Crap and trade

Big Ag: give us carbon credit, but don’t cap our emissions 3

Cow buttIt’s a greenhouse gas, gas, gas!

As Congress gears up to consider climate legislation, agribusiness is getting sweaty palms—and for good reason.

A landmark 2007 FAO study credited industrial meat production with nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions—a higher proportion than transportation. Here in the U.S., industrial meat may contribute an even higher portion of total GHG. For example, we produce a fifth of the globe’s chicken and more than half of its turkey, according to one source. We also churn out prodigious amounts of pork and beef.

Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that industrial agriculture may contribute significantly more to climate change than was previously thought. A recent paper (PDF) published by the International Council for Science’s SCOPE offshoot concludes that emissions of nitrous oxide are likely significantly greater that then the levels assumed in earlier assessments. Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas nearly 300 times more potent then carbon; and industrial farming, with its heavy reliance in synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, is by far the largest emitter of nitrous oxide. According to the SCOPE report, scientists—including researchers for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—have long assumed that about 1 percent of nitrogen fertilizer enters the atmosphere as nitrous oxide. But new research claims that 4 percent or as much as 5 percent of nitrogen fertilizer becomes nitrous oxide—meaning that old estimates may be dramatically under counting agriculture’s role in climate change.

This will not be welcome news to the U.S. agribusiness sector. Our biggest crop is corn—a heavy nitrogen feeder. Corn fattens the food industry’s cows, chickens, and pigs, sweetens its sodas and pastries, and generally shows up in nearly everything on the supermarket shelf. And for reasons that no one has ever successfully explained to me, it even increasingly powers oor cars! Here is The Economist reacting to the findings:

Maize, in particular, is described by experts in the field as a “nitrogen-leaky” plant because it has shallow roots and takes up nitrogen for only a few months of the year. This would make maize (which is one of the main sources of biofuel) a particularly bad contributor to global N2O emissions.

Ouch.

Perhaps anticipating draconian fines if serious climate legislation passes, the agribiz lobby has rolled out its climate agenda. It’s a doozy. Honestly, I’ve seen nothing more brazen since AIG execs started stuffing their trousers with government cash after they had made the world’s biggest insurance company a ward of the state. The first two of the “Nine Principles for Climate Legislation” say it all:

1. The agriculture sector must not be subject to an emissions cap.
2. Any cap-and-trade legislation must fully recognize the wide range of carbon mitigation or sequestration benefits that agriculture can provide.

In other words, screw the cap—just give us the trade!!!

Now, societies are going to face serious decisions around food production as climate change proceeds apace. But behaving as though there’s no limit to the emissions that get spewed out to feed ourselves gets us nowhere. A better strategy might be to force agribusiness to pay up for the messes it creates—and give farmers incentives to move to more diversified systems that actually store carbon and eliminate or minimize synthetic fertilizer use. Too bad it’s the scrappy Rodale Foundation, and or Congress, that’s pushing that approach. As Meredith Niles reported here recently, the Waxman/Markey bill now under consideration exempts ag from a GHG cap.

Grist food editor Tom Philpott farms and cooks at Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture nonprofit and small farm in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. Follow my Twitter feed; contact me at tphilpott[at]grist[dot]org.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. max ajl Posted 4:44 pm
    10 Apr 2009

    Tom--I agree with the gist of your post, but am curious about some numbers. You say that industrial meat production may contribute more than a fifth of American total GHG. I don't have a number for that, but I have cited these numbers:http://groups.google.com/group/news-from-will-brownsberger/web/how-much-does-the-u-s-agriculture-sector-contribute-to-climate-change?pli=1in my writing on climate change and agriculture. Not accounting for the change in measuring NO2's contribution to emissions, the number is 10 percent. Where are you drawing your guesses from?by the way: chicken and poultry apparently contribute about 1/60th of the GHG per/calorie that beef production does.
    1. charmingirl Posted 7:35 pm
      23 Nov 2009

      Ultimately, according to ComputerWorld analysts, the cloud computing dilemma will be solved in the same way that it always is in the computer software-buying world.Corporations will not want to begin using a product that is new and scary sexy lingerie.Google. Microsoft still has the infrastructure, the support and, in some semblance, the technical documentation to make corporations feel comfortable in pouring millions of dollars into upgrades.
  2. Stephanie Ogburn's avatar

    Stephanie Ogburn Posted 11:56 pm
    14 Apr 2009

    Tom, I wrote a piece for High Country News that covered the emerging market for carbon payments to farmers and ranchers last year. It's an interesting topic. One thing that I noted while reporting the piece is that in order for senators from ag states to get behind a climate bill, there might have to be concessions, like carbon sequestration dollars paid to farmers, in order for it to pass. I'm not saying it won't be a boondoggle, but these things have been known to happen. Just something to note about our political system.

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?

Advertisement