Biden’s new agriculture plan is great for farmers—but terrible for the planet

Agriculture has a big climate problem. Within the U.S., agriculture accounts for about 10% of total greenhouse gas emissions, which makes the industry more polluting than most countries, including Australia, the U.K., and even the entire European Union. To address this problem quickly demands focusing on the biggest sources of emissions and the most promising solutions. Anything less is a costly detour from the path to net zero, draining both time and resources.

Unfortunately, the Biden-Harris administration’s Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program is one of these costly detours. At $3.1 billion, the scale of this new initiative is commendable and acknowledges the reality that agriculture matters when it comes to mitigating our greenhouse gas emissions. But by focusing on offsets and carbon sequestration, the administration is ignoring the science on the actual sources of agricultural emissions: fertilizers and livestock.

Around half of agricultural emissions come from excess nitrogen-based fertilizer being released from the soil as nitrous oxide—a potent greenhouse gas that has nearly 300 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over a century. In the effort to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, every ounce of fertilizer matters.

Yet few of the 141 projects being funded through the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program focus on fertilizer reduction. While some of the projects mention real solutions such as more precisely applying fertilizer so there is less excess, many more focus instead on using regenerative practices, such as cover crops and no tilling, to increase the soil’s ability to store carbon.

Advancing the science of climate solutions and working with others to drive change on the ground is what I do as a senior scientist at Project Drawdown, whose mission is to help the world stop climate change as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible. These solutions include many changes in how crops are produced and livestock are managed. Recent studies, however, call into question just how beneficial these practices might be.

Cover crops, for example, sequester far less carbon than previously thought, and the initial decrease in productivity from switching to regenerative practices could drive producers to use more land, offsetting any climate benefits. Not only is the carbon that is sequestered very difficult to measure but also it can be undone with one future plowing.

After fertilizer-based emissions, most of the agricultural sector’s remaining emissions—around 44%—come from livestock production, specifically the mismanagement of manure and cows burping methane as they digest their feed.

Here again, the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program falls woefully short. Though there are a handful of projects being funded that are looking into feed additives, such as algae, that could reduce methane emissions from livestock, many more are focused on locking away more carbon in rangelands through regenerative grazing, which is a suite of management practices to help restore soil, water, and nutrients through raising livestock.

But methane only lasts in the atmosphere for about 11 years and it packs a warming punch almost 90 times stronger than carbon dioxide in the first two decades. That means even if farmers are able to increase the carbon in soil through regenerative grazing, it accumulates slowly over decades, limiting its utility as an offset.

It’s no wonder that major agribusiness companies and farmers—who, in the words of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, “wanted this program to be set up and basically outlined how it should be set up”—support the policy. It funnels millions of dollars into developing carbon offset revenue streams for agribusiness and new markets for products that may be “climate-smart” in label and name only. Meanwhile, it ignores science-backed solutions that address where agricultural emissions are actually coming from.

It’s important to note that regenerative practices are a climate solution that holds promise for sequestering much more carbon than is currently being stored in our degraded soils. However, they are not able to address agricultural emissions at the speed or scale that is necessary because they don’t target the most prominent sources. Fortunately, we know the solutions that do.

First and foremost, nitrogen and methane emissions from fertilizers and livestock, respectively, need to be reduced as quickly as possible. Nitrogen can be reduced by shifting to slow-release fertilizers and adjusting the placement and timing of fertilizer so that more of it ends up in the crop instead of the atmosphere, while methane can be prevented through better manure management and the widespread adoption of feed additives.

Ultimately, however, the most impactful decisions that can address both nitrogen and methane emissions are around what we eat and what gets wasted.

Most of the nitrogen applied to U.S. farmlands is used to produce corn—not for people but for methane-emitting livestock and greenhouse-gas-emitting ethanol. Putting more plants on our plates and less meat leads unequivocally to healthier people and a healthier planet.

Equally impactful is addressing food waste. Between 30% and 40% of food produced in America ends up rotting in landfills as a major, unnecessary source of methane emissions. Food waste can be reduced by buying what we need and eating what we buy, as well as by distributing unsold and leftover foods to food pantries.

Instead of subsidizing relatively small emissions reductions through increased soil carbon for agribusiness offsets, the funded projects should be working to curb nitrogen and methane. Instead of creating new markets for “climate-smart” meat and dairy, we should be promoting more production and consumption of fruits, vegetables, and grains that have a lower impact on the planet.

The Biden-Harris administration should be commended for going beyond renewable energy sources, more efficient appliances, and transportation to address the major contribution of agriculture to climate change. But if we are to reach net zero, it’s imperative that within each policy the intended outcomes and pathways to get there are based on evidence and actual solutions.

---

Paul West, PhD, is a senior scientist at Project Drawdown, where he researches climate solutions connected to ecosystems and agriculture. He’s an ecologist who has worked for over three decades to create a better world for people and nature.