SOIL
CARBON AND CLIMATE CHANGE NEWS
From
Consortium for Agricultural Soils
Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases (CASMGS)
http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu
Charles W. Rice, K-State Department of
Agronomy, National CASMGS Director
(785) 532-7217 cwrice@ksu.edu
Scott Staggenborg, K-State Department of
Agronomy (785) 532-7214 sstaggen@ksu.edu
Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications (785)
532-7105 swatson@ksu.edu
June 25, 2009
No. 70
Research:
* Carbon sequestration on
land converted from rainforest to cropland in
* Key climate indicators show
alarming trend
National:
* Climate change already having impact in
* Agriculture’s
Input on Waxman/Markley Climate Change Legislation
* EPA
Indicates willingness to collaborate with USDA in GHG offset program
**********
carbon sequestration on land
converted from
rainforest to cropland in
The introduction of crop
management practices after conversion of Amazon Cerrado into cropland
influences soil C stocks and has direct and indirect consequences on greenhouse
gases (GHG) emissions. The aim of this study by J.L.N. Carvalho and associates
at the Universidade de São Paulo, in São Paulo, Brazil (published in the May
2009 issue of Soil and Tillage Research) was to quantify soil C sequestration,
through the evaluation of the changes in C stocks, as well as the GHG fluxes (N2O
and CH4) during the process of conversion of Cerrado into
agricultural land in the southwestern Amazon region, comparing no-tillage and
conventional tillage systems.
Research abstract:
We collected samples from
soils and made gas flux measurements in July 2004 (the dry season) and in
January 2005 (the wet season) at six areas: Cerrado, conventional tillage
cultivated with rice for 1 year and 2 years and no-tillage cultivated with
soybean for 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years, in each case after a 2-year period of
rice under conventional tillage. Soil samples were analyzed in both seasons for
total organic C and bulk density.
The soil C stocks, corrected
for a mass of soil equivalent to the 0–30-cm layer under Cerrado, indicated
that soils under no-tillage had generally higher C storage compared to native
Cerrado and conventional tillage soils. The annual C accumulation rate in the
conversion of rice under conventional tillage into soybean under no-tillage was
0.38 Mg ha−1 year−1.
Although CO2
emissions were not used in the C sequestration estimates to avoid double
counting, we did include the fluxes of this gas in our discussion. In the wet
season, CO2 emissions were twice as high as in the dry season and
the highest N2O emissions occurred under the no-tillage system.
There were no CH4 emissions to the atmosphere (negative fluxes) and
there were no significant seasonal variations. When N2O and CH4
emissions in C-equivalent were subtracted (assuming that the measurements made
on 4 days were representative of the whole year), the soil C sequestration rate
of the conversion of rice under conventional tillage into soybean under no-tillage
was 0.23 Mg ha−1 year−1.
Although there were positive
soil C sequestration rates, our results do not present data regarding the full
C balance in soil management changes in the Amazon Cerrado.
-- Soil and Tillage Research, May 2009, Volume 103, Issue 2,
pg 342-349
**********
Key climate indicators
show alarming trend
Key climate indicators such
as global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise and extreme climatic events
are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which
contemporary society and economy have developed. This is one of the key
messages of a report presented by leading scientists in
The report has six key
messages:
Key Message 1:
Climatic Trends
Recent observations show
that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near
the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections. Many key climate
indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within
which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. These
indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global
ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme
climatic events. With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely
accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic
shifts.
Key Message 2:
Social and environmental disruption
The research community
provides much information to support discussions on “dangerous climate change”.
Recent observations show that societies and ecosystems are highly vulnerable to
even modest levels of climate change, with poor nations and communities,
ecosystem services and biodiversity particularly at risk. Temperature rises
above 2°C will be difficult for contemporary societies to cope with, and are
likely to cause major societal and environmental disruptions through the rest
of the century and beyond.
Key Message 3:
Long-term strategy – Global Targets and Timetables
Rapid, sustained, and
effective mitigation based on coordinated global and regional action is
required to avoid “dangerous climate change” regardless of how it is defined.
Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk of serious impacts, including the
crossing of tipping points, and make the task of meeting 2050 targets more
difficult and costly. Setting a credible long-term price for carbon and the
adoption of policies that promote energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies
are central to effective mitigation.
Key Message 4:
Equity Dimensions
Climate change is having,
and will have, strongly differential effects on people within and between
countries and regions, on this generation and future generations, and on human
societies and the natural world. An effective, well-funded adaptation safety
net is required for those people least capable of coping with climate change
impacts, and equitable mitigation strategies are needed to protect the poor and
most vulnerable. Tackling climate change should be seen as integral to the
broader goals of enhancing socioeconomic development and equity throughout the
world.
Key Message 5:
Inaction is inexcusable
Society already has many
tools and approaches – economic, technological, behavioral, and managerial – to
deal effectively with the climate change challenge. If these tools are not
vigorously and widely implemented, adaptation to the unavoidable climate change
and the societal transformation required to decarbonize economies will not be
achieved. A wide range of benefits will flow from a concerted effort to achieve
effective and rapid adaptation and mitigation. These include job growth in the
sustainable energy sector; reductions in the health, social, economic and
environmental costs of climate change; and the repair of ecosystems and revitalization
of ecosystem services.
Key Message 6:
Meeting the Challenge
If the societal
transformation required to meet the climate change challenge is to be achieved,
then a number of significant constraints must be overcome and critical opportunities
seized. These include reducing inertia in social and economic systems; building
on a growing public desire for governments to act on climate change; reducing
activities that increase greenhouse gas emissions and reduce resilience (e.g.
subsidies); and enabling the shifts from ineffective governance and weak
institutions to innovative leadership in government, the private sector and
civil society. Linking climate change with broader sustainable consumption and
production concerns, human rights issues and democratic values is crucial for
shifting societies towards more sustainable development pathways.
A complete list of abstracts
for the scientific presentations at the
http://www.iop.org/EJ/volume/1755-1315/6
-- ScienceDaily, June 18,
2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618085750.htm
**********
Climate change already
having impact in
The U.S. Global Change Research Program released a report on June
17 explaining how climate change is already having an impact in the
Hotter temperatures, an
increase in heavy rain events, and rising sea levels are among the effects of “unequivocal”
warming, concludes the report. Winters are now shorter and warmer than they
were 30 years ago, with the largest temperature rise -- more than 7 degrees
Fahrenheit -- observed in the Midwest and northern
The report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the
Among the main findings are:
* Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing
threats to human health and quality of life. Extreme heat will also affect
transportation and energy systems, and crop and livestock production.
* Increased heavy downpours will lead to more flooding, waterborne
diseases, negative effects on agriculture, and disruptions to energy, water,
and transportation systems.
* Reduced summer runoff and increasing water demands will create
greater competition for water supplies in some regions, especially in the West.
* Rising water temperatures and ocean acidification threaten coral
reefs and the rich ecosystems they support. These and other climate-related
impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems will have major implications for
tourism and fisheries.
* Insect infestations and wildfires are already increasing and are
projected to increase further in a warming climate.
The full report is available at: http://www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts
**********
Agriculture’s
Climate Change Legislation
The Waxman/Markey House bill on climate change (H.R. 2454,
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009), which would establish a
cap-and-trade system in the
On June 11, the full House Committee on Agriculture heard
from several agricultural representatives on this legislation. The following is
a summary of each statement presented at the hearing:
American Farm
Bureau Federation (AFBF): Bob Stallman
Statement
summary: AFBF is very concerned about the broad potential
adverse impacts of the proposed cap-and-trade legislation on agriculture. Even
though some say agriculture will benefit, that will depend to a great degree on
where the producer is located, what he or she grows, and how his or her
business model can take advantage of any provisions in the legislation. Not
every dairy farmer can afford to capture methane – it is a capital intensive
endeavor. Not every farmer lives in a region where wind turbines are an option.
Not every farmer can take advantage of no-till.
Not every farmer has the land to set aside to plant trees.
Yet, every farmer has production costs to meet. Nearly all farmers rely on fertilizer. We all drive tractors. We know our costs will rise. And frankly, we are very concerned about the impact of this legislation on our livelihood.
