Thus far the
majority of analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill has focused on
the energy components of the bill,
including an extension of nuclear power, “clean coal” from carbon
storage and
sequestration, and offshore drilling expansion. The bill also provides
unprecedented programs for agriculture and food systems in the U.S. and
internationally. Unfortunately, while the bill contains strong language
promoting sustainable agriculture, it also offers support for troubling
agricultural
practices that have yet to significantly prove their capacity to reduce
emissions.

I was at a meeting recently where someone said, “Agriculture
is a culprit, a victim, and a solution,” which poignantly encapsulated
the
challenges and promise of agriculture in the future. Agriculture is
responsible for problematic
emissions — particularly methane and nitrous oxide, which
are generated by manures, livestock, and soil management, including
nitrogen
additions, and are considerably more potent than carbon dioxide.
Agriculture stands to
be greatly affected by climate change, from crop ranges to yields and
water
allocation. Yet farmers can do more than minimize their impact.

So, what does this climate bill ultimately mean for farmers, for the
role of agriculture in the climate debate, and ultimately for
reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?

First and foremost, the K-L bill follows in the footsteps of
the Waxman-Markey legislation, passed last summer, by establishing an
agricultural and forestry offsets program. Last year, the Environmental
Protection Agency predicted
that such a program could provide annual net benefits to farmers as high
as $18
billion — an amount that could fundamentally change the way America
farms. Yet, while these benefits
are attractive, achieving true GHG reductions must mean that legislation
is
incentivizing effective and real practices.