<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Waxman-Markey, meet House Ag Committee]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Stephanie Ogburn http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-waxman-markey-ag/ Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:03:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-waxman-markey-ag/1 I guess what I'm really concerned about is if agricultural offsets are a legitimate way to combat climate change. Is anyone talking about this? It's natural that farmstate senators want their constituents to get paid money for slightly changing their practices. They get paid money right now for a lot of silly things (and some not-so-silly practices too, like CRP). What's worrisome is that these practices might be counted as carbon offsets and real steps toward mitigating climate change. What if they're not? That's what's problematic. I do believe that farmers can sequester soil carbon, but it's difficult to measure what they're sequestering and the scale and payment size are also problematic, and perhaps not the best focus for a climate change bill. But, of course, we have to play politics and please the constituents.

]]> I guess what I'm really concerned about is if agricultural offsets are a legitimate way to combat climate change. Is anyone talking about this? It's natural that farmstate senators want their constituents to get paid money for slightly changing their practices. They get paid money right now for a lot of silly things (and some not-so-silly practices too, like CRP). What's worrisome is that these practices might be counted as carbon offsets and real steps toward mitigating climate change. What if they're not? That's what's problematic. I do believe that farmers can sequester soil carbon, but it's difficult to measure what they're sequestering and the scale and payment size are also problematic, and perhaps not the best focus for a climate change bill. But, of course, we have to play politics and please the constituents.

]]> Comment #2 by schahczenski http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-waxman-markey-ag/ Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:23:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-waxman-markey-ag/2 Exactly Stephanie!

We also have many good federal conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) which be a much better and cost effective way to assist agriculture GHG emission mitigation, without this greenwashing ploy.

]]> Exactly Stephanie!

We also have many good federal conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) which be a much better and cost effective way to assist agriculture GHG emission mitigation, without this greenwashing ploy.

]]> Comment #3 by Avelhingst http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-waxman-markey-ag/ Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:28:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-waxman-markey-ag/3 There is no doubt, actually, about the benefits of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils.  In fact, working to increase this sequestration should be done in lieu of direct payments; a quid pro quo sort of thing, perhaps.  Also - the casual manner in which some commenters have dissmessed no-till agriculture as enslaved to the chemical industry disturbs me.  No-till farming shows, time and time again, a HOST of benefits to the soil, to the farmer, and to the airs and waters.  The vast majority of no-till acreage relies on the use of glyphosate - possibly one of the most benign herbicides widely available.  Now, I do not advocate the wholesale dependence on any chemical in our food system AT ALL.  Rewarding no-till without respect to 'chemical this or that' and funding research into no-till alternative methods may prove to increase the palatability of this agricultural technology to the histrionic no-chemical folks.

In all seriousness, the EPA should be the body that calculates and monitors carbon sequestration in agricultural soils; the USDA could do it, admirably, but setting up such a monitoring program right now seems likely to fall under the sway of certain powerful interests rather than the interests of the nation as a whole. 

]]> There is no doubt, actually, about the benefits of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils.  In fact, working to increase this sequestration should be done in lieu of direct payments; a quid pro quo sort of thing, perhaps.  Also - the casual manner in which some commenters have dissmessed no-till agriculture as enslaved to the chemical industry disturbs me.  No-till farming shows, time and time again, a HOST of benefits to the soil, to the farmer, and to the airs and waters.  The vast majority of no-till acreage relies on the use of glyphosate - possibly one of the most benign herbicides widely available.  Now, I do not advocate the wholesale dependence on any chemical in our food system AT ALL.  Rewarding no-till without respect to 'chemical this or that' and funding research into no-till alternative methods may prove to increase the palatability of this agricultural technology to the histrionic no-chemical folks.

In all seriousness, the EPA should be the body that calculates and monitors carbon sequestration in agricultural soils; the USDA could do it, admirably, but setting up such a monitoring program right now seems likely to fall under the sway of certain powerful interests rather than the interests of the nation as a whole. 

]]> Comment #4 by Stephanie Ogburn http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-waxman-markey-ag/ Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:11:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-12-waxman-markey-ag/4 I'm not saying that agricultural soils can't sequester carbon or that the ability of changes in mgmt practices to increase carbon sequestration is not comprehensively documented. I am saying that it's hard to measure and varies greatly depending on environmental conditions and farmer practices. I agree that increasing soil carbon should be incentivized, but am unsure if the science and policy support agricultural carbon offsets as the mechanism to create a reliable, efficient, and effective means of capturing carbon in the soil.

]]> I'm not saying that agricultural soils can't sequester carbon or that the ability of changes in mgmt practices to increase carbon sequestration is not comprehensively documented. I am saying that it's hard to measure and varies greatly depending on environmental conditions and farmer practices. I agree that increasing soil carbon should be incentivized, but am unsure if the science and policy support agricultural carbon offsets as the mechanism to create a reliable, efficient, and effective means of capturing carbon in the soil.

]]>