All the ag carbon credits cheerleaders may want to look at what California, which has had an ag offset program for over a decade (not w/o issues), has approved as projects: forests, livestock & rice.
No credits for cover crops, reduced till etc. Why? 1/

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program
B/C of additionality, impermanence & monitoring issues. Paying farmers who were doing no till anyway is spending money for nothing (cover crops are ≠, yes). And most no till is rotational anyway (hence benefits are short-lived), and hard to monitor even w/ remote sensing 2/
These kinds of carbon credits don't address corn overproduction & associated lack of diversity on our landscape, CAFOs & associated manure💩issues. They benefit larger conventional crop farmers who will at best tinker at the margin of unsustainable production systems. 💄🐷 3/3
Ask yourselves how farmers with these beliefs will comply with the rules of a carbon market. They know it's another subsidy to get their votes, and they will behave accordingly. https://twitter.com/donpcarr/status/1354436280612835328?s=20
You can follow @ProfSecchi.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.