Agriculture will incur higher fuel, fertilizer and
energy costs as a result of this legislation. In addition, agriculture and forestry have a very important and
unique role with regard to the development and implementation of any climate
change and energy policy. Neither of these factors has been considered in the current bill.
We
identify below areas where the bill is deficient, and how this committee might
address those deficiencies.
1.
Legislation should ensure that farmers and ranchers are not put at a
competitive disadvantage in international trade. The increased fuel, fertilizer
and energy costs that will result from H.R. 2454 will greatly impact the
relationship of American producers with the rest of the world.
2. Any cap and trade legislation must recognize the important role that
agriculture can play in carbon reduction schemes. There are a number of
identified agricultural and livestock practices that have been proven to reduce
or sequester GHG. These range from conservation tillage, forest management,
nutrition management, even afforestation. Climate policy should allow farmers
and ranchers to adopt these practices to provide offset credits to capped
entities. Adoption of these practices also provides other environmental
benefits besides carbon reduction or sequestration. These other benefits may
include reduced soil erosion, improved wildlife habitat, or increased water
quality, to name a few. H.R. 2454 is totally deficient in this regard. The bill
should: (a) specifically include the full range of agricultural GHG reduction
or sequestration projects as eligible offsets, (b) give the USDA the primary role in administering
agricultural offsets and other carbon reduction or sequestration projects, and
(c) allow early adopters to participate in an offsets program.
3. Offsets do not shield producers from adverse impacts of
this legislation.
Other
concerns: A number of agricultural sectors will not benefit from offsets. Most
fruit and vegetable producers will not qualify for offsets. Western ranchers
whose operations are heavily dependent on the use of federal lands for
livestock forage also have very limited offset opportunities. Many areas of the
West in general that are coal-dependent are also the areas that have limited
offset opportunities. Not all areas of the country are able to productively
adopt conservation tillage practices, thus restricting their offset
possibilities. Yet, these producers will incur the same increased fuel,
fertilizer and energy costs as their counterparts.
Also,
revenue from offsets will only defray a portion of the increased input costs
resulting from this bill. As the price of carbon and offsets rise, producer
input costs will rise as well. This does not even account for the adverse
effects on competition or offset transaction costs that will result from this
bill.
AFBF has long been a
proponent of renewable fuels and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). We believe
biofuels are key components to increase our nation’s energy security. AFBF has
strong concerns with the notice of proposed rulemaking offered by EPA related
to biofuels. Our members have serious concerns about the terms “indirect land
use change” and “lifecycle carbon emissions” and how these concepts would be
measured and implemented.
The Fertilizer Institute: Ford B. West
Statement summary: Farmers can play a very important role in the
reduction of emissions related to climate change. Best management practices
including low-till and no-till farming, as well as farmers' use of the right
fertilizer product, at the right rate, right time, and right place, all
contribute to increasing the carbon content of soils, reducing erosion,
boosting crop yields, and significantly reducing GHG emissions.
For the domestic fertilizer
industry to remain competitive, while operating under the proposed cap-and-trade
policy, the industry will need to achieve even greater efficiencies, which is
problematic due to the fact that there will be a time when the industry’s
efficiency gains will eventually be limited.
Adding to this problem is
the potential for the proposed legislation to encourage a number of utilities
to turn to natural gas as an alternative for generating electricity, which may
drive up the price of that commodity. Natural gas is a feedstock that is
required for the production of nitrogen fertilizers and the
Since 2000, the
As a result, the proposed
climate change bill could place the domestic fertilizer industry at a
competitive disadvantage compared to global fertilizer producers who are not
operating under a cap-and-trade system and who have access to plentiful
supplies of cheap natural gas. This could force the domestic fertilizer
industry overseas to countries that have no carbon reduction policies in place.
Congress must tread cautiously and consider the fact that without dramatic
changes, the current climate change bill will render the
First Environment: Steve Ruddell
Statement summary: First
Environment is an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited
verification company that conducts greenhouse gas and offset project
verifications for voluntary market programs like The Climate Registry, the
Voluntary Carbon Standard, and the Chicago Climate Exchange.
