I love apples. It doesn't take any knowledge of science to enjoy their crisp, juicy sweetness. This goes for the rest of my food. When I eat rice, I don't think about the way it was grown or the effect that has on waterfowl habitat.
At least I didn't before I began to learn about agriculture and climate change.
As a consumer, what I choose matters. Lately my choices have been influenced by studies showing that higher CO2 levels reduce protein and minerals in plants. I'm concerned about other effects of climate change, like more extreme storms, droughts and wildfires. Not only do we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases, we have to find ways to sequester carbon already in the atmosphere. The most viable way to do this is through agriculture and forestry.
I'm not alone. An October 2017 report from the Yale Program on Climate Communication found 72 percent of registered voters believe global warming is happening.
When food-buying choices reflect concern about climate change, corporate America notices, and many corporations are touting sound environmental practices in a marketing campaign called "Climate Smart." It's good for business. Pressure is put on the farmer to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but, according to Arkansas rice farmer Mark Isbell, corporate buyers ask if grains and rice are sustainably farmed, yet they aren't willing to pay more for it.
My choices as a consumer would have an effect on that.
Farmers know and love the ground they farm. They are concerned about keeping the land productive to meet the needs of a growing population. Many have been practicing conservation techniques for years such as cover-cropping, biodiversity in planting, no-till, wet-dry alternate irrigation in rice farming, and rotational grazing--techniques that improve the soil, reduce water and fertilizer usage, reduce methane emissions, sequester carbon and are more harmonious with surrounding habitat (those waterfowl).
Farmers experience the effects of changes in the climate, but they may or may not call it climate change. They may share love of the soil and dedication to farming, but may have different, even competing, interests and attitudes.
A cap-and-trade bill including payment to farmers for "eco-system" services, such as the above-mentioned conservation practices, was hotly debated in Congress in 2009. The bill was supported by some progressive and other farm groups, but was opposed by the American Farm Bureau, which claimed that the cost of a carbon offset would cause the cost of farm supplies to rise, so farmers would be lucky to break even.
The cap-and-trade bill known popularly as Waxman-Markey passed the House, but then the conservative airwaves exploded with false claims about it, and the bill never made it to the Senate. The story is too complicated for this op-ed, but The Elephant in the Cornfield by Chris Clayton gives a thorough history. However, it can be said that so far Congress has not been able to enact a national policy to address climate change. Where will we find our heroes?
There are about 20 farmers in Arkansas and California who are participating in a program to sell carbon credits in the form of offsets for reduction of methane emissions. The carbon credits are bought by Microsoft, a participant in California's Cap and Trade program. The program is funded by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service under the Conservation Innovation Grant program, put into the 2002 farm bill. (Look up "U.S. Farmers Earn World's First Carbon Credits from Rice Cultivation.")
Two more types of sustainable agriculture credits are in the making, one for farming with reduced fertilizer and one for raising cattle on natural grasslands. Mark Isbell, one of the Arkansas rice farmers who, along with his father Chris, is an early adopter, sees the possibility of more carbon offsets down the road, though he is really more interested in the benefits of sustainable farming, saying, "Carbon credits are another step toward defining what it means to engage in sustainable agriculture."
Chris Isbell says (in an article by the NRCS CIG program, with supporting information from EDF), "While the carbon credits program is important, the credits themselves are not our central concern. Three other concepts are involved. No. 1, it's the idea of potential--one thing leads to another. There are multiple opportunities involved, like saving water. No. 2, the program fosters an ongoing relationship with researchers. That's critical. And thirdly, it's the right thing to do. If we can do the right thing but choose not to do it, well, that's not a good thing, is it?"
Mark Isbell will be speaking at a Farm Talk Forum at 1:45 p.m. on Feb 17 during the Citizens' Climate Lobby Regional Conference in Fort Smith. He will be joined by rice methane researcher Kosana Suvocarev, Sara Brown from Heifer International, organic rice farmer Jennifer Wells, and Guy Ames, who will tell us about those crisp, sweet apples. For more information, check the registration page at tinyurl.com/Climateconf2018. The registration deadline is Feb. 2.
------------v------------
Shelley Buonaiuto of Fayetteville is a member of Citizens' Climate Lobby.
Editorial on 01/19/2018