Carbon markets reinforce the use of pesticides

Image: Art page article by Max Sano, “Maryland Farmland”

(More than pesticides27 August 2024) A new entry in the Civilian food The investigative series Chemical Capture: The Power and Influence of the Pesticide Industry exposes the disturbing coordination between carbon markets, toxic pesticide products, and industrial agriculture to reshape each other’s business models under the guise of climate-smart agriculture. In recent years, powerful agribusiness corporations – including Corteva (chlorpyrifos) and Bayer/Monsanto (glyphosate) – have made significant progress in becoming leading providers of carbon markets based in the United States. Advocates, farmers, and communities see the misrepresentation of carbon offsets and trading as a climate solution in a strategy that undermines proven alternative systems of farming and land management (aka organic).

The basic concept of carbon markets began with the emissions trading program as a result of the Kyoto Protocol “Emissions trading as provided for in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocolallows countries that have excess emission units – emissions that they have been allowed to use but have not ‘used’ – to sell that excess capacity to countries that are exceeding their targets,” the United Nations statement said. Based on Civil Eats’ Bayer/Monsanto with Climate FieldView and Corteva with their Carbon Solutions program are reported to list their pesticide products as tools for sustainable agricultural practices such as no-till/reduced tillage and intercropping. “Independent” carbon trading platforms such as Indigo and Nora have begun to partner with Bayer and Corteva, respectively, because they see the collaboration as an opportunity to expand their services to new customers (e.g., farmers caught in the treadmill of dependence on toxic pesticides). Beyond Pesticides has reported extensively on the greenwashing of no-till and single-till regenerative agricultural practices that do not adhere to organic principles. (See here, here, here and here.)

In its 2022 annual report, Bayer recognizes Climate FieldView for its ability to “use novel models to provide tailored product recommendations that are precisely tailored to each individual field. With these insights, we can maximize the value of our seed and chemical portfolio, help farmers expand their participation in carbon markets and the food, feed, fiber and fuel value chains, and lead Bayer toward digitally enabled business models and new growth opportunities.” To participate in Bayer’s carbon offset program, farmers must enter data from their farms into Climate FieldView, which “recommends planting protocols and offers product discounts.” CropLife International, a pesticide trade association representing Bayer, Corteva and other pesticide product manufacturers, submitted a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2022 emphasizing the recognition of pesticides as a critical tool for climate-smart agricultural practices as the USDA was developing its Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program. Organic farming advocates are concerned that this influenced the Biden administration’s decision to establish its climate-smart farming approach rather than aligning with the European Union’s 2030 organic farming goals as part of its Farm to Fork (F2F) initiative. F2F aims to drastically reduce the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and convert a quarter of Europe’s arable land to organic production by 2030. CropLife International also lobbied for the ultimately successful adoption of the Growing Climate Solutions Actwhich created the conditions for the voluntary emissions trading market for the US agricultural sector. Read previous coverage in the Daily News about CropLife International’s influence in preventing forward-thinking policies beyond pesticides in the U.S., as well as an Action of the Week urging Congress to vote against this bill and instead support organic agriculture as the primary framework for U.S. climate action.

Both organic and conventional farmers who are pushing for the adoption and expansion of carbon offsets remain concerned “that carbon markets would inadequately support a range of beneficial land management practices,” according to interviews with Hamilton College farmers included in a report published last year. Nature. This opinion is not only true for a small group of row farmers in New York, but also represents the view of farmers across the U.S. “Over 70% of farmers did not use or participate in software-based sustainability tools in 2020. The majority may not see carbon credits as a compelling incentive to start,” according to surveys of over 500 farmers in 45 states in a 2022 survey conducted as part of the Trust in Food initiative of the Farm DiaryIt remains to be seen whether carbon markets will have long-term impacts on farmers seeking to transition away from fossil fuel dependence.

Beyond the specific context of agricultural carbon offset markets, there are numerous reports of cases where emissions trading markets/trading missed their target or failed altogether:

• The Guardian (2023): “Research by Verra, the world’s leading carbon standard for the fast-growing $2 billion (£1.6 billion) voluntary offset market, has found that more than 90 percent of rainforest offset credits – the ones most commonly used by companies – are likely to be ‘phantom credits’ and do not represent real carbon reductions. These are certificates created based on analysis of a significant percentage of projects.”
• MIT Technology Review (2023): “These projects often harm indigenous communities and do not deliver the climate benefits promised. And that’s unless they burn down in wildfires, wiping out years of carbon gains in a matter of days… In recent months, companies such as Shell, Nestlé, EasyJet and Fortescue Metals Group have announced they are moving away from offsets or the carbon neutrality claims based on them.”
• Carbon Market Monitoring (2023): “Offsettings serve as an excuse to avoid real emissions reductions and can create a dangerous illusion of ‘carbon neutrality’ when emissions are actually rising. … The two editions of the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor, which Carbon Market Watch publishes jointly with the NewClimate Institute, show that net zero claims by dozens of companies are exaggerated and continue to conceal high emissions. ‘Net zero pipe dreams’ show fossil fuels cannot claim carbon neutrality. ‘Poor practice’ casts serious doubt on FIFA’s claim to achieve carbon neutrality for the 2022 Qatar World Cup. ‘Fantasy flights’ exposes the inadequate climate action of eight major European airlines.”

As Beyond Pesticides previously reported in a 2021 report, Daily newsthe mechanisms of carbon markets or the purchase of carbon offsets do not set an end date for admittedly unacceptable materials and practices, nor do they ensure a transition to life-sustaining practices. Just as there are proposals to phase out the production of internal combustion engines and switch to electric vehicles, we must demand that agriculture transition—across the board and at an accelerated pace—to organic practices, the standards of which are already enshrined in federal law. As their name suggests, carbon markets focus only on carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and not on other agricultural emissions that have a disproportionate impact on the climate crisis, including methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O) and sulfuryl fluoride (SO₂F₂). Organic production and handling practices are proven and commercially viable. They sequester carbon and eliminate petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. According to the Organic Trade Association, in the roughly two decades since USDA organic certification came into effect, the sector has grown into a $70 billion industry. And, importantly, the Rodale Institute’s 40-year research project on organic and regenerative organic farming systems confirms the findings (see Daily News here and here) that this agricultural sector now functions without any loss of productivity, profitability or climate and environmental resilience.

Visit Keeping Organic Strong to learn how you can participate in public discussions to improve the baseline standards set by the National Organic Program, including the national list of permitted and prohibited substances that distinguishes certified organic from private standards that do not set organic as a baseline standard. Visit Parks for a Sustainable Future to learn how you can encourage your community to convert public parks and playgrounds to certified organic.

All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.

Source: Civilian food