Regarding the role of
forests in mitigating climate change, a primary goal in a
1)
manage their lands for increasing carbon sequestration and storage,
2)
avoid conversion to other land uses,
3)
encourage sustainable forestry practices that have transformed public and
private forestry in the
4)
support the complementary relationships between forest carbon offset markets
and the provision of forest ecosystem services.
While forests have
tremendous potential to sequester carbon, this can only be tapped if the rules
for their participation in these markets are workable. In the current form of
the proposed legislation, there is a tremendous lack of clarity in how the EPA
might interpret the legislation, and there is no clear recognition that EPA
will even develop the opportunity for forests to play in offset markets. This
must be improved to give the needed market signals and reassurance that forests
will be part of any emission reduction scheme and that the rules will be
workable.
Specifically:
- All
private forests should be able to participate. Any
- Strong
USDA role. A
- Clear recognition
of forest project types. The
current legislation gives EPA tremendous discretion on the development of
project types. To provide assurance to the market and to those who want to
participate, and to ensure timely development and implementation of offset
project rules, it is critical the legislation provide clear direction to
EPA to develop offset project rules for forests projects including
afforestation, reforestation, improved forest management with appropriate
crediting for wood products, and avoided deforestation. With a strong USDA
role in offset rule development, this issue would not be as big of a
concern, given its expertise in forestry.
- Recognize
and reward early action. Early
action taken to develop and trade offset projects in the current voluntary
markets must not be ignored.
- Environmental
integrity standards must be workable for forest. Again, if we focus on the primary goal of
keeping forests as forests, providing an economic reason for landowners to
keep their land in trees, we must ensure that market opportunities create
this economic reason and ensure broad forest participation. Standards such
as baselines, additionally, leakage, and permanence, must all be workable.
Unfortunately, my read of the current legislation is that there is a
complete lack of clarity as to whether these standards will work for
landowners.
- Third
party verification will ensure program integrity. Third party
verification conducted by verifiers accredited by national standards
setting bodies, such as ANSI, to internationally approved standards, (ISO
14065 standard), will provide Congress with assurances that offset project
emission reductions traded within an emissions trading system have
integrity.
National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD): Earl
Garber
Statement summary: NACD believes that soil
carbon sequestration offers one of the better near-term, readily-available,
emissions reductions technologies available to society now and can offer income
generation to farmers and land managers while providing cost-containment to
cap-and-trade policies. We recognize that a carbon offset program must be
correctly structured and managed to allow for agriculture producer and forest
landowner participation.
USDA
should have a primary, leadership role in establishing agriculture and forestry
offsets technology and policy. USDA has the field expertise and research
capabilities to determine proper sequestration methods and establish
appropriate standards for carbon offsets. NRCS worked with the Chicago Climate
Exchange (CCX) in setting up the pilot agricultural carbon offset program and
provided the standards for BMP’s that also sequester carbon. Today, verifiers
under that system utilize NRCS practice standards in performing verification.
We encourage continuation of this model under any climate legislation.
It
is very important that Congress not overlook the important for work that has
already been undertaken and does not take actions to adversely impact ongoing
conservation activities. Early actors that have undertaken soil carbon
sequestration, methane capture, etc., must be recognized in any climate
legislation. Those participating under voluntary carbon trading programs such
as the CCX, must be included in any offset program developed under climate
legislation.
Producers
and forest landowners who might not be able to participate due to economies of
scale should also have an opportunity for participate in a supplemental carbon
sequestration program. A supplemental incentives program, funded through
allowance awards and run by USDA, will reach beyond what can be accomplished
through offset markets.
Climate
legislation should include dedicated allowances to support supplemental
incentives for
Continuing
research into adaptation techniques and practices for agriculture must be
included in climate legislation.
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA): Fred Yoder
Statement summary: NCGA has identified several priorities which are
critical elements to the agricultural sector within cap-and-trade legislation.
Unfortunately, very few of these priorities have been addressed by H.R. 2454 as
reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
1. NCGA
commends the authors of the legislation for not subjecting the agricultural
sector to an emissions cap. We urge Congress to maintain this exemption as the
legislation makes its way through the House and Senate.
2. Congress
should fully recognize the wide range of carbon mitigation or sequestration
benefits that agriculture can provide. This could include sequestration of
carbon on agricultural lands, reduction of emissions from livestock through
dietary improvements and manure management, introduction of nitrogen and other
fertilizer efficiency technologies and a variety of other practices.
