{"id":36237,"date":"2024-08-27T00:01:41","date_gmt":"2024-08-27T04:01:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=36237"},"modified":"2025-12-11T10:18:55","modified_gmt":"2025-12-11T15:18:55","slug":"carbon-markets-entrench-pesticide-use","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2024\/08\/carbon-markets-entrench-pesticide-use\/","title":{"rendered":"Carbon Markets Entrench Pesticide Use"},"content":{"rendered":"

Image: Art Page<\/a> submission from Max Sano, <\/em>“Maryland Farmland<\/a>“<\/em><\/p>\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, August 27, 2024) A recent entry in the Civil Eats<\/em><\/a> investigative series, \u201cChemical Capture: The Power and Impact of the Pesticide Industry,\u201d 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\u2014including Corteva<\/a> (chlorpyrifos<\/a>) and Bayer<\/a>\/Monsanto<\/a> (glyphosate<\/a>)\u2014have 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).<\/p>\n

The underlying concept of carbon markets began with the emissions trading program as a result of the Kyoto Protocol<\/em> back in the 1990s. \u201cEmissions trading, as set out in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol<\/em>, allows countries that have emission units to spare\u2014emissions permitted them but not “used”\u2014to sell this excess capacity to countries that are over their targets,\u201d according to the United Nations<\/a>. Based on Civil Eats\u2019 <\/em>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. \u201cIndependent\u201d 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<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here.<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n

In Bayer\u2019s 2022 annual report, the company recognizes Climate FieldView for its ability \u201cto 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.\u201d To enter Bayer\u2019s carbon offset program farmers must input on-farm data to Climate FieldView, which \u201crecommends planting protocols and offers product discounts.\u201d 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 2021 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\u2019s decision<\/a> to establish its climate-smart agriculture approach, rather than coordinate with the European Union\u2019s organic agriculture targets for 2030<\/a> 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<\/em>, which set up the conditions for the voluntary carbon trading market for the U.S. agricultural sector. See previous Daily News<\/a> 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<\/a> calling on Congress to vote against this bill and instead support organic farming as the leading framework for U.S. climate action.<\/em><\/p>\n

Both organic and conventional farmers who are navigating the introduction and expansion of carbon offset tools remain concerned \u201cthat carbon markets would inadequately support a full range of beneficial soil management practices,\u201d according to farmer interviews from Hamilton College, included in a report published last year in Nature<\/em><\/a>. 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. \u201cOver 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,\u201d according to surveys from over 500 farmers across 45 states in a 2022 report<\/a> published under the \u201cTrust in Food\u201d<\/a> initiative of the Farm Journal<\/em>. It remains to be seen if carbon markets will have a long-term impact on farmers looking to move beyond fossil fuel dependency.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n