Ag community divides over climate bill

Soybeans planted using no-till methods over a harvested wheat field.

Many battles loomed large in the debate around federal climate change legislation that passed the House of Representatives in June; yet some, though sizable, simmered under the radar. Agricultural offsets is one such battle, which if the United States adopts climate change legislation, some say could end up being one of the biggest sources of carbon sequestration.

In the end, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) or H.R. 2454 passed the House by just two votes. As is often the case with U.S. energy and climate policy, its passage was threatened not by disagreements between Democrats and Republicans, but by a bipartisan coalition of representatives from the middle of the country, many from so-called “farm states.”

The final bill included an amendment sponsored by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) that addressed concerns of farmers who see the energy bill as a double whammy: higher energy prices and increased operations costs—if farmers were required to reduce their emissions. In the end, Peterson’s amendment passed, and farms—responsible for 6 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—will not be forced to reduce emissions.

Peterson also added a provision that helps farmers avoid higher energy costs by allowing eligible farms to sell offsets they produce. Despite concerns that agricultural offsets’ additionality is difficult to verify, as are their permanence, they were included in ACES as valid emissions credits. Additionally, an extra $1 billion was secured for agricultural producers who reduce greenhouse gas emissions but do not qualify under the offset section of the bill or started reducing emissions prior to 2001, according to American Farmland trust.

Although it is impossible to say how much agricultural offsets might be worth if ACES becomes law, the National Farmers Union Carbon Credit Program trades offsets generated through no-till crop production, conversion of cropland to grass, sustainable management of native rangelands and tree plantings on the Chicago Climate Exchange. It earned more than $8 million in its first two years of operation, according to the Union’s Web site.

Peterson’s amendment also makes the agricultural offset program regulated and enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) instead of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—a decision that was hotly debated on the House floor.