3. Congress
should structure a cap-and-trade system that delivers an offsets program where
the value exceeds the cost to farmers and ranchers. H.R. 2454 currently falls
short of this goal since there is little assurance in the legislation that
agriculture offsets will be eligible for participation in a trading market.
4. It is important to provide an initial list of project types
that are considered eligible agricultural offsets. Although the House Energy
and Commerce Committee provided a list of project types in report language,
there are no statutory provisions in H.R. 2454 which would require the
development of protocols and standards for agricultural offsets.
5. USDA should
play a prominent role in developing standards and administering the program for
agricultural offsets.
6. An
important component of creating a successful cap-and-trade system is ensuring
that domestic offsets are not artificially limited. The goal should be to
remove as much greenhouse gas from the atmosphere as possible. Artificial caps
could prevent legitimate carbon sequestration, livestock methane capture, and
manure gasification projects from occurring.
7. USDA should
establish measurement rates for various offset practices at the national or
regional level. NCGA believes in a standards-based approach rather than a
project-based approach for measuring offsets. Real, verifiable credits can be
achieved without direct measurement of each individual offset project; however,
third-party auditing can be employed to ensure the credibility of the
system.
8. It is
important to emphasize the concept of contract duration rather than a literal
definition of “permanence.” The value of the carbon credit would likely have a
strong correlation to the length of the contract. For instance, longer contract
periods imply more risk for the seller and should result in a higher
price.
9. NCGA feels
strongly that agricultural practices commenced on or after January 1, 1991,
should be considered additional and contributory to meeting the goals of the
treaty. We are not recommending credits for carbon sequestration that occurred
between 1991 and 2009. However, it is imperative that growers who initiated GHG
mitigation practices during that timeframe not be prohibited from participating
in a carbon offset market in the future. The House Energy and Commerce
Committee acknowledged this issue by including language that gives the EPA
Administrator discretion for moving the early actors dates back to 2001;
however, we believe that language referencing 1991 more accurately reflects the
goals of the Kyoto Protocol. Early actors should not be penalized for being
pioneers in the area of no-till or low-till agriculture, or in the use of
methane digesters.
10. It is important to note that many practices
undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will provide additional public
benefits, such as clean water, wildlife habitat, and reduced soil erosion.
National Farmers
Statement
summary: Although
several policy options exist to address climate change, NFU believes the
flexibility of a cap-and-trade program holds the most potential for actual GHG
emissions reductions while mitigating increased energy costs resulting from
such a program. A cap-and-trade system could provide farmers and ranchers the
opportunity to be a part of the climate change solution by utilizing soil
carbon sequestration and methane capture from certain livestock projects. These
projects could be valuable revenue streams for producers who will experience
increased agricultural input costs. NFU supports a comprehensive legislative
approach to addressing climate change, as opposed to having regulations issued
by EPA.
Other main points in the
statement:
* NFU strongly believes
that the agriculture and forestry sectors should not be subject to an emissions
cap as they are too small and diffuse to be directly regulated. Establishing a regulatory
scheme to capture emissions from each of the two million farms in the
* A flexible offset program
with appropriate financial incentives will accelerate sequestration practices
under a cap and trade system. Carbon sequestration projects on agricultural and
forestry lands are the easiest and most readily available means of reducing GHG
emissions on a meaningful and expedited scale.
* Providing a percentage of
overall allowances to the agricultural sector as proposed in the 2008 Lieberman-Warner
climate change bill would offer flexibility for agriculture producers to implement
activities that provide GHG benefits but may not technically fall within the
scope of an offset program.
* In addition to receiving
allowances, mechanisms should be established that allow agriculture to generate
offset credits by implementing practices to more quickly reduce GHG emissions. Agricultural
offsets provide the easiest and most readily available means of reducing GHG emissions
on a meaningful scale. Farmers and ranchers, who demonstrate GHG sequestration and/or
reduction, should be able to sell credits to regulated entities at a fair
market price.
