27
Aug
Carbon Markets Entrench Pesticide Use
Image: Art Page submission from Max Sano, “Maryland Farmland“
(Beyond Pesticides, August 27, 2024) A recent entry in the Civil Eats investigative series, “Chemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry,†unpacks the troubling coordination between carbon markets, toxic pesticide products, and industrial agriculture to mutually reframe their business models under the guise of climate-smart agriculture. In recent years, powerful agribusiness corporations—including Corteva (chlorpyrifos) and Bayer/Monsanto (glyphosate)—have made significant progress in becoming leading providers of carbon markets based in the United States. Advocates, farmers, and communities view the misrepresentation of carbon offsets and trading as a climate solution in a strategy that undermines proven alternative systems of agriculture and land management (aka organic).
The underlying concept of carbon markets began with the emissions trading program as a result of the Kyoto Protocol back in the 1990s. “Emissions trading, as set out in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol, allows countries that have emission units to spare—emissions permitted them but not “used”—to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets,†according to the United Nations. Based on Civil Eats’ reporting, Bayer/Monsanto with Climate FieldView and Corteva with its Carbon Solutions program, cite their pesticide products as tools for sustainable agricultural practices, such as no-till/reduced-till agriculture and cover cropping. “Independent†carbon trading platforms, such as Indigo and Nora, have begun partnering with Bayer and Corteva respectively because they view collaboration as an opportunity to expand their services to new clients (e.g., farmers who are trapped in the toxic pesticide dependency treadmill). Beyond Pesticides has covered extensively the greenwashing of no-till and individual regenerative agriculture practices that do not comply with organic principles. (See here, here, here, and here.)
In Bayer’s 2022 annual report, the company recognizes Climate FieldView for its ability “to use novel modeling to make custom product recommendations that are precisely tailored to each individual field. With these insights we can maximize the value of our seed and chemistry portfolio, help farmers expand participation in the carbon markets and food, feed, fiber, and fuel value chains, and lead Bayer toward digitally enabled business models and new opportunities for growth.†To enter Bayer’s carbon offset program farmers must input on-farm data to Climate FieldView, which “recommends planting protocols and offers product discounts.†CropLife International, a pesticide trade association that represents Bayer, Corteva, and other manufacturers of pesticide products, submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2022 emphasizing the recognition of pesticides as a critical tool for climate-smart farming practices as USDA developed its Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program. Organic advocates are concerned that this influenced the Biden Administration’s decision to establish its climate-smart agriculture approach, rather than coordinate with the European Union’s organic agriculture targets for 2030 as a part of its Farm to Fork (F2F) initiative. F2F seeks to slash use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, and move one-quarter of European farmland to organic production by 2030. CropLife International also advocated for the eventually successful passage of the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which set up the conditions for the voluntary carbon trading market for the U.S. agricultural sector. See previous Daily News coverage on the impact of CropLife International in preventing forward-thinking policy to move beyond pesticides within the U.S., as well as an Action of the Week calling on Congress to vote against this bill and instead support organic farming as the leading framework for U.S. climate action.
Both organic and conventional farmers who are navigating the introduction and expansion of carbon offset tools remain concerned “that carbon markets would inadequately support a full range of beneficial soil management practices,†according to farmer interviews from Hamilton College, included in a report published last year in Nature. This sentiment is not just true for a small population pool of row-croppers in New York, but also represents farmer perspectives across the U.S. “Over 70% of farmers did not use or participate in software-based sustainability tools in 2020. The majority might not see carbon credits as a compelling incentive to begin,†according to surveys from over 500 farmers across 45 states in a 2022 report published under the “Trust in Food†initiative of the Farm Journal. It remains to be seen if carbon markets will have a long-term impact on farmers looking to move beyond fossil fuel dependency.
Beyond the specific context of agricultural carbon offset markets, there are numerous reported instances of carbon markets/trading missing the mark or resulting in outright failure:
- The Guardian (2023): “The research into Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn (£1.6bn) voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits – among the most commonly used by companies – are likely to be “phantom credits†and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.â€
- MIT Technology Review (2023): “These projects often harm Indigenous communities and fail to deliver the promised climate benefits. And that’s when they don’t burn down in wildfires, wiping out years of carbon gains in days…. In recent months, corporations including Shell, Nestlé, EasyJet, and Fortescue Metals Group all announced they were backing away from offsets or the claims of carbon neutrality that relied upon them.â€
- Carbon Market Watch (2023): “Offsetting provides an excuse for avoiding real emission reductions and can create a dangerous mirage of ‘climate neutrality’ when emissions are actually rising. . .The two editions of the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor, which Carbon Market Watch publishes together with NewClimate Institute, show that the net zero claims of dozens of corporations are exaggerated and conceal continued high emissions. ‘Net-zero pipe dreams’ demonstrates that fossil fuels cannot claim carbon neutrality. ‘Poor tackling’ casts serious doubt on FIFA’s carbon neutrality claim for the 2022 football World Cup in Qatar. ‘Flights of fancy’ reveals the inadequate climate actions taken by eight major European airlines.â€
As Beyond Pesticides has previously reported in a 2021 Daily News, the mechanisms of carbon markets, or the purchasing of carbon offsets, do not establish an end date for admittedly unacceptable materials and practices, nor do they ensure a transition to life-sustaining practices. Just as there are proposals to end production of the combustion engine and move to electric vehicles, we must demand that agriculture—across the board and on an expedited schedule—shift to organic practices, whose standards are already codified in federal law. As mentioned in their name, carbon markets only focus on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rather on other agricultural emissions that have an outsized impact on the climate crisis, including methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2). Organic production and handling practices have a proven, commercially viable, track record and both sequester carbon and eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. The sector has grown to a $70 billion industry in the roughly two decades of USDA organic certification going into force, according to data from the Organic Trade Association. And, importantly, the Rodale Institute’s 40-year research project on organic and regenerative organic farming systems corroborates findings (see Daily News here and here) that this sector of agriculture is now operating without sacrificing productivity, profitability, or climate and environmental resilience.
See Keeping Organic Strong to learn how to engage in the public input sessions to improve upon the baseline standards outlined in the National Organic Program, including the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances that sets certified organic apart from private standards that do not establish organic as a baseline. Also, note Beyond Pesticides’ efforts to ensure the integrity of organic standards through Take Back Organic. See Parks for a Sustainable Future program to learn how to engage your community in transitioning public parks and playing fields to certified organic.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Civil Eats
