Read on Twitter
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
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
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
