforts CAN help in the struggle to protect the planet.  Expecting Corporate America to come to the rescue is deus ex machina. The corporado's bottom line is not the planet's bottom line. Folks like Greenpeace and others in Big Enviro need to rethink their priorities.

    Permalink

  3. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 12:08 pm
    03 Apr 2009

    This is important stuff. But one point I made is that I'm not convinced leaving out methane management (or rice farming or nitrogen runoff) necessarily means that they've been exempted. It's not a promising sign that they're not specifically mentioned in the bill, but usually you need an explicit exemption.  My reading would be that methane-producing ag activities other than enteric fermentation would ultimately fall under the laws regulatory structure along with the other currently uncapped activities...

    Permalink

    1. Meredith Niles's avatar

      Meredith Niles Posted 12:13 pm
      03 Apr 2009

      Hi Tom, This is a very good point and you are correct from my understanding. While agriculture is explicitly exempted from being a "capped sector" and having to comply with broader cap and trade reductions, the only explicit exemption made for methane is for enteric fermentation. This means that other uncapped methane emissions such as manure management and rice farming would be included. This is a step, although the methane emissions uncapped sources list, is just that- a list to start. It will be years before it is promulgated into standards or regulations. Its also important to consider that enteric fermentation is about 1/4 of all methane emissions in the country and the single largest source of methane emissions, while manure management is about 8% of emissions according to the EPA. But, at least its a something- thanks for mentioning!

      Permalink

      1. Pangolin's avatar

        Pangolin Posted 1:15 am
        04 Apr 2009

        The enteric emission exemption is likely specifically designed to exempt CAFOs from shutdown and diaspora due to feeding issues. Beef and hogs feed a high grain, high silage diet particularly with a large inclusion of distillers grains are methane producing machines. A cow or hog that wanders around and gets some grass, herbs and mast in their system is going to produce a LOT less methane but will also produce a lot less profits for feedlot operators.So far it looks like a climate bill engineered to fail even if passed.

        Permalink

      2. Biodiversivist's avatar

        Biodiversivist Posted 9:08 am
        04 Apr 2009

        My thoughts exactly, Pangolin. How can you keep a cow from "outgassing" other than changing diet? If distillers grains exacerbate outgassing, the ethanol industry may have trouble getting rid of its byproduct, which not only accounts for some profit but is the only thing that makes ethanol appear energy positive in the calculations. It went from energy negative to positive in one year by pulling the distillers grain "energy credit" out of a hat. If someone runs the number and finds that distillers grains increase gas it will be one more nail in the corn ethaonl GHG coffin.

        Permalink

  4. Tom Laskawy's avatar

    Tom Laskawy Posted 12:31 pm
    03 Apr 2009

    Hey, Meredith. It's true that there's nothing good about leaving out enteric fermentation. But we're just not ready as a society (here or abroad) to do what we need to do regarding meat production. But like I said in my post, I wouldn't minimize the effect on meat production from having so much of the ag sector's external costs suddenly internalized again. Even leaving aside a "cow tax," meat will get more expensive and factory farming will become much less economical. Also, just because manure management doesn't immediately fall under cap-and-trade, doesn't mean it will go unregulated in other areas. There may be action from the EPA, even though it would be precluded from acting via the CAA... Also, if the offset system allows credits for capturing that methane, it may be that the carrot of payments to sequester the methane will work as well as the stick of a tax for emitting. Just a thought.

    Permalink

  5. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 4:39 pm
    03 Apr 2009

    Jon,Your link is broken. Hopefully the years of contribution to the Gristmill has not gone the way of the library of Alexandria. That was a very good post as I recall. GHG has a billion point sources.This graph shows why the U.S. contribution to GHG from livestock differs from the global one. Our system does not contribute significantly to new deforestation and we import a very small percentage of the beef consumed here."...If you think agricultural emissions don’t matter, ask yourself if you would feel differently if the bill completely exempted the entire industrial processes sector, and certain emissions from coal mining and petroleum...."This chart breaks down U.S. emissions pretty well. The green squares represent all ag activity responsible for about 8% of GHG in the U.S.I also agree with what Tom said:"...Also, if the offset system allows credits for capturing that methane, it may be that the carrot of payments to sequester the methane will work as well as the stick of a tax for emitting...."Just flaring captured methane without using it for heat or electricity may be worth doing with carbon pricing. Here is a recent local story on this topic:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008857469_sundaybuzz15.htmlLaughing gas comes off fields as a result of nitrogen fertilizer breaking down. This can be minimized with technique although measuring it on a field by field basis can't be done. The Crutzen study found this can make corn ethanol up to 50% worse than gasoline as a GHG source, Canola biodiesel up to 70% worse."...For example, agriculture does play a prominent role in the bill as a source of potential renewable electricity credits with manure digesters and crop biofuels..."What crop biofuels do they intend to make electricity with?     

    Permalink

    1. Jon Rynn's avatar

      Jon Rynn Posted 11:59 am
      05 Apr 2009

      Doh!  Thanks for the head's up, BioD, all my bookmarks are kaput now, shall have to redo.  By the way, if you look, the urls actually make some sense now, it's just that they brake all preceding ones.  For instance, here's the new url for my main GHG gas article:http://www.grist.org/article/Convenient-facts-about-an-inconvenient-truth-part-1 

      Permalink

  6. Maxi's avatar

    Maxi Posted 5:35 pm
    03 Apr 2009

    The fight is better channeled towards fossil fuels and deforestation (90% of all human GHG's) than on cow methane,- what about the human burps and farts contribution?  Actually agriculture appears to be an opportunity towards carbon storage through new farming practices. For example in Australia their are studies on planting and harvesting crops without ripping up land. In these studies carbon storage in the soil has increased by 30% which equate to X amount of tonnes per acre. These studies want agriculture tp part of our domestic emissions trading scheme, not exlcuded.   

    Permalink

  7. Meredith Niles's avatar

    Meredith Niles Posted 2:25 pm
    04 Apr 2009

    Hi Biodiversitist-  in the legislation they define "biomass" as all crop residues, so it could be anything from biodiesel to ethanol from various sources.  Biomass also includes manure digestion.  As well, the way the bill is written right now it only has credits for biomass for the renewable electricity credits, but it is likely that they will be promulgated into offset credits, although that remains to be determined by the administrator.  Anyone can petition the administrator to add or remove an offset program, and the EPA has one year to decide on whether or not such a program will exist.

    Permalink

  8. Tasermons Partner Posted 5:22 pm
    04 Apr 2009

    Though they wouldn't be managed under the bill directly, I imagine that at least some of the offset credits allowed could be used for projects that involve agricultural methane.Eventually though, perhaps it would be best to manage agriculture as a seperate sector as far as GHGs are concerned.  Then again, seperation of industries may lead to more influential lobbyist efforts on behalf of industry...

    Permalink

  9. piglet's avatar

    piglet Posted 1:44 pm
    05 Apr 2009

    A great article! Re Enteric fermentation (i.e. livestock burps and farts); we humans have to be careful about what we fixate on. There a many other sources; blasts from tractors; trucks; buses; that create much more havoc than animal burps and farts. Livestock are mostly natural grazers; we have commercialized them to such a degree that we now have concentrated the problem of animal waste and toxins. To begin bioengineering livestock that does not burp and fart flies in the face of bringing normalization and balance back to nature. We need to change our ways of corporate farming, the use of anti-biotics and artificial hormones in our meat, poultry, eggs, etc. that recycle back into our bodies and waterways and legislate to bring dignity and respect back to our farming, animal and food supply, not change/bioengineer them to suit ourselves. Nature when in balance, means humans in balance.

