Robert Bonney, the USDA’s Undersecretary of Agriculture for Agricultural Production and Conservation, says the criticism of the PCSC is not entirely fair. “They are pilots. He points out that many of the funded projects focus on the use of fertilizers. “We’re not afraid of math. We’re really interested in getting our calculations right,” he says.
Bonney says the real challenge is convincing farmers to participate in climate-smart farming. A major focus of the project is to create a climate-friendly agricultural and livestock marketplace, encouraging buyers to pay a premium for products made in an environmentally friendly manner. A top-down regulatory approach could discourage farmers from participating, he said.
For many PCSC projects, USDA funding is supplemented by funding from food companies that purchase beef, corn, soybeans, and other agricultural products. One PCSC project run by the Iowa Soybean Council includes his $62.1 million corporate payments from companies like PepsiCo, Cargill, Target, JBS and Coca-Cola. This is a relatively new form of carbon accounting called insetting, where companies make carbon offset payments within their supply chains.
Insets are growing in popularity, but they suffer from many of the same problems as offsets, says Siblig Smit of the New Climate Institute, a climate policy and global sustainability nonprofit based in Germany. It can be difficult to assess whether the insets will have any envisioned benefits, and sequestering carbon will reduce emissions at source, especially if it helps sustain carbon-intensive industries. Less desirable than reducing emissions. Livestock are the second largest source of emissions in U.S. agriculture, so reducing meat and dairy consumption is an obvious way to cut emissions, Smit said. “As a society, we are really afraid to touch our consumption patterns,” she says.
The USDA plan is in trouble. It is supposed to reduce emissions but seeks to achieve it in a way that keeps farmers engaged and doesn’t fundamentally change the commodities they produce. “We will continue to produce beef and dairy products, and our job is to find ways to work with these producers to reduce our greenhouse gas impact as much as possible. Find out,” says Bonnie.
In practice, this means that a large amount of money from PCSC will be spent on growing soybeans and corn, much of which will end up in ethanol for livestock feed or biofuel. . Cover crops are good for soil health, but whether they can lead to long-term carbon storage is uncertain at best. At worst, the United States could avoid fundamental changes in food production that could actually reduce emissions.