* All existing rules-based
and independently verified and registered tons implemented under current
programs, such as the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), should be integrated into
the federal program to serve several important policy objectives. Specifically,
incorporating existing verified and registered tons will prevent potential
backsliding and continue to encourage agriculture offset projects while a
federal program is being debated, enacted and implemented. The proposed
legislation is unsatisfactory in its current form related to this issue.
* Farmers, ranchers and
landowners that already have entered into a voluntary, legally-binding contract
and adopted certain practices to reduce GHG emissions should be allowed to
participate under a federal mandatory cap and trade offset program.
* Legislation should not
artificially limit the amount of domestic agricultural project offsets.
* With more than 20 years of targeted climate change research,
USDA is well positioned to promulgate the rules and administer the agricultural
offset program.
National Milk Producers Federation
(NMPF): Ken Nobis
Statement summary: Our organization appreciates the fact that the
bill’s authors do not regulate agriculture under the cap‐and‐trade system they propose
in the bill. NMPF supports the concept of cap‐and‐trade as long as
agriculture is not a cap industry. NMPF offers the following suggestions
regarding the proposed climate change legislation:
1. The bill must establish a strong role for USDA. Currently,
H.R. 2454 empowers EPA alone to establish, audit and implement all the offsets standards
and protocols with no involvement from USDA. This is simply unacceptable.
2. The bill’s requirement for additional “performance standards” must be
clarified so that CAFOs are not included in “backdoor” climate regulation. Section
811 of H.R. 2454 tasks EPA to set standards for regulatory compliance measures that would be required of some
uncapped sectors. The criteria
listed for this section could include some of the larger CAFOs in the livestock industry and would therefore remove these operations from being able to provide
offsets and would instead require measures
such as digesters to reduce their emissions as part of the performance standard for their
category.
3. The bill should shorten the time allowed for setting up offsets program
standards. Section 732(a) of the Waxman‐Markey bill
creates an offset program via
regulation “Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this title.” As written, it is
probable that regulations establishing an offset program will not be in place when the cap‐and‐trade system
takes effect. Agricultural and
forestry offset projects are currently being created across the country and in
other countries under voluntary private and State or regional carbon markets.
4. The
bill must recognize and reward the avoided emissions efforts undertaken by
agricultural leaders to reduce GHG emissions and/or sequester carbon. Significant numbers of
agricultural and forestry landowners
have already undertaken actions that reduce GHG emissions or sequester carbon. These early actors
should be eligible for compensation for
the on‐going GHG emissions reductions or carbon sequestration that
they achieve.
5. The
agricultural sector should be provided with an allocation of allowances, or a
portion of allowance auction revenues.
6. Offset eligibility and compensation should be based on whether a project,
technique, or practice sequesters carbon, or otherwise reduces greenhouse gases
(GHG) from a date certain. Use of the Business As Usual (BAU) methodology in the Waxman/Markey bill will limit
the amount of GHG emissions reductions or
carbon sequestration by agriculture and forestry.
7. It is critical that the
Overall, the bill at hand is flawed, but there are opportunities to
craft a real market opportunity from it. The alternative could be outright
regulation or costly energy and input increases with no way of recovering
additional revenue if the agriculture sector as a whole takes a pass on getting
involved in this issue.
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA):
Glenn English
Statement summary: Maintaining the affordability of electricity is the principle against
which NRECA will judge all climate change and energy legislation. The
association has one major objective: keeping electricity bills affordable for
all Americans while achieving long-term emissions reductions. There are provisions
in the legislation that NRECA believes will increase costs on consumers more
than is necessary to achieve the emissions reductions required by the bill. As
a result, NRECA is not able to support the bill at this time.
Specifically, NRECA contends
that:
1. The legislation’s
emission reduction levels and timelines are overly aggressive, particularly in
the early years of the program.
2. The bill includes an
allowance allocation methodology for the utility sector that protects some
consumers (customers of investor-owned utilities) at the expense of other
consumers (customers of rural electric cooperatives), due to the method of
allocating allowances.
3. Including a provision for offsets is commendable. NRECA recommends that Congress modify the offset
provisions so that a domestic offset credit program can be quickly established
and implemented. Authority for a domestic offset credit program as part of a
national cap-and-trade program should be assigned to USDA in consultation with
EPA.
