To be fair, Arnold has the right to gloat: It was only two weeks ago that Prop 23 failed in a state referendum, which would have halted his Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) to establish an emissions reduction program on par to what federal legislation has aimed to do. The Governator spent a good part of his speech Tuesday remarking about the process of defending his climate change bill noting that the Texas oil companies that wanted to squash AB 32 spent millions trying to do so and hoped to “kill California’s environmental laws.” But in the end Prop 23 failed by not a small margin- but by a full 22 points, which certainly did demonstrate the commitment to climate change policies from the people of California, not merely the legislators.

And while George Schultz (former Reagan Secretary of State and strong supporter of AB 32) hopped on stage to chant, “No on 23!”, the pomp and circumstance of celebrating Prop 23′s defeat was soon overshadowed by a very different theme: co-benefits. Climate change is not merely climate change anymore — it is now a platform in which many other issues can be addressed.

Take for example, Governor Granholm, who yesterday touted the benefits of clean, green energy for the state of Michigan after they set up policies to encourage renewable battery companies to come into Michigan. Sure, it makes environmental sense to use renewable batteries — but Granholm wasn’t as concerned with the environmental benefits as the job benefits that came with it — 63,000 new ones by her count as a result of 17 new businesses coming into Michigan to manufacture these batteries. Jobs in Michigan means jobs that aren’t going to China and India in her perspective, and hell, if we can create an environmentally friendly product — that’s a win win. A climate-jobs co-benefit.

What about others? Louise Jackson, a renowned UC Davis professor and agroecologist spent the morning discussing the potential to pay farmers for environmental co-benefits that have both climate, water, and other environmental benefits. Meanwhile George Schultz proposed that climate change mitigation offers unprecedented benefits for national security and urged the Pentagon to get involved. Harrison Ford extolled the co-benefits of preventing deforestation in tropical areas. Climate change benefits yes, but untold other benefits to local livelihoods, plant biodiversity, water quality, and medicinal opportunities.

All of these insightful comments have led me to believe that we’ve been addressing climate change policy in the wrong way. Instead of focusing solely on climate change, why not use climate change as a platform upon which so many other positive policies could be created? Yes, we need real and clear commitments to reducing emissions and funding for adaptation throughout the world — but perhaps we can also create reductions and gain new allies in the fight for climate change if we recognize that it never has been and never can be a single issue. Climate change will affect us all and affect all things on the earth — and as such, it requires broad reaching policies to address it.

Yesterday, George Schultz stated with regards to Prop 23, “This is a people’s issue and the reason we won with 22 percent is because we got all the votes — we appealed to voters across the political spectrum.” He further urged that citizens and politicians shouldn’t get stuck on the one thing they can’t agree on — rather let’s focus on the many things we do agree on. When we start to recognize that climate change is truly a people’s issue and that it can be addressed through policies that can benefit a host of other issues — be it energy independence, national security, or food production — we can also see the creative ways in which it can be addressed with or without an international agreement or even federal legislation. Though we still need these types of initiatives to make significant progress, we can also consider what else can be done now. As Arnold said yesterday, “The Green Revolution is moving ahead with or without an international agreement … and we are moving ahead and doing our work.”  Perhaps now we can think about it in a more creative way.

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.

Under the K-L bill, the offsets program is run under the USDA with significant input from an advisory committee that could be made up of academics, business representatives, NGOs, and government officials. Though the projects that will be eligible for the offsets program are not officially set in stone, the bill does outline a “minimum number of practices” which must be considered for inclusion by the advisory committee. The list of practices is largely similar to the one revealed in the Waxman-Markey bill last year after House Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson added a 50-plus page markup to the bill. The full list of “potential practices” is a diverse array, including altered tillage, cover cropping, nitrogen fertilization efficiency, farming methods used on certified organic farms, pasture-based livestock systems, reductions in animal management emissions, rotational grazing, crop rotations, and methods for increasing carbon sequestration in soils. 

One notable difference, absent from the Waxman-Markey bill and other earlier versions of the Senate bill, is the inclusion of certified organic agriculture practices. A variety of research has found organic agricultural practices can increase carbon storage and decrease fossil fuel energy requirements and GHG emissions.

The K-L bill also goes one step further than just a carbon offset program. It establishes a “Carbon Conservation Program” designed to encourage GHG reductions and sequestration activities for landowners and others with grazing contracts not eligible for the offset program. The CCP does what a lot of farmers wanted: it provides a way to reward the early adopters of beneficial practices. It will provide incentives for farmers already practicing organic practices — or cover cropping or reduced tillage — to continue to do so. This is vital, but also has the potential to backfire if the practices being rewarded are not actually providing climate change benefits. 

The bill’s list includes several practices that have questionable benefits to the climate and that could create additional environmental problems. Featured prominently is no-till agriculture, which is widely associated with Roundup-Ready genetically modified crops and often accompanied by increased herbicide use to control weeds in lieu of tilling. Biofuels are also weighted heavily in the bill, even though certain kinds have been shown not to reduce greenhouse gases. The inclusion of composting in the bill ought to be positive, but “compost” can sometimes be a cover word for chemical-laden sewage sludge.

Close board oversight and quality methodologies will be crucial to verifying that any practices promoted by an offset program actually have the science to back up their measurable net reductions in GHG emissions. If a practice such as no-till agriculture reduces carbon dioxide emissions by limiting the number of tractor passes on a field, but simultaneously increases emissions of nitrous oxide — a greenhouse gas 300 times as strong as carbon dioxide — and use of herbicides, the overall benefit to the climate could be nil or worse. Technical assistance and outreach for farmers and landowners will also be incredibly important, but thus far, little research exists to understand the types of farms and farmers willing and able to participate in offset initiatives.

A climate bill that establishes a carbon offset program in agriculture and forestry is only going to be effective if those offsets are legitimate and if they are accompanied by strong efforts in other sectors. Unfortunately, the offshore drilling, expansion of carbon sequestration and storage practices, and nuclear power touted in the K-L bill not only have questionable benefits for reducing GHG emissions, but carry serious environmental risks such as has been clearly demonstrated by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Agriculture can and should be part of the solution by reducing its own emissions and sequestering carbon with proven techniques, but it’s not the only solution, and it cannot stand alone in a climate bill that falls so short of true environmental progress.

This morning the House Agriculture Committee released the 49-page Peterson amendment to the Waxman-Markey climate bill.  It has been a laborious task, requiring dozens of closed door meetings, compromises (almost entirely at the expense of Waxman who has worked so hard to keep the bill strong), and eventually a very happy Chairman Peterson and House Agriculture Committee.  As I combed through the amendment this morning, I was delighted to see a variety of inclusions that are positive and were advocated for by progressive environmental, consumer and farmer organizations. Yet many are problematic for a climate change bill that, let’s not forget, is ultimately supposed to, above all else, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the environment and public health.

First and foremost, the bill reverts back to the original draft discussion, which explicitly exempted agriculture and forestry from the definition of capped sector.  In the latest versions of the bill such language was dropped, leading some to speculate that in theory, large scale factory farms could potentially be regulated under the bill.  Not true anymore. 

Yet the most significant change is how much power the amendment gives to the Secretary of Agriculture, who is now exclusively and completely in charge of the entire offsets program, taking the responsibility from the EPA administrator, as has always been the case in the bill until now.  It gives the Secretary of Ag the ability to basically determine what an offset is — the standards, methodologies, etc.  This is problematic not because I believe that USDA employees or the Secretary of Agriculture don’t understand life cycle analysis’ (LCAs), methodologies or science, but because the mission of the USDA is not to protect the environment or public health, as is the goal in reducing GHG emissions.  The two just don’t align quite right.

It is unfortunate that a compromise could not be worked out where both the EPA and the USDA shared responsibilities of such a program.  The EPA could use its mandate for environmental protection to determine scientifically the types of offset programs that reduce GHGs, and the USDA could use its vast expertise and established relationships within the farm community to implement the program, oversee its third party verification processes, and monitor the changes. 

The amendment goes one step further and actually begins to spell out the types of practices that should be eligible for offsets.  So even though the Secretary of Agriculture is supposed to create this list after the bill (ideally with scientific input) it mandates that there is a “minimum list of what should be eligible for offsets”.  Among the eligible:

• Altered tillage practices
• Winter cover cropping, continuous cropping and other means to increase biomass returned to soil
• Reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use or increase in nitrogen use efficiency
• Reduction in the frequency and duration of flooding of rice paddies (which creates methane)
• Reduction in carbon emissions from organic soils
• Reduction in GHGs from manure and effluent
• Reduction in GHGs in animal management practices including dietary modifications
• Waste aeration
• Biogas capture and combustion
• Field application of manure instead of commercial fertilizer

It is an impressive list, and I commend the committee and Chairman Peterson for including a variety of progressive, organic-style practices including cover and continuous cropping and reducing or eliminating synthetic fertilizers.  But the list is premature since it doesn’t necessarily indicate what types of practices within this list are actually appropriate.  For example, “waste aeration” is a fairly broad term.  In reality what it means is not pooling manure together into lagoons and pools as is typical on large scale factory farms or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).  When manure pools together in this way, it decomposes anaerobically (i.e. without oxygen), producing excessive and unnecessary methane emissions.  So the solution is actually more or less to raise animals on pastures where their manures are deposited and decompose aerobically, producing minimal methane emissions.  But this list doesn’t go into that detail. 

Same with the animal management practices, including dietary modifications — this could mean feeding animals on natural forages (grass-fed), which in a variety of studies has reduced methane emissions by about 20 to 25 percent.  Or, it could mean something as far fetched as genetically engineering our animals to produce less gas.  It’s just not clear.  Hopefully such distinctions will be clarified later on.

But aside from the list of mostly progressive offsets, the amendment takes a turn for the worse in the later pages, morphing into blatant handouts without proven climate benefits and caveats which illuminate how industrial agriculture interests are overtaking environmental interests in a bill that, again, is fundamentally meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

The amendment establishes a GHG Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee with 9 members, including a chairperson and vice chairperson, both appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.  The amendment simply says that those on the committee need to have the experience to be able to understand the science of the issue.  It does not state that a diverse group of vested stakeholders should take part, and even worse, makes no explicit request that other government agencies be involved.  A GHG Reduction Advisory Committee that doesn’t include the EPA, or the Departments of Labor, Commerce and Interior for that matter, just doesn’t make sense.

The amendment also addresses the hot topic of international indirect land use change and its inclusion or not in LCAs of biofuels.  Failure to include all types of emissions generated throughout the process of biofuel production is not a complete and accurate portrayal of the overall net emissions gained or lost.  Yet, the bill exempts such emissions from being included for the next five years while a study is conducted and then gives further veto power to the USDA and EPA jointly to reject such emissions from LCAs.  All the while, offset projects would be marching forward potentially on false climate premises without including such emissions.  The potential result is very real — offset programs and biofuel production practices that are actually creating more greenhouse gas emissions — the result of a bill that is supposed to stop this very practice.

But, just in case there was any question about how biodiesel (mostly soy based) might fare in an LCA regardless of international indirect land use change, the last step of the amendment is to grandfather in a billion plus gallons of the stuff so it can continue to be produced despite whether or not it might actually be worse for the climate.  If you’re wondering why biodiesel and not ethanol, that one was already covered and grandfathered in during the 2007 Energy Act.  So, even if this bill passes, all of the ethanol and biodiesel with questionable climate benefits can still continue to be produced without a problem.  It’s really no different than grandfathering in the dirtiest coal power plants.

I want to congratulate the Peterson amendment for the positive things it does do — consider numerous progressive agricultural practices as part of a comprehensive climate bill.  I recognize just how powerful that is and I certainly do not want to underplay such inclusions.  Progressive farmers absolutely must play a role in the climate change debate and mitigation strategies — no doubt.  But to create an amendment that does so and then turns right around and grandfathers in questionable biofuels, pushes aside science and doesn’t include other government agencies in its GHG Advisory committee is counterproductive to the point that I have to wonder how effective the amendment will be in achieving the overall goal of the Waxman-Markey bill.     

st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:”"; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Since the beginning of climate change legislation this session in Congress it has been clear that big agriculture would not be a part of a cap and trade program.  Yet, while the Waxman Markey bill has been making its way through Congress, the EPA has also been pushing forward its own agenda of climate related regulations, including the mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from factory farms.  Yet, yesterday the House Appropriations Committee undermined this progressive proposed regulation by passing the 2010 Interior and Environment spending bill. An amendment in the bill will prevent the EPA from requiring factory farms to report their GHG emissions–a move that represents a blatant handout to large factory farms.

While climate legislation stalls through Congress, the EPA proposed rule aims to establish at least the basis for regulating GHG emissions- knowing how many we produce and where they come from.  Two weeks ago the comment period ended for the Proposed Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule, which would require American industries to report their GHG emissions, over a threshold of 25,000 tons.  Among the highlights of the proposed rule was the requirement that manure management be considered a reporting category.  As such, large scale concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) more commonly known as factory farms, would be required to report their emissions if they reached the 25,000 ton threshold.  According to the EPA the number of CAFOs in the U.S. that reached this amount was only around 50 of the largest, most intensive facilities in the country.

There have been a lot of questions floating around as to why Americans should care about livestock poop, particularly in the context of climate change and GHG emissions.  While it is little discussed, it is actually quite a significant contributor to GHG emissions.  First and foremost- animal manure and livestock produce methane and nitrous oxide, which are about 23 and 300 times respectively stronger than carbon dioxide.  According to the EPA GHG Inventory, manure is the 5^th largest source of methane and the 4^th largest source of nitrous oxide in the U.S.  It results in more GHG emissions per year than all cement production and more than twice as many emissions as waste incineration and natural gas systems in the U.S.  It should also be mentioned that enteric fermentation-gases produced from livestock-is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S.  Combined, manure and enteric fermentation produce about as many GHG emissions as the entire commercial sector’s burning of fossil fuel in the United States.  The EPA did not require that enteric fermentation be considered a reporting category in their proposed rule.

The way in which CAFOs pool their manure together is a large part of the problem here.  When stored in pits and lagoons as is typical on factory farms, the manure breaks down anaerobically, in the absence of oxygen, which exacerbates methane emissions.  The EPA has acknowledged that when manures are distributed on pastures as would be typical in a grass-fed animal system, methane production is limited.  Thus, there are proven ways to reduce methane emissions in manure management.

But with the passage of the House Appropriations amendment last night, there may not even be the chance to attempt to reduce GHG emissions from factory farms.  Representative Dicks (D-WA) stated, “A facility of that magnitude and size can well afford to at least report in what the level of methane is,” Dicks said. “I think this is something we need to know. Methane is one of the most important gases that we have to deal with if we’re going to deal with this issue.” Well said.

By preventing the EPA from collecting data from manure systems, the House Appropriations committee is telling the American people that they aren’t serious about climate change or the health of rural communities and farmworkers, who must live with terrible odors and noxious gases associated with such facilities.  What is especially disheartening about the move is that it would prevent a much needed better understanding of livestock and manure emissions that would help foster scientific research and effective methods for reducing such emissions.  If Congress is serious about climate change then we need the data to understand our emissions, which will only happen for livestock and manure if the amendment is removed before the final version of the bill.

A proven climate solution.

