Sunday, 07 March 2021
  6 Replies
  746 Visits
Hi everyone

It looks like the Biden administrations is poised to create a “carbon bank” which would give money to farmers, including big agriculture, in exchange for using regenerative agriculture techniques. There seem to be numerous benefits associated with these techniques including improved soil health, reduced soil erosion, increased water retention, and potentially less chemical inputs. However, what remains unclear is the degree to which regenerative agriculture can sequester carbon. Furthermore, if it fails live-up to the claims, this could mean that big polluters are able to purchase "carbon offsets" that in reality offer little or no benefit for the climate.

Here's an article in the Los Angeles Times outlining some of the issues and concerns.

Surely, they should be doing more research before scaling this program up?
This is the frustrating point. You get very angry rebukes from those connected to the Avory Foundation, and regenerative practitioners that it’s stated in shiny reports and documentaries so it must be true.

I’m pushing for the scientific facts to be put to the forefront. With the introduction of ELMs in the UK I can see a similar situation.
1 year ago
As a Savory trained farmer I have seen impressive, measurable improvements to soil, profits and wildlife from regenerative farming but do not believe carbon trading will benefit farmers to any degree. It has been dreamed to enable industrial carbon emitters to avoid their responsibilities to clean up their acts and earn money for managers of the schemes. Farmers provide an easy link to square the circle.
The scientific facts are there, the Rodale Institute for example has long term records of different cropping regimes and other more recent initiatives are starting to be measured. One of the problems of regenerative farming is that it can mean something different for every practitioner, making it difficult to produce the kind of information the current scientific establishment is comfortable with, although the benefits are all to easy to recognise.
Regenerative, holistically managed farming is worth doing for the benefits it brings on its own, like subsidies carbon trading is ultimately for the profits of others.
1 year ago
Hello Everyone

As mentioned above, regenerative agriculture has many benefits. However, I do not think that it should become part of a carbon trading scheme until there is strong evidence to show how much carbon it can sequester.
1 year ago
Here's another story expressing skepticism about carbon farming:
1 year ago
They might be jumping the gun on this one. There is currently spirited debate about exactly how much carbon can be sequestered by regenerative agriculture. Furthermore, the techniques used from one farm to another vary dramatically, so the results are also likely to vary.

We need more research.

Adam Thyer, Founder at GreenExecutive

1 year ago
Apparently, the EU is planning to launch a carbon farming initiative by the end of 2021.

Adam Thyer, Founder at GreenExecutive

  • Page :
  • 1
There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
© GreenExecutive. All rights reserved.