A new report being released today says the federal government and private sector have key roles to play in getting more farmers to participate in agricultural carbon markets.
Among other things, the report being released at the annual meeting of the Soil and Water Conservation Society says payments now being offered to farmers are too low and that policies are needed to increase the price of carbon.
There also are arbitrary limits on participation where there is broad adoption of no-till or cover crops, and carbon programs inadequately define what constitutes a “new practice” that qualifies for payments, according to the report by the American Farmland Trust and Sierra View Solutions.
Take note: The report says commitments corporations are making to reduce their carbon footprint will create “increased demand for GHG reductions from agricultural producers, which will send a strong price signal.”
Improving the integrity of the voluntary carbon market could also “increase trust, confidence, and demand, thereby increasing the price of carbon,” the report says.
Cover crop survey suggests payments drive cover crop adoption
Incentive payments may be a significant driver for cover crop adoption, according to a new survey from the USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, the Conservation Technology Information Center and the American Seed Trade Association.
Just under half, or 49%, of the 547 cover crop users surveyed said they received payments for planting cover crops in 2022. But around 90% of these farmers said they would definitely or probably continue planting cover crops after the payments ended.
Take note: Only 8.5% of the cover crop users surveyed had signed up for a private-sector carbon program.
Of those who haven’t, 36% were unfamiliar with carbon markets, while 33% had concerns about long-term commitments, and 32% were worried about insufficient payments.
Truck stops, gas retailers press for tough SAF standard
Trade groups representing truck stops and gasoline retailers are pushing the Treasury Department to adopt a carbon standard for a sustainable aviation fuel tax credit that could make it harder for agricultural feedstocks such as soybean oil to qualify.
The groups — NATSO and SIGMA — argue that the GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model favored by farm and biofuel groups is too different from the International Civil Aviation Organization's model to qualify for use under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Treasury hasn’t made a decision on what model should be used, and other federal agencies reportedly have been divided on the issue.
Take note: A group of lawmakers told Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in June that GREET was “undeniably” a similar methodology to ICAO’s CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) model. They also argue CORSIA “relies on out-of-date, static science and methodologies that unjustifiably penalize U.S. agriculture."’
NRECA blasts EPA power plant proposal
The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is strongly criticizing EPA’s proposed rule to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
“To put it simply, the proposals exceed EPA’s statutory authority and would jeopardize affordable and reliable electricity by mandating nascent, inadequately demonstrated technologies and unachievable emissions limits on an unworkable timeframe,” NRECA says in comments submitted to the agency.
EPA’s proposal is “unrealistic, unachievable, and will reduce key generating resources just as Americans are increasing their reliance on electricity,” NRECA CEO Jim Matheson says.
Regan joins right to repair discussion
EPA Agency Administrator Michael Regan has added his voice to the right to repair debate, saying the Clean Air Act and EPA's implementing regulations “clearly support repair by parties other than manufacturers.”
In a letter to National Farmers Union President Rob Larew, Regan says “nothing in the Clean Air Act or the EPA’s regulations limits a manufacturer’s ability to provide service tools and information to consumers and independent repair facilities for the purpose of repairing their equipment.”
Massachusetts set to impose pork restrictions
A Massachusetts law prohibiting the sale of pork derived from the offspring of sows raised in gestation crates will go into effect Aug. 24, according to an agreement approved this week by a federal judge.
But, but, but: The prohibition will not apply to pork that is shipped from out of state if it is bound for other states. The agreement between the state and industry groups including the Massachusetts Restaurant Association and National Pork Producers stays litigation for six months after the state issues its regulations.
The Restaurant Law Association, one of the groups involved in the litigation, said the rules “will not apply to sales of whole pork meat in Massachusetts when that meat is both farmed and sold to a consumer out-of-state — known as transshipment through Massachusetts.”
Don't miss a beat sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! The latest on what’s happening in Washington, D.C. and around the country in agriculture, just click here.
Like California, Massachusetts passed a law addressing living conditions for swine. The Supreme Court upheld California’s Proposition 12 earlier this year. The federal judge handling the challenge to Massachusetts’ Question 3 stayed the case until after the court’s decision.
Ranchers criticize national monument designation
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is criticizing the Biden administration’s decision to protect more than 1 million acres of land outside Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona as a national monument.
“This designation adds insult to injury for communities that are unheard and intentionally removed from land management conversations. Additionally, the Biden administration failed to communicate with the affected landowners prior to the designation and their so-called public opinion meeting and poll failed to gather perspective from the people most impacted by this decision,” NCBA says.
President Biden made clear the designation was intended to protect a sacred ancestral region for American Indians. Biden said the action would “help right the wrongs of the past and conserve this land of ancestral footprints for all future generations.”
He said it. “That finding that 90% are either definitely or probably going to continue to use cover crops after the incentive payment ends really explodes the myth that farmers only do cover crops when they're paid to do them.” – Rob Myers, director of the University of Missouri’s Center for Regenerative Agriculture, on the cover crop survey.
Noah Wicks, Steve Davies and Jacqui Fatka contributed to this report.