4. NRECA
supports efforts to expand the transmission grid to meet the needs of
consumers, including the need to deliver renewable resources from remote
locations to high-consumption urban load centers.
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture: Tom Vilsack
Statement
summary: A
viable carbon offsets market – one that rewards farmers, ranchers, and forest
landowners for stewardship activities – has the potential to play a very important
role in helping
The potential of our
working lands to generate greenhouse gas reductions is significant. In fact
today, our lands are a net sink of greenhouse gases. Based on the latest
statistics from EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,
forest and agricultural lands in the U.S. take up more greenhouse gases in the
form of carbon dioxide than is released from all of our agricultural
operations.
To be effective in
addressing climate change, the actions need to be implemented on a scale large
enough to matter. The availability of carbon offsets from agriculture and forestry
will help contribute to a comprehensive, cost-effective cap and trade program.
In order to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions nationally, we need to
think about increasing the rates of continuous conservation tillage and no-till
as a component of the overall emissions reduction strategy. We will need to
consider planting trees on tens of millions of acres of marginal crop and
pasture lands or elsewhere. Farmers across the country will need to adopt
advanced nutrient management and manure management systems to reduce nitrous
oxide and methane emissions.
In addition to bringing
offsets to scale, we must also ensure that the offsets markets have high
standards of environmental integrity to ensure that offsets result in real and
measurable greenhouse gas reductions while bolstering efforts to conserve soil,
water, and fish and wildlife resources. I believe USDA can work with a wide
range of stakeholders to play an important role in working with farmers,
ranchers and forest landowners in both bringing offsets to scale and ensuring
that offsets have environmental integrity. This will ensure, in turn, that
land-use offsets fit seamlessly within the overall market-based program. This
will mean that USDA and other federal agencies will need to work well together.
I am confident that we can do that.
It is important to
understand the specific elements that will be needed in a greenhouse gas offset
program. These might include procedures to:
* Determine eligible
practices;
* Establish metrics for
quantifying real and additional greenhouse gas benefits;
* Establish reporting
requirements;
* Provide technical
assistance to landowners to familiarize them with offsets and how they might
participate;
* Ensure that the
activities to reduce emissions or increase sequestration have been implemented;
* Provide a repository for
reporting and recordkeeping;
* Conduct audits and spot
checks;
* Monitor how activities
impact ecosystem functions and values;
* Monitor and account for
potential losses of carbon that is sequestered; and
* Award offset credits.
The full transcripts of these testimonies can be found at:
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/statements.html
-- Steve Watson, CASMGS Communications
**********
EPA Indicates willingness to
collaborate
with USDA in GHG offset program
Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson said her agency is willing
to collaborate with the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on an offset program
in a future
“At the end of
the day, the importance of any carbon offset program is to actually reduce
carbon, and I think that there needs to be an important relationship (between USDA
and EPA),”
Waxman needs
the support of Peterson and congressmen from agricultural states to ensure
passage of the Waxman- Markey bill later in June. Those lawmakers have been calling
for the bill to give the USDA more oversight over a domestic offset system. If
a deal can be worked out between Peterson and Waxman, the bill might be able to
get a floor vote before the 4 July recess, the deadline sought by House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi.
“The
information flow regarding offsets may well best go through them,” she said.
The
Waxman-Markey bill would allow up to one billion offset credits generated in
the
Members of the
House agriculture committee from both political parties said at a hearing they
wanted the USDA, not the EPA, determining what qualifies as a carbon offset,
especially when the project involves sequestering emissions from farming or
forestry.
-- Carbon
Market
http://www.pointcarbon.com/polopoly_fs/1.1142246!CMNA20090619.pdf
**********
MEETINGS OF INTEREST
July 5-9
Global Conference on Global
Warming 2009
http://www.gcgw.org/gcgw09/index.php?conference=gcgw09&schedConf=gcgw09&page=index
July 15-17
3rd Annual Carbon
Capture: Status & Outlook
http://www.infocastinc.com/index.php/conference/carbon09/registration
November 2-4
Carbon Markets Insights
http://www.pointcarbon.com/events/
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or send comments
or items for the newsletter, email Steve Watson at: