![]() Sign up for EUobserver’s daily newsletterĪll the stories we publish, sent at 7.30 AM.īy signing up, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Many US farmers are concerned about who controls that data and who is benefiting. These schemes also require farmers to share enormous amounts of data about what is happening on their farm, including annual information about planting, seeds, fertiliser use, equipment and harvest. For example, it is still not clear what the legal obligations and risks to renters are, and how long-term credit obligations may affect the sale of farmland. High costs for project developers and farmers to run these schemes means that these offset projects have primarily benefited large-scale farms, raising concerns that corporate investment in carbon markets will contribute to further consolidation of agricultural land and disadvantage small to mid-sized farmers.Īdditional issues arise for farmers who are renting land, including who owns credits that are generated. An Arkansas rice farmer explained to Congress that he only made $133 on 200 acres put into a carbon credit project, which is not nearly enough to justify the project. It has also been difficult for carbon consultants to convince US farmers that these projects make economic sense.Ĭarbon credit schemes that are more robust in monitoring, reporting and verification are costly for farmers to adopt. From the ease with which carbon is lost from soils, the lack of accurate measurement to the economic risk for farmers, there are several reasons to be sceptical about these schemes.įor instance, an emerging body of research calls into question whether establishing credible, high integrity soil carbon offsets is possible given the complexities and uncertainty in measuring soil carbon.Īn analysis of soil carbon testing found that typical testing practices overestimate the level of sequestration by sampling too close to the surface.Īnother study found that rising temperatures predicted by climate change will release carbon from the soil much faster than previously predicted, thereby unravelling sequestration that has occurred. Carbon farming credits have been in existence there for more than a decade without making a meaningful impact on climate action. Second, the commission should learn from the US experience. It must not serve as a loophole for big polluters to hide their emissions. The framework must therefore not become a distraction from this existential task. Emissions must rapidly come down this decade for a chance to limit unsustainable temperature rise. However, before the release of its proposed carbon removals legislation on November 30th, the Commission must address several issues that stand in the way of aligning European farming with the EU's climate ambitions.įirst, the IPCC's latest assessment unequivocally states that removals cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |