Carbon Markets
Carbon markets involve the buying and selling of carbon credits or carbon offsets. These credits can then be used to support a wide range of projects that claim to sequester carbon, including tree planting or leaving mature forests intact, low-emissions agriculture, renewable energy projects, biodigesters, and carbon capture and storage projects, among others.
Carbon markets claim to work through “net zero” emissions. The idea of net zero is based on the incorrect assumption that corporations, countries, or other institutions can invest in enough carbon sequestration activities to effectively cancel out their emissions. For example, massive meat and dairy corporations can purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions, claiming to pursue the goal of reaching net zero even as their emissions increase.
However, carbon markets (and net zero) do not work. First and foremost, they unfairly place the burden onto producers, while allowing large food and farm corporations to present themselves as “sustainable” without changing their own practices. Second, they do not actually reduce emissions: they allow the emissions of the worst polluters to continue unabated and therefore reduce incentives for developing lower-polluting practices. Additionally, land-based carbon projects often threaten small-scale and BIPOC farmers’ already limited access to land. For example, efforts to reserve large tracts of forested land often target Indigenous territories, placing new kinds of pressures on Tribal land management and increasing the potential for corporate land speculation and land grabs. Overall, carbon markets have a poor track record in meeting climate goals and can exacerbate social and environmental inequities.
Biodigesters
Biodigesters (also known as methane digesters or anaerobic digesters) are systems that convert large amounts of animal manure into products like fuel and fertilizer. To function properly, biodigesters need huge amounts of manure, and are only suitable for CAFOs (massive feedlots with large numbers of animals), which produce high emissions of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas, as well as contaminating soil, air, and groundwater with pathogens, antibiotics, and other pollutants. Because biodigesters are extremely expensive to install and maintain, USDA programs like EQIP, the Conservation Loan program, and the Value-Added Producer Grant have offered taxpayer-funded support to large-scale producers to offset the costs of installing biodigesters.
But biodigesters come with a host of environmental problems. They can contribute to air pollution and continued emissions, particularly if the gas is then burned as a source of fuel. They divert only a small percentage of waste streams from CAFOs, doing little to address contamination. Additionally, methane produced from animal waste is low in energy; to produce sufficient amounts of energy, biodigesters need additional biomass, which requires even more acreage devoted to feed grains. Biodigesters are also unnecessary. Techniques like manure spreading avoid many of the issues with methane emissions that biodigesters claim to address, and do so at a lower cost.
Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)
Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects redirect carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from industrial operations into underground reservoirs, where it can be stored and reused. Much of the CO2 captured in existing CCUS projects is used in the fertilizer industry and in the process of extracting oil from already-depleted reserves. To transport and store CO2, these projects also rely on the creation of pipelines, which raise risks of land seizure and contamination. Past farm bill negotiations have moved to allow carbon capture technologies to access USDA loan and grant programs, but after decades of experimentation and implementation, CCUS remains too cumbersome and costly to make a meaningful or timely contribution in the transition to renewable energy and diverts attention from more effective and scalable solutions.
Digital and precision agriculture
Digital and precision agriculture has promised to use Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain technology, drones, and various apps to further mechanize farming and monitor field conditions. Proponents claim that these technologies will reduce the environmental and climate impact of agriculture by allowing for more precise doses of fertilizers and pesticides and better water management, but the reality is that they rely on massive data centers and technologies that have very high levels of emissions and other environmental impacts. They are also too expensive and impractical for many farmers, mostly benefiting larger operators with more financial resources and commercial connectivity. Additionally, digital agriculture technologies raise serious concerns about data ownership and privacy, due to the involvement of third parties and data managers.
