Although there is a wide range of opinion about the accuracy of the models and the severity of the changes that lie ahead, the consensus of climatologists agrees that climate change is real and that human activity is having a significant effect. Readers are certainly familiar with the various debates about the efficacy or practicality of controlling carbon emissions.
Some scientists and engineers believe the threat posed by climate change is real, but that it is unlikely that emerging economies such as China and India will be willing to sacrifice economic growth by curtailing emissions significantly. Therefore they have suggested a variety of outlandish ideas for geoengineering — for example, atmospheric aerosols, orbital solar shields, ocean fertilizing to encourage plankton growth, or covering deserts with reflective surfaces. For our part, we appreciate the realism which understands that carbon emissions cannot be radically curtailed without kneecapping the global economy — but the prospect of geoengineering seems to us at least as dangerous as unmitigated atmospheric carbon. Mad scientists tinkering with the atmosphere, when their climate models are woefully incomplete and inaccurate, may be a recipe for disaster.
However, if science-fiction geoengineering and Luddite decarbonization are both off the table, there are still steps that can be taken to remove carbon from the atmosphere and mitigate the warming that it might create. These solutions are low-tech and market-based — and so wouldn’t require massive new government bureaucracies or invasive regulations. They would simply incentivize farmers to farm in a way that sequesters carbon in the soil — potentially balancing out a significant part of the world’s carbon emissions.
No-Till Farming and Crop Rotation: Part of the Carbon Sequestering Arsenal of Regenerative Agriculture
Source: Wikipedia
“Regenerative agriculture” is a system of organic agriculture which dramatically increases the sequestration of carbon in the soil, after it is absorbed and bound into plant tissues during the process of photosynthesis. Although this agricultural system is rooted in pre-modern agricultural approaches, it has been refined and systematized over the past several decades by organic advocates such as the Pennsylvania-based Rodale Institute. It shies away from the use of agricultural chemicals but embraces low-impact aspects of high-tech farming. The practice of regenerative agriculture, according to its advocates, results not just in carbon sequestration, but in healthier soil, healthier food, reduced or eliminated fertilizer and pesticide input, and higher crop yields.
Why don’t more farmers adopt regenerative practices? Because the transition can be expensive, involving significant capital investment — for example, seed drills to replace traditional tillage equipment. Yields can often be lower during the transition period as healthier soil is created, and many farmers don’t have the financial cushion to endure the shift.
Boston-based startup Indigo Ag, which has received more than $600 million in venture capital funding, is offering farmers a full suite of regenerative ag training and consulting services — as well as seed (wheat, corn, soy, and rice) treated with organic microbial solutions to boost yield.
To assist farmers in the financial transition to regenerative practices, Indigo Ag is creating a voluntary carbon-offset market. Farmers participating in this program receive $15 per ton of sequestered carbon (as measured by Indigo Ag’s high tech methods) — giving them revenues of $30–$60 per acre. The offsets are bought by companies who want to be able to claim carbon neutrality for their products or services. Indigo Ag’s biggest corporate carbon market participant to date is Anheuser-Busch, which made a deal this year to source 2.2 million bushels of sustainable rice.
In the past, efforts such as the ill-fated Chicago Climate Exchange collapsed, leaving farmers holding the bag. While Indigo Ag is guaranteeing farmers $15 per ton for now, they intend ultimately to transition to pricing set by the market. It remains to be seen whether a sufficient critical mass of public demand for carbon neutrality will be reached to prevent this experiment from meeting the same fate as its predecessors.
Investment implications: Fueled by shifting public opinion, demand for carbon neutral products and services may help enable the emergence of market-based solutions to climate change and carbon sequestration. Extreme technological intervention, and bureaucratic overreach which hamstrings economic growth, may prove to be less attractive alternatives than simply incentivizing the world’s farmers to be leaders in mitigating the impact of carbon emissions.
