Will Carbon Farming Save the Planet?

Carbon farming has gained significant attention as a potential solution to the climate crisis, promising to reward farmers for storing carbon in soil through practices like planting cover crops. While the idea has captured the interest of policymakers and the private sector, it faces substantial challenges. The instability of carbon stored in soil, which can be released by droughts or changes in farming practices, undermines its long-term reliability. Additionally, the complexity and high costs of accurately measuring soil carbon limit its effectiveness. Ultimately, relying on carbon farming alone cannot address the broader need for both emissions reductions and healthier soil to ensure food security and combat climate change.

Carbon Farming

Healthy soil is fundamental to life on Earth, sustaining nearly 60% of all living species. As the second-largest carbon reservoir after oceans, soil plays a vital role in combating climate change. Yet, despite its immense potential, the degradation of soil worldwide poses a serious threat to biodiversity, food security, and climate goals. A popular but controversial solution to this issue is carbon farming—a practice that incentivizes farmers to store carbon in soil through market mechanisms. While promising in theory, carbon farming has its limitations and risks becoming a distraction from necessary systemic reforms.

Read More: Trump’s Economic Agenda and Challenges

1. The Growing Crisis of Soil Degradation

The world’s soils are under immense pressure. Droughts are turning fertile land into deserts, while pesticide use reduces soil biodiversity, impairing our ability to produce healthy food. The scarcity of high-quality agricultural land has led to conflicts over shrinking topsoil, which is critical for crop growth.

The Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Soil Atlas paints a bleak picture, showing how industrial agriculture drives soil degradation, depletes carbon reserves, and accelerates biodiversity loss. Despite these challenges, global greenhouse-gas emissions from agriculture have stagnated over the past decade, highlighting the sector’s slow progress in advancing climate goals. Addressing this crisis requires a multifaceted approach, with soil health at its core.

Read More: Can India Become a Developed Economy by Mid-Century?

2. A Market-Based Solution

Carbon farming has emerged as a proposed solution to mitigate climate change while improving soil health. The concept involves rewarding farmers for storing carbon in their soil through practices like planting cover crops or reducing tillage. Farmers earn certificates for the carbon they sequester, which can be sold as carbon credits in voluntary or regulated markets. This additional income stream aims to encourage sustainable agricultural practices.

Governments and corporations have shown interest in carbon farming. Countries like Canada and Australia have integrated soil-carbon credits into their markets, while the European Union is developing its own certification program. Fertilizer and pesticide companies, including Yara and Bayer, are also rolling out certification schemes. However, the surge in popularity raises questions about the viability and reliability of this approach.

Read More: China’s Pension Crisis, A New Challenge

3. The Flaws in the Carbon Farming Model

While carbon farming appears promising, it suffers from several fundamental flaws. One major challenge is the inherent instability of carbon stored in soil. Unlike carbon sequestered in geological formations, soil carbon can easily be re-released into the atmosphere due to droughts, floods, or changes in farming practices.

Previous attempts to address similar instabilities in forest carbon reserves have proven unsuccessful. For instance, reserve credits in California were depleted faster than expected after wildfires, undermining their effectiveness. Soil carbon credits face similar risks, as ensuring long-term storage is unreliable. A system dependent on inherently unstable carbon pools cannot provide the certainty needed for effective climate action.

Read More: The IMF Surcharge Policy Must Be End

4. Measurement Challenges and Financial Viability

Accurately measuring soil carbon is neither simple nor cost-effective. Variables like sampling depth, location, and timeframe complicate the process. Alternative methods, such as mathematical models or limited sampling, have failed to resolve these challenges.

Moreover, the market prices for soil-carbon credits have been too low to cover the costs of adopting sustainable practices, discouraging farmers from participating. Instead of addressing this issue through fair pricing, regulators in Europe have opted to simplify credit generation, compromising the system’s integrity. Without robust financial incentives, carbon farming risks remaining an underutilized tool.

5. Carbon Farming and the Livestock Industry

The livestock industry has embraced carbon farming as a potential smokescreen to offset its substantial methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Industry groups argue that carbon storage in grasslands can neutralize these emissions. However, this claim is unrealistic, as achieving meaningful offsets would require vast expanses of grassland.

Reducing emissions from the livestock sector necessitates cutting down livestock numbers and curbing meat and dairy consumption. The overreliance on carbon farming to offset emissions could delay these critical measures, perpetuating unsustainable practices in agriculture.

6. The False Dichotomy of Carbon Markets

Carbon farming creates a false dichotomy between maintaining soil health and reducing emissions. In reality, both goals are interdependent. Healthy soil is essential for food production and climate resilience, while reducing emissions is critical for limiting global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has emphasized that sequestering carbon in soil cannot substitute for emissions reductions. Relying on soil carbon credits risks legitimizing controversial carbon-removal technologies, which may divert attention from the urgent need to cut emissions at their source. A balanced approach prioritizing both soil health and emission reductions is necessary for sustainable climate action.

Read More: The Impact of Chinese Manufacturing Decline

7. A Path Toward Transformative Change

Market-based approaches like carbon farming cannot deliver the transformative change needed to address the climate crisis. Instead, public funds currently spent on agricultural subsidies should be redirected toward investments that improve soil health and support farmers in transitioning to climate-resilient practices.

A comprehensive strategy would involve promoting agroecological practices, such as crop diversification, reduced pesticide use, and organic farming. Governments must also implement policies that prioritize emission reductions across the agriculture sector, including the livestock industry.

By investing in soil health and reducing emissions simultaneously, we can create a sustainable food system that supports both the environment and agricultural communities.

Bottom Line

While carbon farming holds potential as a supplementary tool for combating climate change, its limitations underscore the need for systemic reforms in agriculture. Unstable carbon storage, measurement challenges, and financial barriers make it an unreliable sole solution. A transformative approach that integrates soil health with emissions reductions is essential for building a sustainable and climate-resilient future.

As the world grapples with the dual crises of soil degradation and climate change, the focus must shift from quick fixes to long-term solutions that address the root causes of these interconnected challenges. Only then can we protect the soil that sustains life on Earth and ensure a livable future for generations to come.