Around one third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from the
way we produce, process, distribute, and consume the food we eat
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Meanwhile, farmers the world over
will be the most affected by climate change, as higher carbon in the
atmosphere and higher temperatures increase erratic weather patterns,
pests, and disease occurrence, while decreasing water availability,
disrupting relationships with pollinators and lowering yield and the
efficacy of herbicides like glyphosate (aka Round-Up)—all detailed in a
revealing new report from the USDA called The Effects of Climate Change on U.S. Ecosystems [pdf].

We should all give the USDA credit for keeping the ties between
agriculture, food, and climate change at the forefront of the
discussion. Even in Copenhagen, where agriculture is getting less
attention than it arguably should be considering its impact and
potential for mitigating climate change, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Tom Vilsack spoke about the need for research, and seeing agriculture
as an opportunity for climate change mitigation. He even said to the
delegates in Copenhagen, “We need to develop cropping and livestock
systems that are
resilient to climate change.” While I agree
on the surface with these statements, taking a deeper look reveals
potentially problematic ideas for just how to do this.

Outlined in Vilsack’s prepared remarks
are a few clues for how the U.S. is looking at adapting agriculture in
the face of climate change. I find it valuable to do a little
point-by-point debunking here, so we can look at the facts again, laid
out so clearly in the USDA report above, and come up with real
solutions. And since the U.S. is responsible for the most greenhouse
gases, and we were the first to adopt intensive agriculture practices,
we have an opportunity to lead the world to a more sustainable future.

No-Till. Here is a classic case of agribusiness
co-opting a perfectly good solution and making it bad (and then
whispering it into the USDA’s ear). Sustainable no-till practices
involve building soil fertility with cover crops, which sequester
carbon, and then turning them into a healthy mulch. No chemicals are
used, and soil fertility increases. This practice is being studied at
places like the Rodale Institute.
The co-opted version, on the other hand, which I’ll refer to as
chemical no-till, is the one touted by Monsanto with it’s Round-Up
Ready seeds, which can be planted and doused with glyphosate—killing
the weeds and not the soybeans. Aside from the fact that superweeds are more and more common as pesticides increase in use,
the life in the soil is also being killed by these chemicals. What this
means is that the earthworms, protozoa, ants and other decomposers that
are actively ‘tilling’ the soil are not there to do so. Furthermore,
bacteria in the soil, like rhizobia, actively fix nitrogen. Without
nitrogen-fixing soil life to intervene, a putrefaction process called
denitrification results in lost soil fertility, as nitrogen is released
as nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. What is totally not funny about
nitrous oxide is the fact that it is
298 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Do you get where I’m going with this? Nitrous oxide may only represent
7.9 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions in total, but it is one
powerful source, coming directly from synthetic agriculture fields.