Since the start of ACES, agriculture interests have had an unspoken, yet powerful voice in the bill. Ag was explicitly exempted from the “capped” sector, which meanth that from the beginning, agriculture was always intended to receive offset benefits in ACES.  But the question remains whether agricultural offsets will be awarded to the types of practices and systems that are scientifically proven to actually reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequester carbon.

With the bill now firmly in the grasp of Chairman Peterson of the House Agriculture Committee it will surely be riddled with agriculture handouts when it emerges. But while Peterson may attempt to load the bill, the quality–not the quantity–of such offsets will determine how effective the legislation is at reducing GHG emissions.  Agricultural offsets and programs that fail to recognize the proven ability of organic practices and systems to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon will offer few real benefits for the climate, the environment, or a progressive farm future.  

An increasing amount of peer-reviewed science demonstrates the true ability of organic practices and systems to not only sequester more carbon than conventional and no-till agriculture (yes, even no-till, the industry’s exalted climate change solution), but to inherently produce fewer GHG emissions overall.  This is a point I can’t emphasize enough-climate legislation can not simply hope to sequester its way out of a looming environmental crisis.  Unless ACES makes actual and verified reductions in GHG emissions it will be ineffective.  And the best agricultural solution that has the science to back up such reductions is organic agriculture, with agroecological practices including abstaining from synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, cover cropping, pasture-based animal production, incorporation of compost and manures into soils, and prevention of fallow fields. 

So what does the science say?  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization concluded “[w]ith lower energy inputs, organic systems contribute less to GHG emissions and have a greater potential to sequester carbon in biomass than conventional systems.” Research published by Pelletier et al. last year in Environmental Management found that organic cropping systems required half the fossil fuel inputs and generated three-fourths the GHG emissions of conventional agriculture.  Additional studies shared similar results, largely because organic agriculture abstains from using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which require vast quantities of fossil fuels to produce.  If we are really aiming for “energy independence” why aren’t we directing our farm policies to organic practices?

Still more scientific studies are finding that organic pasture raised animals offer a variety of climate benefits.  The United Nations estimates that animal production contributes nearly one fifth of all global GHG emissions, making it not only a significant source of emissions but a significant opportunity for reductions and mitigation.  Research by Flessa et. al. (2002) published in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment suggested that transitioning to pasture agriculture is the single best way to cut GHG emissions in animal production.  Additional studies (Boadi et.al., 2004 and DeRamus et. al., 2003) determined that feeding livestock on pasture compared to feedlot diets usually consisting of corn and soy reduced methane emissions about 20%. 

The EPA has also determined that when manures are stored or treated in liquid storage systems commonly found on factory farms, the decomposition of manure produces great amounts of methane, unlike when manure is handled as a solid or deposited on pasture, range or paddock lands.  Manures spread appropriately on pastures and paddocks produce minimal amounts of methane.  Research has also documented that manure stores on conventional farms emitted about twenty-five percent more methane gas than organic farms.

So that’s the first part- inherently fewer emissions because of the way that organic agriculture abstains from chemicals and synthetic ingredients and utilizes natural amendments which help store carbon.  This leads me to my next point- sequestration.  It’s true that all agriculture can sequester carbon, but if it’s doing so while simultaneously being doused in chemical fertilizers and pesticides the benefits are quickly lost.  The new current trend promoted by the agricultural industry is no-till or conservation agriculture, which leaves crop residues on the surface and cuts down on tilling the soil.  The supposed perks of no-till include increased sequestration, but recent evidence suggests otherwise.

The dirty little secret of no-till agriculture is that it increases pesticide use and also appears to increase emissions of nitrous oxide–310 times as strong as carbon dioxide.  In fact, the USDA acknowledged last year, “By eliminating some or all of the tillage practices under conservation tillage, growers may rely more heavily on the use of herbicides for weed control.” Additional studies have concluded the same.  And, increasing research suggests that under a variety of soil and climate conditions no-till agriculture actually increases nitrous oxide emissions.  This is coupled with numerous studies including Baker et.al in 2007 that suggest no-till actually doesn’t sequester more carbon than conventional systems.

Recently though, USDA scientists concluded a nine year study comparing organic, conventional and no-till agriculture for sequestration and found the organic production system sequestered more carbon.  Scientists noted, “Despite the use of tillage, soil combustible carbon and nitrogen concentrations were higher at all depth intervals to 30cm in organic agriculture compared with that in all other systems.”  Further, the scientists concluded that, “these results suggest that organic agriculture can provide greater long-term soil benefits than conventional no-till, despite the use of tillage in organic agriculture.”

Thursday the House Agriculture Committee holds a hearing to review ACES, providing a key opportunity to recognize and act on the science behind the benefit of organic agriculture for climate change.  Yet, the current panel line-up does not seem promising- representatives include the American Farm Bureau, the National Association of Corn Growers, National Milk Producers Federation, and even The Fertilizer Institute.  Where are the NGOs?  Where are the representatives for small family farm producers?  Where are the organic farmers? 

Progressive climate change legislation is no longer progressive when it perpetuates and rewards industrial agriculture that has been the main source of agricultural emissions for decades.  Failure to include organic practices and certified organic producers in ACES will set back our goal of reducing GHGs in the present and prevent America’s farmers from economically transitioning to ecological farming.  It’s not too late for the House Agriculture Committee and Chairman Peterson to realize this and set us on future farming course that not only feeds our country but cleans up the planet too.  

—————-

Monsanto’s ad blitzFor years my alarm has been set to pubic radio so I can lie in bed for five minutes and have a grasp on the day’s news before I even get up. I, like many other Americans, rely on NPR and other public-radio shows for news that is what I deem to be as unbiased and fair as possible. But this morning my ears burned as I listened to an on the American Public Media show Marketplace sponsored by Monsanto, the world’s largest corporate agribusiness chemical firm, touting how its genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. It left me wondering, particularly in tough economic times, how do media ethics hold up? (The GMO seed giant has been bombarding liberal-minded publications with similar propaganda, see image to the right, for months.)

The Monsanto ads are quite simply false. The premise of the ad is more or less that Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) seeds are going to save the world from environmental catastrophe and human hunger. All while the corporation made more than 11 billion dollars in 2008 amidst a world food crisis. The catch phrase, “Produce more, conserve more” even has its own website, which conveniently links directly to Monsanto’s website section on “sustainable agriculture”. But the reality of Monsanto’s seeds and the company’s ethics and commitment to fighting world hunger have nothing to do with producing more or conserving more.

 Let’s get a few facts on the table. Eighty-five percent of all GM seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance. Most of these crops are Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. What this tolerance means is that the plant can actually withstand significant amounts of pesticides being sprayed on it–in effect promoting pesticide use. In the past farmers were motivated to spray judiciously since their crops could be adversely affected. Farmers growing GM seeds don’t worry about this, and as a result there has been an increase in pesticide use in the United States since the introduction of GM seeds. The most comprehensive independent research done utilizing USDA data demonstrates that since the introduction of GM crops in the United States, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides were used. This seems to be a growing trend as well, as the active ingredient in Roundup Ready crops–glyphosate–s becoming less efficient and creating scores of resistant weeds, resulting in increased use.

In 2008 Monsanto’s total sales for Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides was more than $4 billion–up 59 percent from 2007. Perhaps more importantly, its gross profit from such sales was nearly 2 billion dollars- up 131% from 2007. So, what is Monsanto conserving more of? Certainly not biodiversity, human health, wildlife, pollinators or the soil, which are all adversely affected by pesticide use.

 The claims of “producing more” that Monsanto touts in the NPR ads are also completely unfounded. Not a single GM crop has been commercially introduced that is intended to increase yield. Agronomists and plant scientists made far greater advances in yields through conventional breeding methods in the 20th century than they ever have with GM crops. In fact, there have been several studies which show that there are actually yield losses associated with Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans. What biotech companies have been effective at doing is crafting media messages that persuade the average person to believe that their crops increase yield and that without GM crops we simply couldn’t feed the world.

In fact, GM crops account for less than 3% of total agricultural acreage globally. Five countries in North and South America account for more than 90% of total global acreage, with the United States, Argentina and Brazil making up 80% of total global GM crop acreage. In Africa, only two countries-South Africa and Burkina Faso-allow the commercial planting of GM crops, which are minimally grown. Less than 3% of the cropland in India and China is planted with GM crops, and in India most of that is cotton- not food. This leads me to my next point- four cash crops- soy, maize, cotton and canola make up almost 100% of GM crops planted worldwide. Of these commodity crops, most are used to make biofuels, processed foods, animal feed, and vegetable oils-they are not fed directly to people in their whole form. The bottom line? GM crops are not feeding the world, and they are not enabling us to produce more.

 Perhaps the most important consideration for Monsanto’s ads on Marketplace is the unethical implications behind their words. They want us to believe their crops are feeding hungry children in Africa and that they are allowing farmers to use fewer chemicals. But their actions demonstrate that their concern lies otherwise- in their profits. In 2008, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) a global group of scientists, NGOs, private sector officials, and country governments initiated by the World Bank and the United Nations released its long awaited report, “Agriculture at a Crossroads”. The report painted a grim picture for food security and described the harsh reality of the challenges that agriculture and food systems must overcome to ensure food security in the future. What made the IAASTD report so groundbreaking was its unprecedented questioning of the role of GM crops to aid in food security and environmental improvement. IAASTD authors paraphrased the conclusions of the report in Science stating, “The assessment found GM crops appropriate in some contexts, unpromising in others, and unproven in many more. No conclusive evidence was found that GM crops have so far offered solutions to the broader socioeconomic dilemmas faced by developing countries.”

This was certainly not the golden ticket for GM crops that Monsanto hoped for from the IAASTD. So, what did they do? They bailed. The failure of biotech corporations to influence the IAASTD led Monsanto and Syngenta to withdraw from meetings and collaboration just a few months before the final release of their report. According to the journal Nature, which published a story on the issue titled “Deserting the Hungry?”, such actions resulted after drafts devoted more space to biotechnology’s risk than its benefits and failed to recognize that GM crops produced higher yields. In a year with unprecedented world hunger, Monsanto pulled out of the most comprehensive international attempts to examine the problems and solutions of the situation. And, they made 11 billion dollars the same year, mostly from their Roundup chemicals and biotech seeds-both which they increased in price at the height of a global food crisis. So, producing more and conserving more, or deserting the hungry?

I encourage American Public Media and all other news media services to think about their principles, ethics, and mission statements and consider applying these principles to the ads they are running.

Like many others in the climate movement, I have been waiting for weeks (well, years actually) for broad and sweeping climate change legislation.  Back in January the economy captured Congressional attention and I knew global warming legislation would simply have to wait.  Finally, yesterday, Representatives Markey and Waxman introduced their “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″, a wide-reaching cap and trade initiative with more ambitious emission reductions (83% below 2005 levels by 2050) than President Obama had even advocated for.  For that, and for a variety of other progressive initiatives including those for energy efficiency, green jobs, and climate change adaptation, the bill is commendable.  But, Markey and Waxman had one large oversight in drafting the bill — they cut the crap, literally.

Buried about halfway through the monster 648 page draft is a crucial statement: “controlling emissions in small as well as large amounts is essential to prevent, slow the pace of, reduce the threats from, and mitigate global warming and its adverse effects.”  I couldn’t agree more, which is why I was shocked to see that the bill fails to address greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, factory farms, and animal manure whatsoever — and even goes the extra mile to specifically exempt the entire sector from any type of regulation.  

Under the proposed legislation the agricultural sector is explicitly exempted under the definition of “capped sector”.  Since capped sectors will be those that will be required to reduce emissions under the compliance portion of the bill, this means that the entire sector has been given a free pass from any type of emissions reductions.  Unfortunately, the bill goes one step farther and makes additional exemptions under the uncapped sector section as well, where sources of emissions will be listed and then, in several years, formed into standards and promulgated into regulation.  The bill specifically designates that sources of methane emissions be a separate category of this uncapped sources list, but then explicitly exempts enteric fermentation (i.e. livestock burps and farts) from being included on this list.  Enteric fermentation is literally the largest source of methane emissions in the entire country.  This means that not only are livestock left out of this bill, but the largest source of methane emissions would be left out of all future regulations for methane emissions in the United States from the uncapped sector.

So, big deal right?  Who really cares about cow farts anyway when we have coal fired power plants to deal with?  I respectfully disagree.  Energy and climate policy that doesn’t consider the impact of our food and agricultural systems on greenhouse gas emissions is missing a big chunk of the problem.  Collectively, our entire food system and associated emissions may be contributing up to 1/3 of global greenhouse emissions by some scientific accounts.  Domestically, the agricultural sector (which doesn’t include things like food processing, packaging and transportation) accounts for nearly 2/3 of all nitrous oxide emissions, which by the Markey and Waxman bill is 298 times as potent as CO2.  About 1/3 of all methane emissions (which is 25 times as potent as CO2) in the United States are solely from enteric fermentation and manure management.  

To put it in perspective, according to the US EPA 2009 Draft GHG Inventory the agriculture sector produces 413 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents a year, and the entire Industrial Processes sector produces 328 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents.  Let’s couple that 328 Tg with the methane emissions produced by coal mining and petroleum systems (collectively about 86 Tg of carbon dioxide equivalents) and then we’re talking about what the Markey and Waxman bill exempts.  If you think agricultural emissions don’t matter, ask yourself if you would feel differently if the bill completely exempted the entire industrial processes sector, and certain emissions from coal mining and petroleum.

What is so interesting about the bill is the lengths it goes to make sure that agriculture is uniquely left out of the regulations.  For example, agriculture does play a prominent role in the bill as a source of potential renewable electricity credits with manure digesters and crop biofuels.  But while ethanol production plants are explicitly included as an industrial sector that will be regulated under the cap, livestock and manure management are not.  So, in essence, biofuels may be eligible for offset credits, but they’ll also be responsible for the emissions they may be producing as well.  But, not so for livestock manure, which will be eligible for offsets, but not actually have to do anything to reduce its emissions in the first place.  It should also be noted that in the forthcoming EPA’s proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule, manure management is specifically identified as a source of emissions that would be required to report their emissions.  This means the problem is not that we can’t measure agriculture and livestock emissions- we obviously can if we can give potential offset credits to the sector and the EPA is going to require that they report emissions.

To be more hopeful, I will say that the bill does have excellent standards in place to regulate other food system greenhouse gas emissions.  The bill would require emissions standards for heavy duty nonroad equipment including tractors, combines and other heavy agricultural machinery.  As well, nearly every food processing industry would be included under the cap if they produced above the threshold of 25,000 tons of CO2 equivalents a year.  This would include everything from animal slaughter facilities to wet corn milling and snack food processing plants.  In the Green Jobs section, the bill specifically notes the importance of establishing education and training programs for sustainable agriculture and farming and sustainable culinary practices.  And, the bill includes fantastic initiatives to establish a National Climate Change Adaptation Council, which would examine the broad impacts of climate change on a variety of areas including agriculture.

But, all of those things are hard to appreciate when the larger agricultural and livestock sector is completely exempted from reducing their emissions.  Agriculture is unique in the climate change debate because it is both a source of emissions and a potential for mitigation.  We clearly can not forget the role that sustainable agriculture can play in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, and the ways that farmers can and should be a part of our climate change initiatives and policies.  But, rewarding the beneficial part of the system without acknowledging the downside to our industrial agricultural practices is only rewarding the largest and most polluting parts of our food system.  A cap on agriculture in this bill would not hurt small-scale family farmers, which would be nowhere near triggering the threshold for regulation.  Instead, it would target the biggest sources of agricultural emissions from large-scale corporate factory farms that are the largest emitters in the sector.  And, just like big coal needs to clean up its act, so does big ag.  As we move forward with the draft discussion of the bill I hope that Congress can recognize the importance of regulating agriculture in our climate change legislation just as any other sector should and will be regulated.

What is so inviting and simultaneously exciting about Andy’s article is the realistic and informative approach he takes to a very complicated issue. He notes the United Nations figure regarding animal production — 18 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions are associated from animal production [PDF]. This includes all of the myriad emissions linked to animal production: pesticides and fertilizers required to grow feed crops, methane emissions from cows burping, and all of the stuff that comes out their back end, plus the energy required to transport, slaughter, package, and distribute animal products.

To put that 18 percent figure in context — 14 percent of emissions come from transportation. And, as Andy thoughtfully notes — many of us find it difficult to cut back on driving, but we do have significant control over our diets every day. Research published in the journal Earth Interactions in 2006 found that a meat-eater consuming the average American caloric diet produced 700 kg of CO2 more than a plant-eater in a year. In context, this is the difference between driving a Prius and a midsize sedan like a Toyota Camry. So if you think you have to spend a bunch of money to upgrade your car to be climate-friendly, try looking to your plate first.

What the article does so well is take an issue that, to date, has actually drawn considerable sensationalist criticism, and put it on a level that people can actually understand and use. When the U.N. released the report Livestock’s Long Shadow back in 2006, from which the 18 percent figure came, vegetarian organizations rejoiced, but sadly few others really thought about the implications of the U.N. report.

Attempts to suggest that meat consumption be reduced in the United States as a means to fight climate change and greenhouse gas emissions were dismissed as left-wing propaganda and vegetarian agendas. But the reality of the U.N.’s report, along with dozens of subsequent peer-reviewed scientific articles, is that reducing meat consumption is one of the greatest things individuals can do to reduce their carbon footprint.

Andy presents a realistic option for making a difference — calculating your own meat consumption currently (for him about 20 meals a week containing meat) and reducing that figure by 75 percent. He is ambitious with such reductions, but even reducing your meat consumption by 25 percent can and will make a difference. While the article focuses on climate change environmental impacts in particular, there are also numerous other reasons to cut back on meat consumption.

In the United States, the EPA estimates that animals produce three times as much waste as humans, and that waste goes untreated before it is sprayed on our fields and washed into our streams. Downstream the added nutrients of animal wastes choke out oxygen from waterways and create eutrophic conditions, much like the ones that create the seasonal “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico.

Meat production, especially at large scale factory farms throughout the country, has had a notable impact on rural communities. Significant odors, groundwater contamination, and farmworker health problems have plagued pockets of our country including eastern North Carolina, central California, and the upper Midwest for untold years, as factory farms have gotten bigger. And, since the average American eats more than 200 pounds of meat a year — far more than any other country in the world — there are certainly potential health benefits to cutting back on the meat. Clearly, meat consumption isn’t just an environmental issue.

Climate change legislation is coming down the pipeline quickly throughout the country, and to date most of the discussion has focused on cap-and-trade initiatives to regulate transportation, electricity, and manufacturing sectors. The Fox News article highlights the need to also consider the role of animal production and food-system emissions overall in our climate change policies. But for the moment, it makes clear that we don’t need to wait around for policymakers to tell us how to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in this country. We make decisions everyday about our own carbon footprint which can actually have a real impact. I hope we can all join Andy in looking no farther than our plates to start making real changes today.

This week Gallup released data from its latest poll on global warming indicating that more Americans — 41 percent, the highest number since 1998 — believe that global warming is exaggerated. This sounds like cause for concern similar to what I wrote about back in January when polls indicated more Americans believe global warming is caused by planetary trends than humans. But in fact, the data on this poll isn’t as cut and dry as some of the media wants to insinuate. While the poll did find a slight decrease in the number of Americans who are a “fair amount” or “great deal” concerned about global warming, 60 percent of Americans still identify themselves this way.

The irony in the way the story was reported is that the poll shows the majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is accurately portrayed by the media. Yet, some stories went on to report the story as, “Americans doubting global warming.” It indicates yet another instance in which the media spun the story of global warming in a confusing and misleading way. What would the effect have been if the story read, “Majority of Americans believe seriousness of global warming is accurate.” Perhaps the increased American confusion and doubt about global warming is simply a byproduct of misconstrued media messages marked by sensationalist titles.

The poll is fascinating, though, for other very significant reasons. First, the poll notes that all of the increase in cynicism came from Americans 30 years old or older. Does that mean that America’s youth are increasingly recognizing the importance and significance of global warming? As a participant and panelist at Powershift in Washington D.C. two weeks ago, in which more than 10,000 of America’s youth came together to stand up for climate change policies, I have no doubt that this is true. The youth of our nation are slated to inherit the myriad problems of global warming and they are increasingly recognizing the importance of climate change mitigation and adaptation as a broader part of our economic development and environmental protection.

I also don’t believe that the majority of Americans are failing to recognize the importance of global warming or are incapable of acting on it, but rather that they still may not fully grasp the ubiquitous nature of the crisis. This became apparent in the Gallup poll when respondents ranked global warming dead last among their environmental concerns. Topping the list of environmental woes was drinking water, soil and water contamination, air pollution, loss of rain forests and extinction of plants and animals. Yet the underlying theme among all of these concerns is the overarching pressure that rising temperatures have on impacting these issues.

Drinking water and all fresh water will continue to become one of the most important issues for survival in the 21st century, and increased warming will perpetuate evaporation and loss of water supplies. One of the greatest sources of soil and water contamination in this country is from synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides, which not only create significant environmental “dead zones” in our waterways but poison drinking water supplies in rural areas. The production, transport, and application of agricultural chemicals contribute notable amounts of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide (310 times as potent at carbon dioxide) emissions to the atmosphere; in fact, nearly two thirds of all human-caused nitrous oxide emissions are from agriculture. The loss of our rainforests, often for the expansion of agricultural land to grow biofuels and animal feed, is releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year, further exacerbating warming temperatures. The polar bear is directly threatened with dwindling populations almost entirely due to the loss of arctic sea ice as a result of increased atmospheric temperatures. And air pollution? Are people really failing to recognize that air pollution and global warming are inherently connected?

Perhaps if the American people began to better understand the broad effects of warming temperatures they would recognize its seriousness. Nearly every environmental problem we are facing today is perpetuated or exacerbated by increased global temperatures and the other weather events that will ensue. In tough economic times it is especially difficult to grasp the importance of environmental preservation, which is often viewed at direct odds with economic development. This week, President Obama defied those stereotypes by appointing Van Jones as his green jobs guru, tasked to simultaneously increase environmental protection and economic stimulus. I have hope that he can not only rise to the task but also tie together environment and economy in a way that we can all better understand.

In Thursday’s New York Times, Andrew Pollack reported on how crop scientists throughout the country have been unable to perform adequate testing and research on biotech crops, because of the strong hand of biotechnology companies. Pollack was likely alerted to the story after a group of 26 corn insect scientists from 16 different states anonymously submitted a statement to the EPA on a docket regarding the evaluation of insect resistance risks with a brand of Pioneer Hi-Bred biotech corn. In their statement the scientists noted that they chose to remain anonymous because “virtually all of us require cooperation from industry at some level to conduct our research.”

Remaining anonymous allowed the scientists to fully express their real concern with biotech crop research controlled by the industry through technology and stewardship agreements, required to be signed for the purchase of genetically modified seeds. Such agreements are the same that farmers must sign before purchasing seeds, which prevent them from replanting seeds or thus risk legal action. The scientist coalition noted that such agreements “explicitly prohibit research” and “inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry.” The effects were clearly stated — “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.” Yet the scientific research community has not always been this way. Before patents were granted for life forms, the Plant Variety Protection Act passed by Congress in 1970 allowed farmers to save and replant protected seeds and gave scientists the right to research protected varieties.

The problem lies in the control that biotech companies have over seeds, given to them by patent rights. Effectively, patent protection allows a company to determine who can purchase its product and for what purpose. Pollack’s article highlights this problem and details how biotech companies can freely deny permission for seed requests and even review scientific findings before they are published. In an arena where scientific funding has notably dwindled from the public sector, land-grant universities and scientists have increasingly relied on private funding for their research. The effect of this influence is now all too clear. Elson J. Shields, a professor of entomology at Cornell, out it bluntly: “People are afraid of being blacklisted.”

The Times article is reflective of a larger ongoing problem. In 2002 Nature published an article about an Ohio State University professor who was conducting research on biotech sunflowers. After her initial research indicated that the seed would allow wild sunflowers to proliferate as weeds, Pioneer Hi-Bred and Dow AgroSciences refused to grant her permission to use the seed for follow up studies. Something similar happened to William Meredith, a USDA geneticist, in the late 1990s when Monsanto was trying to bring its biotech cotton to market. Meredith was denied access to the seeds, since in order to obtain them he would have had to sign an agreement with Monsanto agreeing not to test them.

To fully understand how alarming the situation is, consider how biotech crops and foods make their way from lab to field to plate in the United States. The USDA does not conduct its own tests on biotech crop varieties when deregulating and approving them for planting in the United States. Instead, it relies on industry studies and data to access their safety on the environment and human health.

But if the industry is preventing real research from entering the scientific community, how much should we trust industry biotech studies? A 2003 study published in the journal Nutrition and Health examined peer-reviewed studies of animals fed genetically-engineered foods. Of the 10 studies identified, the five carried out in collaboration with the industry found no adverse health effects. But of the five independent studies, all found adverse effects after feeding lab animals genetically engineered food for only 10 to 14 days.

This latest declaration from a variety of scientists who work in biotech research should be yet another red flag about the biotech industry. As Upton Sinclair famously noted a century ago, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” So long as our public universities and scientists continue to be heavily funded by industry interests, we may continue to see inadequate environmental and human health studies about biotech crops. And so long as the U.S. government continues to rely on the industry to provide them with data, the potential adverse side effects of biotech crops will likely remain silent.