    Permalink

  10. Enviro-Education's avatar

    Enviro-Education Posted 6:46 pm
    05 Apr 2009

    This article does a great job of illuminating the teflon coating that covers the exterior of the agriculture industry. Regulations just don't seem to stick. The GHG exemption is just a continuation of the numerous exemptions granted to the regulatorily invisible AG industry.

    In the early 1990's agriculture was the only major industry exempted from the first phase of storm water regulations. That set of Clean Water Act regulations created storm water runoff standards for cities greater than 100,000 in population, industrial sites and construction land disturbance. More than 10 years ago the AG community was invited to the table to assist in crafting regulations that all could live with and instead opted to flex their mighty political muscle. Exempting the industry from this comprehensive set of storm water regulations has left the AG with a bit of a problem. Cities, industries and the construction folks have been implementing best management practices (BMP's) for more than a decade. They have been collecting data and have managed to gain some insight into the runoff contributions of each segment that fell under the regulations. Now with the data in, cities, industries, and construction can point to their data when a problem arises and say with authority, "this is not our runoff because we know what is in our runoff and this is not our stuff!" This leaves the AG industry with the rather lame defense that "We need the food and fiber!" No argument here that we need what AG produces, but at what environmental price? Perhaps the storm water and GHG issues combined will finally bring the teflon coated AG industry to the table.

    Permalink

  11. Jeremy Cherfas Posted 2:58 am
    06 Apr 2009

    Excellent article. ThanksCan someone familiar with the bill tell me whether the transport associated with agriculture is subject to cap or not?

    Permalink

    1. Meredith Niles's avatar

      Meredith Niles Posted 6:32 am
      06 Apr 2009

      Hi Jeremy,  Under the bill, non road vehicle standards would be covered under emission standards.  While it does not specifically mention tractors and agriculture equipment, it is likely that non road emission standards would include agricultural equipment.  The bill does not set a specific standard, but leaves such requirements up the EPA administrator.  Non road vehicle standards are something that the Center for Food Safety has been advocating for for a long time, and we filed a legal suit in California last year to advocate for such standards.  Agricultural equipment contributes a notable amount of emissions from this sector, second out of all non road equipment from various industries.
      Perhaps you are also wondering more about how "food mile" emissions would be included in the bill?  If so, there is nothing specific to this area written into the bill, but the bill does include a variety of progressive standards for broader vehicle emissions, including getting the entire country to the California vehicle standard or better.

      Permalink

      1. Jeremy Cherfas Posted 7:09 am
        06 Apr 2009

        Thanks Meredith. I was thinking about transport on roads -- the food miles, if you like.The non-road vehicles is a bonus, I suppose.

        Permalink

  12. Jambutter's avatar

    Jambutter Posted 2:18 pm
    06 Apr 2009

    My guess is that messing with industrial agriculture’s profit model is keeping its emissions out of such legislation. The math is pretty simple. Increasing costs in our food chain will be felt by a lot of powerful interests, as well as citizens, many of who have gotten fat (literally in many cases) on cheap food.Start with commodity crop farmers that ultimately make money on government subsidies to produce raw materials for the industrial food system. Any regulatory change making it more expensive to grow these crops (think emissions related to fertilizers and pesticides) will ultimately burden taxpayers who are already propping up farmers.Next, you run into the industries capitalizing on these subsidized raw materials: livestock and dairy (feed source); and sweeteners, oils and other derivative ingredients found in today’s highly processed foods. Again, as suppliers of materials to value add producers, any increase in their costs will be passed downstream.Then there is the fast food industry, which dominates “away from home” consumer food expenditures, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. More expensive raw ingredients, including ground beef, would have a devastating impact. The same goes for major food manufactures, e.g., Kellogg, General Mills, Coca-Cola.Having said that, I think capping our unsustainable food system's emissions is exactly what we need. It will challenge America's ingenuity to create alternative and sustainable food systems, something I look forward to being part of.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement