The federal government is developing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions “offsetting” protocols. Under these offset trading systems, large emitters, such as oil refineries or fertilizer factories that produce emissions above those allowed by Canada’s regulations, can purchase offset credits from projects that reduce emissions or eliminate GHGs. of the atmosphere. Reductions in one location are considered to offset emissions in another.
Some farmers have been waiting decades to sell “carbon credits.” The government is now developing a Enhanced Soil Organic Carbon Offset Credit Protocol. The idea is that farmers, by adopting improved practices, can capture and store (“sequester”) carbon dioxide (CO2) as carbon in soils and this can offset the CO from fossil fuels.2 of large emitters. However, many experts question the legitimacy and effectiveness of land-based compensation systems.
The National Farmers Union shares those concerns.
Our organization has sent a report to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) which lists 18 reasons why governments should move away from land-based offset plans. Here are five of those reasons:
1. Temporary soil sequestration cannot compensate for essentially permanent emissions of fossil fuels. Carbon released into the atmosphere from deep geological deposits through the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels is essentially permanent (the resulting carbon/CO2 remains in the atmosphere/biosphere for centuries (much of it for more than a thousand years). In contrast, soil sequestration (carbon captured a few centimeters below the surface) is not permanent. Carbon/CO sequestered2 It is easily released by changes in agricultural practices, changes in land use, or even by rising temperatures or drought. Temporary storage cannot “offset” permanent release.
2. Soils do not have the capacity to offset fossil fuel emissions. Why are agricultural soils capable of absorbing atmospheric CO?2/coal? Because past agricultural practices released coal. And the amount that soils can absorb is approximately equal to the amount released by those past practices. Fundamentally, the carbon released from these soils is still in the atmosphere in the form of CO2, which persists for centuries. When we think about agricultural soils sequestering CO2We should not think of these soils as absorbing GHG from the current or future combustion of fossil fuels, but rather as reabsorbing CO.2 From the past floor emissions.
9. Offsets delay and slow emissions reductions. To quote Canada’s federal and provincial environment ministers: “GHG offsets replace direct emissions reductions…” (Pan-Canadian Greenhouse Gas Offset Framework)..) Large emitters buy offsets to avoid spending money to actually reduce their emissions.
12. Many farmers do not want payments from the largest emitters. In offset markets, when farmers get money for doing the right thing, they get paid so that others can continue doing the wrong thing, so that high-emitting corporations can minimize emissions reduction investments. Offset credit payments attempt to lure farmers into programs that green light, or greenwash, high emissions that endanger our future.
18. The relative ease of compensation does not correspond to the magnitude of the emergency we face. The recent UN Emissions Gap Report states that humanity is on track for warming of 2.5 C to 2.9 C this century, well above the 2 C line of the Paris Agreement that marks extreme danger. Therefore, we are on track to burn ecosystems and crops, deplete water supplies, cripple economies, and displace or kill millions of people. As a response to this extreme crisis, dubious offset trading is totally inappropriate. It is against this backdrop that the NFU is urging governments to set aside compensation schemes and instead use the full scope of their spending, education, research, regulation, leadership and governance powers to ensure that all sectors reduce quickly its actual emissions.
Instead of complex schemes to sequester carbon in agricultural soils after release, don’t release it, writes @DarrinQualman #cdnpoli
Trade-offs are the wrong approach. It is wrong to release CO2 of fossil fuels and then trying to store it in the ground. Superior alternatives can be implemented. Instead of complex schemes to capture carbon after it is released, don’t release it.
Put aside dubious trade-offs and instead take ambitious steps to make deep and rapid cuts to emissions in all sectors.
We must avoid making a disastrous political mistake: risking our future on offset protocols, emissions trading and similar schemes that will delay emissions reductions and fail to stabilize the climate for farmers and all the world’s citizens.
Darrin Qualman is director of climate policy and action at the National Farmers Union.