[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS:
OPPORTUNITIES IN AGRICULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
CLIMATE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
OCTOBER 30, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-13
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-635 WASHINGTON : 2020
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
JULIA BROWNLEY, California MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
JARED HUFFMAN, California GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
----------
Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
climatecrisis.house.gov
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Hon. Garrett Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 4
WITNESSES
Jennifer Moore-Kucera, Ph.D., Climate Initiative Director,
American Farmland Trust
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 7
Fred Yoder, Corn, Soybean & Wheat Farmer; Co-Chair, Solutions
from the Land
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 17
Tina Owens, Sr. Director, Agriculture Funding & Communication,
Danone North America
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 23
Viral Amin, Vice President for Commercial Development & Strategy,
DTE Energy Resources
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Prepared Statement........................................... 28
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter from Defenders of Wildlife, submitted for the record by
Ms. Castor..................................................... 50
Report, Climate Mitigation through Agricultural Productivity,
Innovation, and Trade, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor.. 52
Report, IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, submitted for the record by Mr. Graves................. 54
Chart, C02 Emissions Reductions, 2005-2017, from Global Carbon
Atlas, submitted for the record by Mr. Graves.................. 54
Chart, California's Crude Oil Imports, by Source, 2014-2018, data
sourced from California Energy Commission, submitted for the
record by Mr. Graves........................................... 55
Article from Washington Examiner, ``Why Natural Gas from Putin's
Russia Has to Be Imported to New England,'' submitted for the
record by Mr. Graves........................................... 55
Letter from Sens. Maria Cantwell, Robert Menendez, Chuck Schumer,
and Ed Markey to President Trump, submitted for the record by
Mr. Graves..................................................... 55
APPENDIX
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Jennifer
Moore-Kucera................................................... 55
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Tina Owens.... 59
Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Tina Owens... 59
Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Fred Yoder... 63
Questions for the Record from Hon. Garret Graves to Viral Amin... 64
SOLVING THE CLIMATE CRISIS: OPPORTUNITIES IN AGRICULTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:35 p.m., in Room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley,
Huffman, Casten, Graves, Griffith, Palmer, Carter, and Miller.
Also Present: Representative Pingree
Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any time.
Without objection, Representative Chellie Pingree, the
gentlewoman from Maine, shall be permitted to join the
committee on the dais and be recognized for questioning of
witnesses.
Welcome, everyone. Today we will explore how American farms
can be part of climate solutions and examine climate smart
agricultural practices that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and, at the same time, increase soil health and carbon
sequestration in agricultural lands, all while helping make
farms more resilient to the impacts of climate change. I would
like to recognize myself now for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
Well, last week the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
began exploring natural climate solutions. Nature gives us
effective and inexpensive opportunities to keep our air and
water clean and to reduce carbon pollution. Today, we will
discuss similar opportunities in agriculture and how farmers
are contributing to climate solutions and can do more.
Farmers are on the front lines of the climate crisis.
Earlier this year, the midwest experienced extreme rains
followed by severe winds and blizzard conditions across the
region. The effects were devastating. The storms decimated
livestock, flooded some fields for months, and left millions of
acres unable to be planted. Some areas along the Missouri River
are still flooded now 7 months later.
Similar stories can be told in other parts of our nation,
whether it is fires in the west or hurricanes in the southeast.
In fact, extreme weather conditions made the past year one of
the worst agricultural years in decades. The climate crisis is
increasingly putting America's agriculture at risk through
harsher floods, longer droughts, unexpected frosts, and other
extreme weather events. You know, anyone who eats should care
about the climate crisis.
In August, with Fred Yoder, I visited with Florida
agriculture leaders that included citrus, strawberry, and dairy
farmers, timber, and ranching interests, along with
agricultural extension scientists from the University of
Florida, and they advised me that rising temperatures and
extreme events are impacting their operations and that they
need help adapting.
And they impressed upon me that they also want to be part
of the solution to the climate crisis, and they are not alone.
As farmers across America increasingly wrestle with the impacts
of higher temperatures, they are also looking for opportunities
to help solve the climate crisis. Through land management
strategies and smart partnerships, they can have an enormous
impact. America's farms are uniquely situated to become
powerful carbon sinks, all while becoming more resilient to the
impacts of severe weather events.
In the United States, agriculture is responsible for nearly
10 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions which primarily
come from nitrogen fertilizer applications and livestock. But
through innovative and proven conservation practices that we
will hear about today, they can reduce these emissions.
And farmers are already doing a lot to combat the climate
crisis, and we must invest in them to do even more. Climate
smart agricultural practices such as reducing tillage, planting
cover crops, and diversifying crop rotations can increase
farmlands' potential to sequester carbon and mitigate climate
change. These practices often improve soil health and can also
reduce costs, increase yields, and make farms more resilient to
the impacts of extreme weather.
One of the most important things we can do to fight the
climate crisis is to protect our farmlands. In the last several
decades, we have lost millions of acres of agricultural lands
to development. Protecting current farmland from development
reduces the pressure to convert natural areas to new cropland,
leaving intact the forests, the grasslands and wetlands to
provide the climate benefits that we discussed last week.
Congress has already taken some steps to incentivize
climate smart agricultural practices. Congressionally
authorized USDA programs such as the Conservation Stewardship
Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program offer
farmers technical and financial assistance to increase
conservation activities.
The Conservation Reserve Program pays farmers to
voluntarily retire land from production for less resource-
intensive uses, and the Agriculture Conservation Easement
Program permanently protects farmlands through agricultural
conservation easements.
Congress passed important improvements in the 2018 Farm
Bill which increased and expanded upon these initiatives. The
USDA also administers the Rural Energy Savings Program and the
Renewable Energy for America Program which helps support energy
efficiency and renewable energy in rural communities. And, of
course, the renewable fuel standards and federal tax incentives
for wind and solar have provided sustained economic benefits to
farmers in rural counties across the country, but there is more
work to do.
We can help the agricultural sector increase their critical
role in carbon storage, and we can help farmers maintain and
increase their profitability while also helping to solve the
climate crisis. So today we have experts here who are going to
help us develop those solutions and help us turn all of these
things into reality.
At this time, I will recognize--since Mr. Graves is not
here, Mr. Griffith, if you would like to make any opening
comments, you are welcome, and Mr. Graves will still get his
opportunity when he arrives.
[The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
__________
Opening Statement (As Prepared for Delivery)
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL), Chair
U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in Agriculture''
October 30, 2019
Last week, our committee began exploring natural climate solutions.
Nature gives us effective and inexpensive opportunities to keep our air
and water clean and to reduce carbon pollution. Today, we will discuss
similar opportunities in agriculture and how farmers are contributing
to climate solutions--and can do more.
Farmers are on the front lines of the climate crisis. Earlier this
year, the Midwest experienced extreme rains followed by severe winds
and blizzard conditions across the region. The effects were
devastating: the storm decimated livestock, flooded some fields for
months, and left millions of acres unable to be planted. Some areas
along the Missouri River are still flooded now--seven months later.
Similar stories can be told in other parts of our nation, whether
it's fires in the West or hurricanes in the Southeast. In fact, extreme
weather conditions made the past year one of the worst for agriculture
in decades. The climate crisis is increasingly putting America's
agriculture at risk, through harsher floods, longer droughts,
unexpected frosts, and other extreme weather events. Anyone who eats
should care about the climate crisis.
In August, I visited with Florida agriculture leaders that included
citrus, strawberries, dairy, timber and ranching and the University of
Florida ag extension scientists. The farmers and ranchers advised me
that rising temperatures and extreme events are impacting their
operations and they need help adapting, and they impressed upon me that
they want to be part of the solution to the climate crisis.
They are not alone. As farmers across America increasingly wrestle
with the impacts of higher temperatures, they're also looking for
opportunities to help solve the climate crisis. Through land management
strategies and smart partnerships, they can have an enormous impact.
America's farms are uniquely situated to become powerful carbon sinks,
all while becoming more resilient to the impacts of severe weather
events.
In the United States, agriculture is responsible for nearly 10
percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions, which primarily come from
nitrogen fertilizer application and livestock. But through innovative
and proven conservation practices that we'll hear about today, they can
reduce these emissions.
Farmers are already doing a lot to combat the climate crisis, and
we must invest in them to help them do even more. Climate-smart
agricultural practices, such as reducing tillage, planting cover crops,
and diversifying crop rotations, can increase farmland's potential to
sequester carbon and mitigate climate change. These practices to
improve soil health can also reduce costs, increase yields, and make
farms more resilient to the impacts of extreme weather.
One of the most important things we can do to fight the climate
crisis is protect our farmlands. In the last several decades, we have
lost millions of acres of agricultural lands to development. Protecting
current farmland from development reduces the pressure to convert
natural areas to new cropland, leaving intact the forests, grasslands,
and wetlands to provide the climate benefits we discussed last week.
Congress has already taken steps to incentivize climate-smart
agricultural practices. Congressionally-authorized USDA programs--such
as the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program--offer farmers technical and financial assistance to
increase conservation activities. The Conservation Reserve Program pays
farmers to voluntarily retire land from production for less resource-
intensive uses. And the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
permanently protects farmland through agricultural conservation
easements. Congress also passed important improvements in the 2018 Farm
Bill, which increased and expanded upon these initiatives.
The USDA also administers the Rural Energy Savings Program and the
Renewable Energy for America Program which help support energy
efficiency and renewable energy in rural communities. And, of course,
the Renewable Fuels Standard and federal tax incentives for wind and
solar have provided sustained economic benefits to farmers and rural
counties across the country.
But there is still work to do.
We can help the agricultural sector increase their critical role in
carbon storage. And we can help farmers maintain and increase their
profitability, while also helping solve the climate crisis. Today we'll
explore ways Congress can help make this a reality.
Mr. Griffith. Well, I appreciate that, Madam Chair, but I
anticipate that Ranking Member Graves will be here shortly.
Ms. Castor. Okay. Well, if the witnesses don't mind, when
he arrives, we may break in between witnesses and have him give
some opening statements, or he might want to just jump right
into the questions as well.
So without objection, members who wish to enter opening
statements into the record may have 5 business days to do so.
Now we will move on to our terrific panel before us today.
I will introduce each of you, and then we will go one by one
with testimony.
First is Dr. Jennifer Moore-Kucera. She is the Climate
Initiative Director at American Farmland Trust. She oversees
their efforts to help states develop innovative policies and
programs that can maximize agriculture opportunities to combat
the climate crisis. Prior to joining AFT, she served in USDA's
Natural Resource Conservation Service as west region soil
health team leader and as the co-director for the USDA
northwest climate hub.
Next, my good friend, Mr. Fred Yoder, is a fourth
generation farmer. He grows corn, soybeans, and wheat in Ohio
on his family's farm and operates a retail seed business. He is
also the co-chair of Solutions for the Land and advocates for
agriculture solutions to sustain productive, enhance climate
resilience, and help the United States reach sustainable
development goals.
Next, Ms. Tina Owens is the Senior Director of Agriculture
Funding and Communication at Danone North America. Her work
focuses on regenerative agriculture practices and financing.
She has spent 2 decades leading sustainability and strategic
sourcing in the food industry.
Next, Mr. Viral Amin is the Vice President of Commercial
Development and Strategy at DTE Energy Resources. DTE Energy is
a diversified energy company and develops renewable energy
services projects, including a dairy-based renewable gas
processing facility in Wisconsin.
Before we turn to you, Dr. Moore-Kucera, we want to welcome
the ranking member, and if you would like 5 minutes to make
opening remarks.
Mr. Graves. Thank you for not late shaming me too much. I
apologize for being late, but thank you all for being here.
I just very quickly want to say that I appreciate you all
being here today. Agriculture is a very important opportunity,
very important natural resource managers that have the
opportunity, as I indicated, to be significant participants in
our efforts to sequester greenhouse gases.
If you look across the globe, approximately, I guess the
average for agriculture is emitting about 24 percent of the
greenhouse gases in different countries. In the United States,
it is about 8 percent, indicating it is a more efficient
agricultural practice here in the United States which does
support our efforts to export agricultural products because
globally, that helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when
you look at global averages.
It is similar to the policies that we have discussed in
this committee in regard to natural gas. U.S. natural gas,
according to the National Energy Technology Laboratories, is
over 40 percent cleaner than Russian natural gas when supplied
to European and Asian countries. So once again, using U.S. gas
results in lower greenhouse gas emissions globally.
Do we need to do a better job implementing best management
practices and investing in R&D to ensure that we are maximizing
opportunities with our farmers with agricultural lands?
Absolutely. To figure out how we do a better job enhancing
sequestration and do it in a way that is complementary to the
objectives of our farming community.
So with that, I am going to yield back, and thank you Madam
Chair.
Ms. Castor. All right. Dr. Moore-Kucera, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DR. JENNIFER MOORE-KUCERA, CLIMATE INITIATIVE
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST; FRED YODER, CORD, SOYBEAN,
AND WHEAT FARMER, CO-CHAIR, SOLUTIONS FROM THE LAND; TINA
OWENS, SR. DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE FUNDING, AND COMMUNICATION,
DANONE NORTH AMERICA; VIRAL AMIN, VICE PRESIDENT, COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGY, DTE ENERGY RESOURCES
STATEMENT OF DR. JENNIFER MOORE-KUCERA
Dr. Moore-Kucera. Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and
honorable members of the committee, I am Jennifer Moore-Kucera,
the Climate Initiative Director for American Farmland Trust. An
organization founded 40 years ago to help protect farmland,
advance sound farming practices, and keep farmers on the land.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and applaud the
committee for exploring the critical issue of agriculture and
climate change.
Our nation's crop and ranch lands offer immediately
available, low cost, and proven ways to address climate change
by sequestering carbon and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
No other option to combat climate change comes with more of the
co-benefits we need for a sustainable future. It is imperative
we work across the political spectrum to make this opportunity
a reality. Our farms and our futures depend upon it.
Climate change threatens lives, livelihoods, our food
security, and our economy, and is no longer a distant problem.
Record high temperatures, drought, wildfires, storms, and
floods are becoming more intense and frequent. Collectively,
these events negatively impact our crops, soil, and water. You
are probably already seeing one of more of these impacts in
your own districts. As we speak, northern California is
suffering from intense wildfires in what has become a new
normal.
Agriculture contributes to these challenges as a net
emitter of more than 580 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents per year. However, these emissions can be
substantially reduced or even offset with continued adoption of
what are commonly referred to as regenerative climate smart or
soil health practices.
Two proven low-cost soil health practices are cover crops
and conservation tillage. Working with the USDA colleagues, we
estimate that if U.S. farmers adopted cover crops on 25 percent
of our cropland and conservation tillage on 100 percent of our
tillable acres, we could reduce nearly 150 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalents per year or one quarter of the
total U.S. agricultural emissions, and there are numerous other
practices available that can further reduce these levels which
we can discuss during questions.
AFT recently documented the co-benefits of soil health
practices on four farms from across the U.S. After implementing
new soil practices, they found that in addition to reducing
their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 379 percent,
these same farms significantly cut nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment losses and increased yields. The three row crop
farmers increased their average net income by $42 per acre per
year.
These gains, however, are not possible unless we keep
farmland as farmland. According to USDA, over 25 million acres
of farm and ranch land were converted to development between
1982 and 2015. Once land is lost to development, we lose the
ability to further sequester carbon, and the remaining lands
are subject to increased pressures. Encouraging agricultural
easements and compact urban growth are two ways to protect
farmland while reducing transportation emissions.
Today I am here as a scientist, not as a policy expert.
Nonetheless, I want to share some perspectives from AFT policy
experts. We call on Congress to seize the opportunities and
make agriculture a key partner in fighting climate change. This
could be achieved through a comprehensive climate bill or
integrated into a transformational farm bill.
First, Congress should expand upon the successful voluntary
Farm Bill conservation programs. Historically, these programs
have more demand than available funding.
Second, we encourage Congress to leverage other Federal
programs and State-level innovations such as the pilot programs
in Iowa and Illinois that offer reductions on crop insurance
premiums for cover crop adoption.
Third, we need additional research on practices that help
address climate change and quantify their impacts. This
knowledge will inform farmers and ensure good, sound public
investments.
Lastly, we must find new ways to fund these practices and
reward farmers for reducing greenhouse gases. This can include
engaging consumers and private companies through environmental
markets, supply chain management, and labels.
Producers are struggling to make ends meet. Such efforts
are models for encouraging best practices and keeping producers
viable. Our nation's farm and ranch lands have numerous
scalable opportunities to address climate change with the co-
benefits we need for our future. We at AFT are excited to
continue this conversation and serve as a resource as you move
forward.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify.
[The statement of Dr. Moore-Kucera follows:]
__________
Testimony of Jennifer Moore-Kucera, Ph.D.
Climate Initiative Director, American Farmland Trust
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in Agriculture''
October 30, 2019
Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Honorable Members of the
House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. I am Jennifer Moore-
Kucera, the Climate Initiative Director for American Farmland Trust.
Our nonprofit organization was founded 40 years ago to help protect
farmland, advance sound farming practices, and keep farmers on the
land.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I applaud the
committee for exploring the critical issue of agriculture and climate
change.
I want to open by saying that addressing climate change by
promoting climate-smart, regenerative agricultural practices can be a
win-win-win. We can ensure our nation's food security, improve our
environment, and enhance economic returns to farmers and ranchers.
Moreover, we already have the tools to reduce, or even eliminate, net
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and scientists and farmers are coming
up with new innovations all the time. Along the way, we can make
farmers and ranchers more productive, more profitable, and more
resilient to the ups and downs of weather and markets. And finally, all
of society will reap numerous additional benefits, including cleaner
water, more wildlife habitat, and more productive soils that can keep
growing food for generations to come. Not many sectors of the economy
have the positive opportunities that we do in agriculture, so we need
to work together, across the political spectrum, to seize these
opportunities.
climate risks to agriculture
There is a lot at stake. Too often we think of climate change as an
abstraction, something that will happen in the far-off future. But for
America's farmers and ranchers, climate change is already a daily
reality. Extreme weather events, including record high temperatures and
drought in parts of our country, threaten crop productivity, stress
water supplies, and increase wildfire risks, while more frequent and
intense storms in other areas wash away the soil and increase flooding.
Collectively, these events negatively impact our crops and the soil and
water resources we depend on. They also threaten livestock, wildlife,
people, national food security, and our economy.
Within just the past 22 years, we have experienced 20 of the
hottest years on record (WMO, 2019). Increased temperatures are
predicted to impact crop yields and germination and harvest timing.
These impacts may be positive or negative depending on the crop and
location (Roesch-McNally et al., 2019). Whereas some crops might
benefit from a longer growing season, the species and varieties of
crops grown in an area shift, resulting in the need for new equipment,
knowledge, and resources to maintain viability. Other impacts include
greater risks of disease, insect, and weed pressures due to higher
temperatures, longer growing seasons, and more frost-free days, which
will increase dependence on inputs such as fungicides, herbicides, and
insecticides.
In addition to higher temperatures, more extreme weather events are
projected. Some areas will experience increased duration, frequency,
and intensity of drought, whereas other areas will be subjected to
intense storms, leading to major flooding. So-called 500-year floods
have become 100-year floods. This makes planting and harvest more
difficult, as seen in the Midwest this year when unusually wet
conditions led to one of the latest planting seasons on record (Rippey,
2019). These events also lead to soil loss from erosion and flooding of
farm fields, compounding water quality problems.
Other concerns, especially in western states, involve the reduction
in snowpack amount and earlier peak flows (snow melt), which would
reduce water availability during the growing season (Roesch-McNally et
al., 2019). Heavy and earlier spring rains or flood events will delay
planting or force farmers to perform field operations (e.g., tillage,
planting) when the soil is susceptible to compaction or erosion. Major
flooding also imperils infrastructures such as roads, railroads, barge
landings, and buildings necessary for storage and crop processing.
Higher temperatures and increased drought increase stress on both
livestock and crops, thus requiring greater inputs to maintain their
health.
Increased carbon dioxide (CO2) levels will have both positive and
negative effects on agriculture. Additional CO2 will
stimulate growth in some crops, such as soybean and wheat, and may
provide some protection against moderate drought. However, increasing
CO2 levels will also stimulate weed growth, potentially
increasing herbicide use (Ziska, 2003). In addition, higher
CO2 levels cause plants to take up less nutrients, leading
to less nutritious feed in the trough and food on our plate (Myers et
al., 2014).
Finally, drought and high temperatures will result in increased
wildfire risk which threatens homes, fields, livestock, wildlife, and,
tragically, human life. Smoke damage for certain susceptible specialty
crops (e.g., wine grapes) has resulted in decreased quality and can
negatively affect farmers and farm workers exposed to unhealthy air
conditions. Farmers and their neighbors in northern California are
suffering from intense wildfires at the time of this testimony, in what
has unfortunately become a new normal. Chances are that all of you are
already seeing one or more of these impacts within your own districts.
agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions
Agricultural practices, in part, contribute to total greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions in the United States (US). The most recent EPA report
indicates that agriculture releases about 582 million metric tons (MMT)
of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which translates to
approximately 9% of total US emissions (USEPA, 2019). \1\ In contrast
to other production sectors, which are dominated by energy-related
CO2 emission sources, the bulk of agriculture's impact on
climate change is due to nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4)
emissions from fertilizer application, manure handling, and enteric
fermentation from livestock (USEPA, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CO2e refers to the carbon dioxide equivalent,
because methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are
converted to their CO2 equivalent, in terms of their global
warming potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following percentages exclude the 40.1 MMT CO2 from
fuel combustion in agriculture to focus on the contribution of
agricultural management as reported in the agriculture chapter (Chapter
5) of the US EPA 2019 inventory report:
53% of agriculture's GHG contributions are in the
form of nitrous oxide (N2O) from agricultural soil management
(activities such as fertilizer application, growing N-fixing
plants), drainage of organic soils and irrigation practices,
manure management, and field burning of agricultural residues.
Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere about 114 years and is
almost 300 times more efficient at trapping heat than
CO2 (IPCC, 2007).
46% of agricultural emissions are from methane (CH4)
primarily from enteric fermentation from livestock and manure
management, as well as rice cultivation and field burning of
agricultural residues. Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is
only 12 years, but it is 25 times more efficient at trapping
heat than CO2 over a 100-year period (IPCC, 2007).
Unlike other sectors, only 1.5% of agriculture's GHG
contributions are from Carbon Dioxide (CO2), predominantly from
urea fertilization and liming.
agriculture as a climate solution
Although agriculture currently is a net source of GHG emissions,
farmers and ranchers can be some of our nation's greatest allies in
fighting climate change. There are numerous crop land and grazing land
management practices that are known to increase the amount of carbon
plants can capture and ultimately store belowground in the soil. This
process is called soil carbon sequestration.
In fact, soils store 2-3 times more CO2 than the
atmosphere and 2-5 times more C than that stored in vegetation (IPCC,
2013). Unfortunately, between the late 1880s to 1985, agricultural
soils have lost half or more of the soil organic carbon (SOC) that was
present prior to industrialization (Lal, 2004). Since 1985, increased
yields, reduced tillage intensity, and improved genetics have resulted
in many soils beginning to increase soil carbon levels, and there is
much more we can do! With more than 900 million acres of agricultural
land in the US, we have an enormous opportunity to rebuild soil organic
carbon, sequester atmospheric carbon, and reduce N2O and
CH4 emissions as well. Some estimates suggest that if we
were able to adequately address economic, social, and technical
barriers to implementing best soil management practices, US croplands
have the potential to sequester 1.5 billion to 5 billion metric tons of
CO2e per year for 20 years (Sanderman et al., 2017; Zomer et
al., 2017). Moreover, the same agronomic practices that increase carbon
sequestration also help to mitigate flood events, protect water
quality, recharge groundwater, and increase resilience to drought
(Lehman et. al, 2015).
Rebuilding soil health is crucial to sustaining agriculture,
enhancing the profitability of farmers and ranchers, and combatting
climate change. Soil health is defined by USDA-Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) as ``the continued capacity of a soil to
function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and
humans.'' Healthy, high-functioning soils:
(1) Produce food, fuel, fiber, and medicinal products using
management strategies that maintain or enhance environmental
quality;
(2) Store, filter, and release water, and thus protect or
improve water quality;
(3) Are resilient to environmental disturbances such as
drought, fire, floods, and temperature extremes;
(4) Resist diseases, pests, and pathogens, thus reducing the
reliance on pesticides;
(5) Store and cycle nutrients internally, reducing the
reliance on external inputs and the potential for off-site
movement of nutrients into the air and water;
(6) Store and cycle carbon and modify other greenhouse gases,
helping to reduce climate change; and,
(7) Maintain biodiversity and habitat, which is critical to
all above functions.
Recently, the USDA-NRCS Soil Health Division has outlined four soil
health principles to improve soil function for a variety of ecosystem
outcomes, but they also apply to building resilient agricultural
systems that sequester C and reduce GHG emissions (Roesch-McNally et
al., 2019). The four principles are:
(1) Minimize disturbance (typically physical disturbance is
the major focus, with a target to reduce tillage depth,
intensity, and frequency);
(2) Maximize soil cover, often through mulching, reduced
tillage, residue retention, and cover crops;
(3) Maximize the continuous presence of roots, which is
typically achieved through cover crop planting but also longer
rotations, forage, and biomass plantings, and incorporation of
perennial crops into the rotation; and
(4) Maximize biodiversity through practices similar as those
described in #3; but can also include the integration of
livestock into the cropping system and diversifying cover crop
mix or more diversified crop rotations.
In addition to sequestering carbon, healthy soils absorb more water
during heavy rains, which reduces runoff. They also offer better
resilience during periods of drought because the land holds more water.
Healthy soils also can help farmers increase yields, increase yield
stability, and be more productive in the long term. Ultimately,
building soil fertility can reduce farmers' dependence on fertilizers,
saving them money and improving their bottom line. Soil health systems
also offer a wide range of ecologically important co-benefits (Figure
1).
These practices can be put in place separately, but ideally
producers will implement a suite of practices to optimize benefits and
co-benefits. For example, the benefits of cover crops were detectable
more quickly with no-till management compared with conventional tillage
(Olson et al., 2014). Additionally, cover crops have been reported to
increase economic gains when farmers transition to no-till practices in
both corn and soybeans (Myers et al., 2019).
Estimated GHG Benefit from Cover Cropping and Conservation Tillage
Among the soil health practices promoted by American Farmland
Trust, NRCS, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, and numerous other
organizations across the nation, reduced tillage and cover cropping are
the two most popular and studied.
According to the 2017 USDA AgCensus, there are 396 million acres of
total cropland and 401 million acres of grazing land in the US
(www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/). Of the total cropland reported, 15.3
million acres have adopted cover cropping, 104 million acres are in no-
till and 97.5 million acres have adopted reduced tillage practices that
disturb the soil less than conventional till.
Although there are many benefits of cover crop and conservation
tillage adoption, I would like to focus on their impact on GHG
emissions. To estimate the GHG reduction benefit from these key
conservation practices, American Farmland Trust--in collaboration with
the USDA Agricultural Research Service--used data from the 2017
AgCensus along with estimated GHG reduction coefficients reported in
the USDA COMET-Planner tool (www.comet-Planner.com). Based on these
data, our preliminary calculations estimate that relative to no cover
cropping, current adoption of 15.3 million acres of cover cropping have
potentially reduced emissions between 4.2 and 6.3 million metric tons
(MMT) CO2e per year.
Recognizing that not all the remaining cropland is suitable or
appropriate for cover cropping, adopting cover crops on even 25% of the
remaining cropland (e.g., about 95 million acres) can further reduce
CO2e emissions between 22.6 and 31.9 MMT per year. Combining
current cover crop adoptees and this conservative estimate of future
adoption would reduce GHG emissions by an estimated 26.8 to 38.2 MMT of
CO2e per year.
Similarly, we estimate that the current adoption of conservation
tillage on 201.5 million acres has reduced CO2e between 59.1 and 70.8
MMT per year. Expanding the current adoption levels and converting the
remaining 79.9 million acres that are in intensive till to reduced till
or no-till can reduce an additional 12.6 to 39.4 MMT per year.
If we add up the current and projected future adoption of cover
crops (25%) with no-till or reduced till practices (100%), our nation
could reduce GHG emission by up to 148.5 MMT CO2e per year. This
translates to approximately 25% of the total ag GHG emissions and that
doesn't include what can be achieved through the addition of best
practices for grazing land management and livestock/manure management.
This 148.5 MMT CO2e is equivalent to removing 31.5 million
passenger vehicles from the road each year (https://www.epa.gov/energy/
greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator).
Additional Conservation Practices Provide Further GHG Reductions
Cover crops and conservation tillage are just two of the many
conservation practices available on croplands. There are numerous
nutrient management options such as replacing synthetic nitrogen
fertilizers with composts or manure, switching sources of synthetic
nitrogen from anhydrous ammonia to urea, improved timing of fertilizer
application, and variable application rates within the field (Fargione
et. al., 2018). Other practices include conservation crop rotations,
improved manure management, biochar, and mulching. We currently are
working on estimating the GHG benefits from many of these practices
using the same approach we report on for croplands above.
Many of these practices can be economically beneficial for farmers,
but their adoption involves real and perceived risk. AFT has worked on
the ground in 18 states to help farmers optimize their fertilizer rates
with risk free yield guarantees. Farmers reported high satisfaction
with the program and 85% said they have continued to use the approach
on their farm.
Grazing lands make up about 45% of all US agricultural lands.
Although they typically are less suitable for crop production, they are
ideally suited for livestock. These soils store vast amounts of carbon
and, when managed properly, provide numerous ecosystem services such as
wildlife and pollinator habitat and water storage and drainage. Similar
to croplands, there are many conservation practices available for
grazing lands. Ensuring sufficient rest periods between grazing events
can maximize plant productivity and, hence, the amount of carbon fixed
from the atmosphere. In addition, studies have shown that fertilizing
California rangeland with compost could sequester large amounts of
carbon (Ryals et al., 2015).
Other landscape-level considerations with major GHG reduction
potential include establishing trees or shrubs along field borders,
riparian forest buffers, hedgerow plantings, alley cropping, and
establishing strips of permanent grass and legume covers to absorb
rainfall and reduce erosion. All of these practices bring huge co-
benefits, including supporting pollinators and other beneficial
insects, creating wildlife habitat, and enabling native plant species
to thrive. In Iowa, research has shown that planting strips of native
prairie plants within existing crop fields can build soil carbon while
substantially reducing erosion and nutrient loss and supporting
pollinators and grassland birds (Perez-Suarez et al., 2014; Schulte et
al., 2017).
In addition, there are some technological interventions that can
target key sources of emissions, such as installing methane digesters
to turn stored manure into an energy source, and feed additives that
can reduce enteric fermentation emissions from cattle.
As you can see from this testimony, there are numerous options
available to support crop and grazing land productivity and
environmental services like reduced GHG emissions and increased soil
carbon sequestration. Successful implementation, however, requires
technical and financial assistance to optimize productivity and GHG
reductions.
Healthy Soil Case Studies
The success of these healthy soil practices is not just conceptual.
With support from an NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant, American
Farmland Trust staff partnered with four farmers in California,
Illinois, Ohio and New York to produce easy-to-read, two-page case
studies showing the excellent return on investment for healthy soil
practices for a variety of crops (https://www.farmlandinfo.org/soil-
health-case-studies). These farmers implemented steps such as no-till,
nutrient management, cover crops, compost, and mulching. As a result,
these farms cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 379% on
fields selected for the analysis. This means that these fields
transformed from being net emitters to net reducers of greenhouse
gases.
These case studies also illustrate the many benefits associated
with healthy soil practices. The actions taken by these farmers
increased yields and profits, stopped soil erosion problems, and
improved water quality. The farmers saw, on average, increased yields
of 12%, reduced nitrogen losses of 54%, reduced phosphorus losses of
81%, and reduced sediment losses of 85%. The average net income
increase for the three crop farmers was $42 per acre per year. For the
California almond grower, his net income increased an average $657 per
acre per year, thanks to the soil health practices.
Adopting climate-smart agricultural practices is among the least
costly and most immediate actions that can help reduce greenhouse gas
emissions on a meaningful scale. Their extensive adoption can serve as
an important bridge until new climate-friendly energy and
transportation technologies are developed.
Protection of Farmland as a Climate Strategy
None of these gains are possible unless we are able keep farmland
as farmland. According to the USDA, over 25 million acres of farmland
and ranch land were converted to development between 1982 and 2015.
Through our ``Farms Under Threat'' project, American Farmland Trust is
mapping the precise location of this past development, as well as areas
with the highest threat in the future. This information will help
towns, counties, and states make smart decisions to protect their
valuable farmland.
A growing body of research demonstrates the necessity of protecting
agricultural lands from development as a key component to any
comprehensive GHG reduction strategy. Not only does it protect lands
that can function as carbon sinks, it encourages inward and more
compact development growth, thereby preventing additional
transportation emissions and electrical and heating use. American
Farmland Trust's 2018 ``Greener Fields'' study found that cutting
California farmland loss by 75% by 2050 (700,000 acres), while
encouraging compact urban growth, would reduce GHG emissions by 33 tons
of GHG (per acre per year). That's the equivalent of taking 1.9 million
cars off the road each year. Protecting farmland also keeps that land
available for flood and fire mitigation.
With every acre of farmland we lose, we not only lose the ability
of that land to grow food and sequester carbon, we put more pressure on
the remaining land to be farmed more intensely, further reducing
environmental benefits. And with 40% of U.S. agricultural land expected
to change hands in the next 15 years due to the age of landowners, we
need to take full advantage of tools such as easements to ensure that
as much remains farmland as possible (NASS, ERS, https://farmland.org/
project/farm-legacy).
congress' role in helping farmers and ranchers address climate change
I am here today as a scientist, not as a policy expert.
Nonetheless, I want to share some perspective on these matters from the
policy experts at American Farmland Trust.
First, we want to thank Congress for the significant commitments
made in the 2018 Farm Bill Conservation Title. These important programs
provide technical assistance and financial incentives for farmers and
ranchers to protect soil, water, wildlife, and other natural resources
on privately owned lands and offer a strong starting point for how
agriculture can be part of the solution to climate change.
Within the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress included critical additional
funding for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program--
Agricultural Land Easements (ACEP-ALE) program, which provides funds to
enable local and state partners to work with farmers to permanently
protect their land. This new funding will begin to meet program demand
and ensure productive agricultural lands remain available to future
generations of farmers and ranchers and for GHG reduction.
We also appreciate the additional funding included for the Regional
Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). This program enables public
and private conservation agriculture groups to join with farmers in a
focused, local area to develop innovative approaches toward shared
conservation goals.
Other working lands programs, such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP),
are vital tools for farmers and ranchers to implement or enhance
current conservation practices on their land. They support farmers to
plant cover crops, reduce tillage, diversify crop rotations, and
improve grazing management, all of which can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Likewise, studies have shown that land enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) rapidly sequesters soil carbon,
while also providing benefits for wildlife and water quality (Gebhardt
et al., 1994).
Such programs give us a foundation to build from. However, more
must be done to help farmers and ranchers protect their land and
implement agricultural practices addressing climate change. At a time
when the farm economy is suffering, ensuring the widespread adoption of
new practices will require additional incentives, training, and
capacity.
American Farmland Trust would like to share a few additional ideas
on how Congress can help more farmers and ranchers reap the benefits of
practices that reduce GHG.
A first step would be to provide additional funding for existing
Farm Bill conservation programs, such as ACEP-ALE, RCPP, EQIP, CSP,
CRP, and others. However, both legislation and agency rulemaking could
be strengthened to encourage GHG reductions in addition to other
services. Historically, these conservation programs are oversubscribed,
meaning there is not enough money to support the farmers who actively
want to improve their operations, and not enough for critical technical
assistance to help them make changes on their farm. Any farmer or
rancher who wants to improve their soil health and reduce GHG emissions
should get the support they need.
Another opportunity would be to leverage other programs, including
state soil health efforts. This includes incentives for climate-smart
practices through the crop insurance program. Cover crops can help
increase resiliency, which reduces risk. As a result, Iowa and Illinois
have launched pilot programs offering insurance premium reductions to
those taking advantage of cover crops. Such a concept should be
explored at the national level. Expanding low to no-interest loans to
help farmers implement practices is another option.
We must also increase support for climate-related agricultural
research. We have many different practices at our disposal, but ongoing
research is needed to make them work for farmers in all the unique
climates, soil types, and production systems where they grow our food.
The National Academies' 2018 ``Science Breakthroughs to Advance Food
and Agricultural Research by 2030'' report identifies the soil as one
of the frontiers of agricultural science. We are just beginning to
understand its immense potential. To unlock this potential, we need
further investments in tools and methodologies to quantify and track
the impacts of management practices on soil carbon storage. We also
need better quantification of how innovative management practices
affect emissions of N2O and CH4. This knowledge
will be critical to ensuring that public investments in agricultural
GHG mitigation are sound and provide incentives for the right
management practices.
Lastly, we must find new ways to help fund these crucial changes.
This can include engaging consumers and private companies through
environmental markets, supply chain management, and labels. American
Farmland Trust has worked across the country to develop markets for
carbon and other ecosystem services, such as reductions in nitrogen and
phosphorus. Now, many companies are becoming engaged in this work as
they aggressively look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint. These
local, state, and regional efforts are compelling models for how we can
provide future funding that rewards best practices and keep farmers and
ranchers viable as they innovate. More must be done to explore how
these types of funding models could work nationally.
As policymakers think about how to address agriculture and climate
change, we recommend a comprehensive, integrated approach. This could
be achieved by fully including agriculture in a major climate bill. In
addition, the next Farm Bill, as the piece of legislation that touches
on all facets of agriculture, represents a transformational opportunity
to enact many of these ideas. The most important objective is to ensure
that the vast potential of agriculture is unleashed as part of any
broader set of climate solutions.
The opportunities before us are enormous. Every day, farmers,
ranchers, and private forest owners make stewardship decisions that
impact over 1.4 billion acres of land. This is over 70% of the landmass
of the contiguous 48 states (USDA, 2018). As a society, we must value
not only the food our farmers and ranchers produce, we must value all
of the environmental services they can produce for our nation.
conclusion
America's farmers and ranchers are an essential and indispensable
part of any meaningful plan to address climate change. I thank you once
again for this opportunity and for elevating the role agriculture can
play in addressing climate change. Our entire team at American Farmland
Trust is excited to continue this conversation and to serve as a
resource as you move forward with this important work.
references
COMET-Planner. 2019. http://comet-planner.com/. Emission reduction
coefficients for each county were downloaded between July and September
2019.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis EXIT.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, United Kingdom 996 pp.
Gebhart, D. L., Johnson, H. B., Mayeux, H. S., & Polley, H. W.
(1994). The CRP increases soil organic carbon. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 49(5), 488-492.
Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate
change and food security. Science, 304(5677), 1623-1627.
LaRose, J., Myers, R. (2019). Progress Report: Adoption of Soil
Health Systems Based on Data from the U.S. Census of Agriculture--
Metrics include Cover Crop and No-till Production Practices. Published
on the Soil Health Institute's website at https://
soilhealthinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Soil-Health-Census-
Report.pdf; Accessed 8/4/2019.
Lehman, R. M., et al. (2015). Soil biology for resilient, healthy
soil. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 70(1): 12a-18a.
Myers, S. S., Zanobetti, A., Kloog, I., Huybers, P., Leakey, A. D.,
Bloom, A. J., . . . & Holbrook, N. M. (2014). Increasing CO2
threatens human nutrition. Nature, 510(7503), 139.
Perez-Suarez, M., Castellano, M. J., Kolka, R., Asbjornsen, H., &
Helmers, M. (2014). Nitrogen and carbon dynamics in prairie vegetation
strips across topographical gradients in mixed Central Iowa
agroecosystems. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 188, 1-11.
Rippey, B. (2019). ``Nation's Wettest 12-Month Period on Record
Slows Down 2019 Planting Season.'' USDA. June 14, 2019. Accessed
October 27, 2019. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2019/06/14/nations-
wettest-12-month-period-record-slows-down-2019-planting-season.
Roesch-McNally, G.E., Moore-Kucera, J. Owens, C. (2019). Applying
Soil Health Management Systems to Reduce Climate and Weather Risks in
the Northwest. USDA-NRCS Factsheet. Available here: https://
www.climatehubs.oce.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/soil-health-
management-reduce-climate-and-weather-risks-northwest; Accessed 8/3/
2019.
Ryals, R., Hartman, M. D., Parton, W. J., DeLonge, M. S., & Silver,
W. L. (2015). Long-term climate change mitigation potential with
organic matter management on grasslands. Ecological applications,
25(2), 531-545.
Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., & Fiske, G. J. (2017). Soil carbon debt
of 12,000 years of human land use. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences, 114(36), 9575-9580.
Schulte, L. A., Mimi, J., Helmers, M. J., Liebman, M., Arbuckle, J.
G., James, D. E., . . . & Asbjornsen, H. (2017). Prairie strips improve
biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from
corn--soybean croplands. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 114(42), 11247-11252.
US-EPA (2019). United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2019.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, Chapter 5.
Agriculture. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-
gas-emissions-and-sinks https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-
greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks.
USDA (2018). United States Department of Agriculture. 2018.
``Summary Report: 2015 National Resources Inventory,'' Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and Center for Survey
Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/nri/15summar.
USDA-NASS, 2017. United States Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017 Census of Agriculture. https://
www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php, accessed
10.20.2019.
USDA-NASS, 2017. United States Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service. 2017 Census Report form Guide. https:/
/www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus/Report_Form_and_Instructions/
2017_Report_Form/index.php.
WMO (2019). World Meteorological Organization. ``WMO confirms past
4 years were warmest on record World Meteorological Organization.''
February 6, 2019. Accessed October 27, 2019. https://public.wmo.int/en/
media/press-release/wmo-confirms-past-4-years-were-warmest-record.
Ziska, L. H. (2003). Evaluation of yield loss in field sorghum from
a C3 and C4 weed with increasing CO2.
Weed Science, 51(6), 914-918.
Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D.A., Sommer, R., Verchot, L. V. (2017).
Global Sequestration Potential of Increased Organic Carbon in Cropland
Soils. Scientific Reports 7(1): 15554-15554.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
glossary of terms (not a comprehensive list)
The following terms were as defined in the 2017 Census of
Agriculture--Report form guide:
Cover crop_a crop planted primarily to manage soil erosion, soil
fertility, soil quality, water, weeds, pests, and diseases on non-CRP
acres.
Intensive tillage leaves less than 15% of crop residue of small
grain residue. This type of tillage is often referred to as
conventional tillage. Intensive tillage often involves multiple
operations with implements such as a mold board, disk, and/or chisel
plow.
No-till farming practices is cropland used for production from year
to year without disturbing the soil through tillage other than
planting. Do not include as no-till, land that was not planted in 2017
such as existing orchards, land in berries, nursery stock, or hay
harvested from existing grassland or alfalfa that was established prior
to 2017. No-till is an agricultural technique which increases the
amount of water that infiltrates into the soil and increases organic
matter retention. In many agricultural regions it can reduce or
eliminate soil erosion. As explained in LaRose and Myers (2019) ``no-
till, which would include both continuous no-till and rotational no-
till (rotational no-till refers to using no tillage after one crop,
such as soybeans, but tilling after another crop in the rotation, such
as after corn.''
Reduced tillage leaves between 15% and 30% residue cover on the
soil of small grain residue to conserve moisture and prevent erosion.
This may involve the use of a chisel plow, field cultivators, or other
implements.
american farmland trust soil case studies
These case studies were developed by American Farmland Trust as
part of a 2018 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation
Innovation Grant (CIG) project, ``Accelerating Soil Health Adoption by
Quantifying Economic and Environmental Outcomes & Overcoming Barriers
on Rented Lands,'' and feature farms in California, Illinois, Ohio and
New York. The four case studies can be accessed below:
MadMax Farms, Ohio (https://www.farmlandinfo.org/
sites/default/files/AFT_NRCS_Case%20Niemeyer%20web2.pdf)
Swede Farm LLC, New York (https://
www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/
AFT_NRCS_Case%20Swede%20web2.pdf)
Okuye Farms, California (https://
www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/
AFT_NRCS_Case%20Sauter_web2.pdf)
Thorndyke Farms, Illinois (https://
www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/
AFT_NRCS_Case%20Thorndyke%20web2.pdf)
american farmland trust climate experts
American Farmland Trust (AFT) has a wide range of experts that can
serve as a resource on issues related to agriculture and climate
change, including:
Jennifer Moore-Kucera, Ph.D., Climate Initiative Director, was
hired in late 2018 to provide overall leadership for AFT's climate work
and technical assistance to the U.S. Climate Alliance states. Jen is a
nationally recognized soil health expert having led NRCS's West Region
Soil Health Team and co-directed the USDA Northwest Climate Hub. Before
that, Jen was an associate professor in environmental soil microbiology
at Texas Tech University.
Tim Fink, Policy Director, was hired in 2019 to develop AFT's
overall policy strategies. Tim brings extensive policy experience from
both the agriculture and energy sectors to AFT's work on the Farm Bill
and work advocating for agriculture to be included in federal and state
climate plans.
Jimmy Daukas, Senior Program Officer, has worked on agriculture and
climate issues at AFT in various leadership roles for over 20 years. He
spearheads AFT's work on smart solar siting. Jimmy also serves on the
Steering Committee of the Coalition on Agriculture Greenhouse Gases.
Michelle Perez, Ph.D., Water Initiative Director, leads a companion
effort that addresses nonpoint source pollution. An expert in
quantifying environmental outcomes, she is working in partnership with
the NRCS through a Conservation Innovation Grant on the work entitled
``Quantifying Economic and Environmental Outcomes of Soil Health''. The
first four case studies published outline outcomes that have been
shared with this testimony.
Gabrielle Roesch-McNally, Women for the Land Director, leads AFT's
national initiative to ensure women landowners have access to the
resources and technical advice to lead in building resilient agrifood
systems. She is an expert in producer decision-making in the context of
climate change adaptation and mitigation and has written or contributed
to many publications on climate change. Before AFT she worked at the
USDA Northwest Climate Hub.
Brian Brandt, Director of Conservation Innovation, is an expert on
environmental markets. He currently manages a project that employs
conservation practices in the Ohio River Basin to reduce pollutants
contributing to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
Mitch Hunter, Director of Research, returned to AFT in 2019 to lead
its collaborative research program, including `Farms Under Threat,' a
comprehensive data project with multiple connections to climate. He is
an expert in sustainable intensification and climate resilience in
agriculture.
Ann Sorensen, Ph.D., Research Senior Advisor, is author of more
than 70 refereed papers. Ann has had an outsized influence on
agricultural policy during three decades at AFT. She currently advises
on `Farms Under Threat,' having led the project and recently taken
partial retirement.
Beth Sauerhaft, Ph.D., Vice President who oversees AFT's National
Initiatives (including Climate and Water). Just hired in early 2019,
Beth brings to AFT experience as an environmental and social
sustainability consultant, a sustainability officer at a global food
company, and an EPA official. She began her career at NRCS.
David Haight, Vice President who oversees AFT's Regional Offices,
where AFT works directly with farmers on conservation practices and
with state legislators on agricultural policy. David is spearheading
AFT's effort to bring on-the-ground experiences to U.S. Climate
Alliance states. This work involves several of AFT's regional
directors.
John Piotti, President & CEO, sees climate as the central issue of
our times and agriculture as essential to achieving climate goals. As
such, he plays a direct role in AFT's Climate Initiative, bringing a
wealth of experience in management and program development.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Yoder, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF FRED YODER
Mr. Yoder. Well, good afternoon, Chair Castor, Ranking
Member Graves, and members of the Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis. I thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today to share some of my thoughts and experiences
involving opportunities for agriculture to contribute solutions
to climate change and challenges.
My name is Fred Yoder, and I am a fourth generation farmer
who has lived and farmed near Plain City, Ohio for over 45
years. Along with my wife, Debbie, and our two children and
their families, we grow corn, soybeans, and wheat. We have also
operated a retail farm seed business for over 40 years and sell
all kinds of seed to farmers including biotech, conventional,
and also the ones that grow organic crops. We also offer
precision technologies to help farmers increase their
efficiencies.
I am testifying today as both a working farmer and also co-
chair of Solutions for the Land, a farmer-led, non-governmental
organization that works to place America's farms, ranches, and
forests at the forefront of resolving food system, energy,
environmental, and climate challenges and achieving global
sustainable development goals.
I want to begin by affirming one important fact. Although
the topic we are discussing today can be politically divisive,
my personal observations and experiences have taught me there
is evidence that climate is, indeed, changing. I see it
happening before my very eyes. Science isn't perfect, but it is
the very best tool we have to make assessments, and the science
on this topic is clear. It is time to stop debating whether the
climate is changing because of natural or human activities and
come together and advance proven, pragmatic, and innovative
agricultural solutions that benefit producers, the public, and
the planet.
We as an industry are also uniquely positioned to be the
ones that can deliver the solutions. In central Ohio where I
farm, we have already experienced one of the most difficult
growing seasons I can ever remember in my career. In my written
testimony, I discuss the need to utilize the three
complementing and interlocking climate smart agriculture, or
CSA, to address climate challenges.
First, sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and
livelihoods. The second one is enhancing adaptive capacity and
improving resilience, especially in our soils. And third,
delivering ecosystem services, sequestering carbon, and
reducing and/or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. The reason
CSA is an effective strategy for engendering farmer
participation and support is the approach places farmers at the
center of all climate discussions and decisions.
I also discuss a number of guiding principles that should
be understood and followed as we determine agriculture's
response strategies to a changing climate. Science-based
decisionmaking should be the foundation for the adoption of
climate smart technologies and practices for sustainable
agriculture and global food production. There is no silver
bullet solution for enhancing the resilience of agriculture.
Solution strategies must adopt a systems approach.
While climate change will pose serious changes for the
agriculture and forestry sectors, it will also present new
opportunities in the form of near-term high value and lower
cost mitigation services. These sectors can provide in the form
of carbon dioxide captured by crops, grasses, trees, and
sequestered in the soil emission reductions from improved
agriculture management practices, emissions that are avoided
through the production and use of renewable energy and fuels
and bio-based products.
So what can you all do to help us? First, you can call for
increased federal funding for conservation tillage, cover crop,
biogas programs administered through USDA NRCS, environmental
quality incentives, conservation stewardship, and regional
conservation partnership program. There are very good people in
these positions. We just need more of them.
You can call to rebuild the capacity of NRCS state
conservation agencies and local conservation districts to
provide much-needed technical assistance in writing and
implementing CSA plans, providing funding for our nation's land
grant universities, and expand CSA research and extension work.
We can offset fossil fuel emissions by using biomass to produce
renewable energy and bio-based production.
You can restore USDA's ability to conduct agriculture and
economic research in support of CSA. You can enable, through
proper funding, USDA is network of climate hubs to develop and
deliver science-based, regional specific information and
technologies to farmers and natural resource managers.
Finally, I thank you for providing a real farmer an
opportunity to speak to you on this critically important topic,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Yoder follows:]
Testimony of Fred Yoder
Corn, Soybean & Wheat Farmer; Co-Chair, Solutions from the Land
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in Agriculture''
October 30, 2019
Good afternoon Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of
the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to share some of my thoughts and
experiences involving opportunities for agriculture to contribute
solutions to climate change challenges.
My name is Fred Yoder, and I am a 4th generation farmer who has
lived and farmed near Plain City, Ohio for over 45 years. Along with my
wife Debbie and our 2 children and their families, we grow corn,
soybeans, and wheat. We have also operated a retail farm seed business
for over 40 years and sell seed to all kinds of farmers including those
who use biotech varieties, conventional varieties, and those who grow
organic crops. Additionally, we sell precision agriculture equipment to
help farmers improve their planting and harvesting operations.
I am testifying today as both a working farmer and as Co-Chair of
Solutions from the Land (SfL), a farmer led non-governmental
organization that works to place America's farms, ranches and forests
at the forefront of resolving food system, energy, environmental and
climate challenges and achieving global sustainable development goals.
SfL's mission is to identify and facilitate the implementation of
integrated policies, practices and projects at a landscape scale that
will result in land being sustainably managed to produce food, feed,
fiber and energy, while enhancing biodiversity, protecting and
improving critical environmental resources and delivering high value
solutions to combat climate change.
I want to begin by affirming an important fact. Although the topic
we are discussing today can be politically divisive, my personal
observations and experiences have taught me there is evidence that the
climate is indeed changing. I am a farmer living and working through
these climate changes. Climate change is disrupting my operations today
and is a major threat multiplier to the future economic viability of my
four decade plus family farming operation. As I said in a recent
Politico story on this topic, it's absolutely a crying shame that we've
politicized climate change. Agriculture is a science-based industry. I
make decisions on my farm based on the best science I can find. Science
is telling us that the climate is changing. I see it happening before
my very eyes. Science isn't perfect, but it's the very best tool we
have to make assessments, and the science on this topic is clear.
It's time to stop debating whether or not the climate is changing
because of natural or human activities and come together and advance
proven, pragmatic and innovative agricultural solutions that benefit
producers, the public and the planet. I've devoted much of my life to
this cause and that's why I took a day off from my fall harvest to be
with you for this very timely and important hearing.
Farmers and ranchers are directly impacted by climate change, and
we as an industry are also uniquely positioned to help deliver
solutions. Disastrous events due to extreme weather are becoming more
frequent, and their cost is enormous. Farmers and ranchers have taken
steps to prepare for disasters--but despite their best efforts, the
scale of these events has led to widespread crop damage and losses.
Weather-related changes make it riskier to raise livestock and produce
crops--and require greater resilience. Rising temperatures can reduce
the fertility of livestock, reduce their rate of gain, and likewise
reduce crop yields. Weather changes have increased the length of the
frost-free period (and corresponding growing season), increased
precipitation and heavy downpours, and increased frequency of extreme
weather events like droughts, floods, fires, and heat waves. These are
not things science is telling us will happen. These challenges are
happening now and we are struggling mightily to adapt.
In central Ohio where I farm, we have already experienced one of
the most difficult growing seasons that I can remember during my
farming career. Last year was almost a record wet year, delaying
planting by weeks. This was followed by 6 rain events during the
growing season of over 2 inches each, and then by a fall that contained
virtually no harvest days during the whole month of November. We
finally finished field work shortly before Christmas. This year's
spring planting was again delayed by weeks because of wet and saturated
soils. This was followed by a very dry July and August, greatly
restricting plant growth and delaying maturity. As we hopefully finish
up harvest this week, yields have been down 20 to 30% from historical
numbers. Luckily, this year at least we have so far enjoyed a dry and
warm harvest in Ohio, and should finish on time.
Elsewhere, a large swath of the country experienced record winter
precipitation in 2019, in some areas up to 200 percent above normal,
leading to major flooding. Spring flooding across the Midwest left many
fields unplanted, resulting in about $2 billion of losses in uninsured
stored crops. Cool, wet springs across the Midwest and Ohio River
Valley delayed planting, which meant changes in which crops were
planted. The Mississippi River rose to historical levels and left acres
of fields in Mississippi inaccessible--even for wildlife. Early fall
blizzards and early freezes damaged crops in the Dakotas and Upper
Midwest. The 2016 California drought was also devastating, resulting in
$247 million loss of farm-gate revenues and up to $600 million in
spillover value lost to the rest of the economy. North Carolina farmers
and livestock growers experienced more than $1.1 billion in losses from
Hurricane Florence in 2018. And the list goes on.
Over the past four years, Solutions from the Land has been
facilitating and supporting the North America Climate Smart Agriculture
Alliance (NACSAA), a coalition of over 70 farm, ranch, forestry,
conservation, academic and government partners. These groups have
joined together to create a platform for inspiring, educating, and
equipping agricultural partners to innovate effective local adaptations
that sustain productivity, enhance climate resilience, and contribute
to local and global goals for sustainable development. The Alliance is
producer-led and focused on utilizing climate-smart agriculture (CSA)
strategies to enhance the adaptive capacity of North American
agriculture. Adaptive management involves responses taken by producers
and the value chain to reduce risks and capture opportunities created
by changing conditions. These actions range from minor adjustments in
existing production systems to major changes in production and
marketing practices.
In considering agricultural solutions to climate change, it's
important to recognize and respect the fact that CSA is built upon
three complementing and interlocking strategies: (1) sustainably
increasing agricultural productivity and livelihoods (i.e. sustainable
intensification); (2) enhancing adaptive capacity and improving
resilience; and (3) delivering ecosystem services, sequestering carbon,
and reducing and/or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). This
approach has been embraced and successfully deployed by many
stakeholders at the state and national level here in the U.S. and on a
global scale through FAO and the Global Alliance for Climate Smart
Agriculture, of which SfL is an active member. The reason CSA is an
effective strategy for engendering farmer participation and support is
that the approach places farmers at the center of all climate
discussions and decisions. It recognizes that the key to engaging and
empowering famers to act is to begin by focusing on economically viable
systems and practices that benefit the famer, improve resilience and
simultaneously deliver high value ecosystems services that the public
seeks. When I talk to fellow farmers about climate change, I don't talk
about what they can do or need to do to save the planet; I talk about
innovative practices and systems that help their economic and
environmental bottom lines. These same practices also provide solutions
to climate change.
Farmers and ranchers take great pride in the practices they use on
the farm to protect and enhance the environment. Not every practice
will work for every farm. There are 20,000 soil types, 28 growing
zones, and 18 major watersheds across the United States. What works in
one area may or may not work in another.
That brings me to the second topic I want to cover today--the
guiding principles that should be understood and followed as we
determine agricultural response strategies to a changing climate. We
have given this subject a lot of thought. Working with our NACSAA
partners, we've adopted a set of Climate Smart Agriculture guiding
principles and are advocating for their use at the global level through
our involvement in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, of which SfL is an observer organization and contributor.
Guiding principles are needed to establish a framework for expected
behavior and decision-making. I urge the House Select Committee to
embrace and follow these guiding principles as you develop your
recommended agricultural solution pathways to address the climate
crisis:
As affirmed in the communique from the 8th Meeting
of G20 Agricultural Chief Scientists (MACS), science-based
decision making should be the foundation for the adoption of
climate smart technologies and practices for sustainable
agriculture and global food production.i
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\i\ G20 Japan. 8th Meeting of Agricultural Chief Scientists (MACS)
Communique [Press Release]. (2019). Retrieved from http://
www.affrc.maff.go.jp/docs/press/attach/pdf/190427-3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Production and production efficiency per unit of
land must increase going forward to meet the food needs of the
future while incurring no net environmental
cost.ii, iii
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\ii\ Pretty, J. (2018). Intensification for redesigned and
sustainable agricultural systems. Science, 362(6417), eaav0294.
\iii\ Campbell, B. M., Thornton, P., Zougmore, R., Van Asten, P., &
Lipper, L. (2014). Sustainable intensification: What is its role in
climate smart agriculture? Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 8, 39-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) of the United Nations, outcomes (rather than means)
applicable to any scale of enterprise must be emphasized,
without predetermining technologies, production type or design
components.iii
Adaptation strategies must be recognized to require
system approaches iv that utilize a combination of
improved efficiency, substitution (e.g. new crop varieties and
breeds), and redesign/system transformation to reflexively
respond to continuous short- and long-term changes in climate's
impacts on cultivated and natural ecosystem conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\iv\ Tittonell, P. (2014). Ecological intensification of
agriculture--sustainable by nature. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 8, 53-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peer reviewed academic, business and farmer climate
smart agriculture research and knowledge sharing
recommendations should guide decision-making.
There is no silver bullet solution for enhancing the
resilience of agriculture: solution strategies must embrace a
systems approach that recognizes the tremendous diversity of
agricultural landscapes and ecosystems and enables producers to
utilize the systems and practices that best support their
farming operations.
Farmers must be at the center of all discussions and
decision-making; significant input will be needed from a wide
range of agricultural stakeholders, including technical
agricultural experts drawn from farmer organizations, academia,
industry, and international and regional organizations.
Context-specific priorities and solutions must be
aligned with national policies and priorities, be determined
based on the social, economic, and environmental conditions at
site (including the diversity in type and scale of agricultural
activity), and be subject to evaluation of potential synergies,
tradeoffs, and net benefits.v
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\v\ North American Climate Smart Agriculture Alliance (2015). A
platform for knowledge sharing and application of climate science to
agriculture [Report]. Retrieved from: https://www.sfldialogue.net/
files/sfl_formation_plan_2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In SfL's work facilitating farmer-led, multi-stakeholder CSA
collaboratives in North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, Florida and Iowa, we
have found general agreement that agriculture is undergoing
transformational change and that climate change is a threat multiplier
that requires additional discussion and adaptive management planning.
While the types and ways crops and livestock are produced in each state
vary, the leaders we have engaged agree that their level of
preparedness to adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change is
inadequate. Most forged consensus on the need to conduct comprehensive
agricultural vulnerability assessments along the lines of the
assessment the state of California just produced. And most agreed on
the need to develop and implement comprehensive adaptive management and
ecosystem service action plans to enhance the resilience of agriculture
and improve the environment.
Federal support to accelerate and scale up work in these areas
across the country is needed and could be one of the House Select
Committee's primary recommendations to help the agriculture sector
deliver climate smart agriculture solutions from the land. Examples of
areas of focus for these ecosystem service action plans include:
Enabling policies which facilitate public and
private payments to farmers for the ecosystem services they
produce with CSA systems and practices;
Production systems that improve efficiency and
reduce inputs;
Conservation practices that improve soil organic
content, sequester carbon and enhance water storage;
Reforming crop insurance policies that work at cross
purposes with CSA practice adoption, such as those that
disincentive the planting of fall cover crops;
Investments in research and knowledge sharing to
give producers confidence to innovate with emerging CSA
systems;
Investments in technology innovation to allow for
more widespread adoption of precision agriculture systems such
as variable rate fertilizer application technologies;
Infrastructure investments to allow communities to
better manage water challenges from prolonged droughts or
intense rain events, ensuring the safe and timely delivery of
goods and services necessary to protect the ag economy and
national food system; and
Removal of regulatory barriers which impede the
deployment of lower-carbon, high-octane biofuels and new
engines that can be optimized to run on these cleaner-burning
fuels.
While climate change will pose serious challenges for the
agriculture and forestry sectors, it will also present new
opportunities in the form of the near-term, high-value, and lower-cost
mitigation services these sectors can provide. The potential reductions
directly available from these sectors come through three principal
mechanisms: carbon dioxide captured by crops, grasses, and trees and
sequestered in the soil; emission reductions from improved agricultural
management practices; and emissions that are avoided through the
production and use of renewable energy and fuels and biobased products.
Fostering the implementation of practices that increase the uptake
and storage of carbon into the system will pay dividends for both the
climate and food security while delivering multiple ecosystem service
co-benefits. For example, increasing soil carbon sequestration for
climate increases soil organic matter which can enhance nutrient
cycling, water retention and infiltration, support soil biodiversity,
and increase crop productivity and climate resilience. These co-
benefits are particularly important in Ohio where nutrient leaching
from farm fields is contributing to nutrient pollution in Lake Erie.
It is impossible to overstate how important land-based solutions
like the ones we have discussed will be to address global climate
change going forward into the future. Dr. Rattan Lal, Ohio State
University's Nobel Prize-winning expert on soil carbon management and
an IPCC report contributor, predicts that properly managed soil,
vegetation and animal systems worldwide could achieve 157 parts per
million of CO2 drawdown per year by the next century--nearly
40% of 2018's global atmospheric carbon levels. Enabling policies that
address climate change through agriculture and forestry can unlock the
huge, untapped potential for America's farms to lead the way towards
this goal through both economic and environmental sustainability.
Another important climate solution pathway is offsetting fossil
fuel emissions by using biomass to produce renewable energy and
biobased products. Because bioenergy emits far fewer GHGs than its
petroleum equivalents, broader use can help mitigate climate change.
Those benefits were strongly underlined by a USDA study released
earlier this year showing that GHGs from corn-based ethanol are about
39 percent lower than from gasoline. The study also states that when
ethanol is produced at refineries powered by natural gas, GHGs are even
lower, running around 43 percent below gasoline.
The USDA report serves as a reminder of the need for further
appropriate policy measures that can optimize the climate benefits
offered by bioenergy--an end product of agriculture--to maximize the
climate solutions producers can provide from the land. While expanding
the opportunity for sales of E15 earlier this year has been a good
step, confusion continues to reign over EPA's handling of small-
refinery waivers under the Renewable Fuel Standard. The biofuel sector
and farmers who grow its feedstocks remain shortchanged under a
proposal EPA has deemed to be a resolution of the waiver dispute. It's
an issue that must soon be resolved to optimize the contributions our
nation's biofuel producers can generate to help stem the ongoing and
damaging changes to our climate.
Early action and ``big return'' steps you could champion to
accelerate climate solutions from agriculture include not only
improving access to biofuel and other markets for farmers, but also:
Calling for increased federal funding for
conservation tillage, cover crop, and biogas programs
administered through the USDA NRCS, Environmental Quality
Incentives, Conservation Stewardship and Regional Conservation
Partnership Programs;
Rebuilding the capacity of NRCS, state conservation
agencies and local conservation districts to provide much
needed technical assistance in writing and implementing CSA
plans; providing funding to our nation's land-grant colleges to
expand CSA research and extension work;
Ensuring that rural areas have access to broadband
internet service to enable CSA precision agriculture
technologies;
Restoring USDA's ability to conduct agricultural and
economic research in support of CSA; and
Enabling, through proper funding, USDA's network of
Climate Hubs to develop and deliver science-based, region-
specific information and technologies, with USDA agencies and
partners, to agricultural and natural resource managers that
enable climate-informed decision-making, and to provide access
to assistance to implement those decisions.
Thank you for providing farmers with the opportunity to speak on
this topic. Agriculture is a high value and near term solution to
climate change challenges and farmers need to be directly involved in
the climate change policy development process. We hope you will look to
Solutions from the Land as a resource as you move forward in exploring
the challenges and opportunities that climate change will present to
the agricultural and forestry sectors. I would be pleased to respond to
any questions.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Mr. Yoder.
Ms. Owens, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TINA OWENS
Ms. Owens. Good afternoon, Chair Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the committee. Thank you for holding
this hearing and putting a spotlight on the climate crisis, one
of the greatest challenges before us as a society.
My name is Tina Owens, and I am honored to be here on
behalf of Danone North America as its Director of U.S.
Agriculture. Danone is a global food company that has been in
the dairy business for 100 years and employs approximately
5,000 employees in the U.S. We buy directly from more than 700
farms across the country for our most important ingredient,
which is milk. You may know us best for our yogurt brands that
include Dannon, Oikos, and Activia.
Danone's overarching vision of one planet, one health
drives our sense of purpose and responsibility, not only to our
shareholders, but also the many other stakeholders of our
business including our suppliers, our customers, our consumers,
and our farmer partners. My role is to lead and coordinate
Danone North America's investment with our farming partners.
Simply put, our business cannot exist without the individuals
and families who are willing to take on the daily work and
personal risk that is farming in America. Their success is our
success.
As a major food company, we can plainly see that the
climate crisis adds an immense additional layer of risk for our
food system. Our farms and food businesses are among the first
to feel the impact of this extra volatility. It is clear that
to reduce the most extreme risk associated with climate change,
agriculture must be a central part of the equation. To meet
this challenge, we are actively pursuing new models of working
with farmers that incentivize the adoption of new management
practices that can address climate change.
Our largest focus is on soil health. In 2018, we launched a
5-year, $6 million soil health initiative aimed at capturing
carbon and overcoming common obstacles to building soil health
management systems. This program, which targets both economic
resilience and environmental impact, is a strong starting point
for Congress to develop complimentary policies options.
Our approach has the following three pillars. Pillar number
one is about science. While there is ample research on how soil
captures carbon, better understanding of regional differences
is key. We have worked with several university partners to help
provide a scientific baseline, economic analysis, and soil
sampling. A coordinated approach between government and
research institutions for improving soil health allows all
stakeholders to better understand the potential for different
farming systems to capture carbon and reduce net greenhouse gas
emissions.
Pillar number two is about data. Data is vital for tracking
and verifying progress and improving the carbon capture in
soil. We partner with the eco practices platform to help us and
our farmer partners understand both the return on investment
for improving the health of soil and the environmental impacts
of soil health practices. When new activities are implemented,
farms then have the data to understand the impact of their
change in management practices.
Pillar number three is about incentives. We believe that
improving soil health can provide a return on investment to
farms, but the short-term cost of implementing these practices
can often stand in the way.
Since improving soil health takes a holistic approach, we
need to incentivize farms so that the benefits can be realized
in the fewest number of crop cycles. We are working with the
USDA to incentivize practices for soil health and ideally would
create contracts that cover multiple practices over multiple
years. In many cases, it takes just three to four core
practices to achieve real climate results.
In conclusion, the climate crisis may be felt first by
those who are closest to the land, but its impact will
eventually touch everyone who produces, sells, buys, and eats
food. While there is no single solution when it comes to our
complex agriculture landscape, building new and lasting soil
health management solutions holds promise for the climate
benefits we need as a society.
These systems must be scalable relative to the size of the
climate crisis, and they must support the livelihood on farmers
on which we all rely. While the work of one company cannot
bring all the climate solutions we need, our scale and our
partnerships have the power to show that the impact of soil
health on the climate crisis is real, measurable, and
replicable. We must act together now to scale similar impact
through policy and investment in American farms.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
[The statement of Ms. Owens follows:]
__________
Testimony of Tina Owens
Sr. Director, Agricultural Funding & Communication, Danone North
America
Before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in Agriculture''
October 30, 2019
Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Committee;
thank you for holding this hearing and putting a spotlight on the
climate crisis--one of the greatest challenges before us as a society.
My name is Tina Owens and I am honored to be here on behalf of
Danone North America as its Director of U.S. Agriculture.
Danone is a global food company that has been in the dairy business
for 100 years and employs 100,000 people around the world. As the
largest part of that global business, Danone North America employs
approximately 5,000 employees in the U.S. and buys directly from more
than 700 American farms across the country for our most important
ingredient--milk. Most U.S. consumers know us by our yogurt brands:
Dannon, Oikos, Activia and Wallaby Organic to name a few. Within our
family of brands, we are proud to own one of the original pioneers in
organic dairy, Horizon Organic. We are also industry leaders in plant-
based brands and products such as Silk (soy, almonds and oat milks), So
Delicious (frozen desserts) and Vega (nutritional products). We aim to
bring health through food to as many people as possible by providing a
wide variety of healthy and affordable everyday food choices.
Danone has a history of thinking differently about the role of
business and valuing social progress alongside business growth. We
believe that we have a responsibility to use business as a force for
good and are proud to be the largest Certified B Corporation and
largest public benefit corporation in the world. Danone's overarching
vision of ``One Planet. One Health'' drives our sense of purpose and
responsibility toward not only our shareholders, but also the many
other stakeholders of our business, including our suppliers, our
customers, our consumers and our farmer partners.
My role is to lead and coordinate Danone North America's
investments with our farming partners who supply the ingredients
essential to our products. Simply put, our business cannot exist
without the individuals and families who are willing to take on the
daily work and personal risk that is farming in America. Their success
is our success. Therefore, as we consider the risks and volatility that
climate change presents for us and our farming partners, it is not only
the right thing to do, it is also good business sense. As you know from
your important work on the farm bill, robust policy related to
agriculture can make a world of difference in the amount of risk borne
by individual farmers on a daily basis. It is precisely for this reason
that we come before this Committee today to discuss the potential for
new paths forward in advancing agriculture in the face of climate
change.
As a major food company, we can plainly see that the climate crisis
adds an immense, additional layer of risk to the network of producers
across the country that we rely on for our food system. We have all
heard about or felt extreme weather impacting us--be it through record
hurricanes, droughts, or heavy spring rains. Our farms and food
businesses are among the first to feel the impact of this extra
volatility, which also significantly impacts federal budgets. For
example, this past year, farmers were unable to plant more than 19
million acres due to severe spring rains--a record number cited by
USDA.\1\ For a dairy, that may mean higher input costs at a time when
farmers already cannot afford any surprises.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.fsa.usda.gov/news-room/news-releases/2019/report-
farmers-prevented-from-planting-crops-on-more-than-19-million-acres.
\2\ Increased and sustained heat can also exacerbate dairy
inefficiencies and costs, for example, see https://www.canr.msu.edu/
news/summer-s-hot-weather-will-cause-heat-stress-in-dairy-cattle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various recent reports are clear that to reduce the most extreme
risk associated with climate change, the land sector, including
agriculture, must be a central part of the equation.\3\ To meet this
challenge, Danone North America is actively pursuing new models of
working with farmers that incentivize the adoption of new farm
management practices that can address climate change. For instance, we
have long-term contracts with dairies to help alleviate the short-term
volatility of the market and allow farmers to consider new ways of
farming, and are searching for new, innovative ways to finance social
impact with farms and suppliers. We are encouraged that the Committee
is reviewing the potential for agriculture to contribute to climate
change mitigation, and we look forward to working with the Committee as
it prepares to issue policy recommendations in 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For example, see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) latest report acknowledging exacerbated risks to land sector by
climate change and the need for the land sector, including agriculture
to provide mitigation solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
global commitments
Similar to actions taken by 285 companies, Danone globally has
adopted a Science-Based Target which for Danone means a 30% reduction
of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030.\4\ This target includes our
entire footprint from our supply-chain at the farm level to the end of
life of our packaging.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The 30% reduction is based on a 2015 baseline. For a full
explanation of science-based targets and what other companies are
taking similar action, please see https://sciencebasedtargets.org/
companies-taking-action/.
\5\ https://www.danone.com/impact/planet/towards-carbon-
neutrality.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Climate Week this year, we were also one of 87 companies
that acknowledged the recent science by commiting to carbon neutrality
by 2050 in order to help prevent a rise in temperatures of more than
1.5 C degrees.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/press-release/87-major-
companies-lead-the-way-towards-a-1-5c-future-at-un-climate-action-
summit/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to complement these commitments, at the United Nations Climate
Action Summit in September, Danone's global CEO, Emmanuel Faber,
announced a new business coalition, One Planet Business for
Biodiversity--alongside 18 other major agriculture-driven companies
with more than $500 billion in total annual revenue. Together these
companies will work to develop nature-based solutions for the climate
crisis,\7\ in three ways: advancing regenerative agriculture and soil
health, boosting cultivated biodiversity and resilient food and
agriculture models within our product portfolios, and eliminating
deforestation in our supply chains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://op2b.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
u.s. soil health initiative
In 2018 Danone North America launched a five-year, $6 million Soil
Health Initiative to help our farmer partners to restore the ability of
soil to capture carbon and overcome common obstacles to building soil
health management systems. We believe that this program, which targets
both economic resilience and environmental impact, is a strong starting
point for Congress to develop complementary policy options to
incentivize and assist farmers and their partners for lasting impact at
a nationwide scale. Our approach has the following pillars:
Start with soil science--While there is ample
research on soil and its capacity to capture and sequester
carbon, understanding the variables and nuances that come with
regional differences in growing regions and farm management is
key. Danone North America has worked with university partners
from the Ohio State University and Cornell University to help
provide a scientific baselines, economic analysis, soil
sampling and overall advice as we implement our program. In the
U.S., we have arguably the strongest agricultural reseach
institutions in the world, including the U.S.D.A. climate hubs.
Similarly, a coordinated approach between government and
research institutions for improving soil health would allow all
stakeholders, particularly the private sector, to better
understand the potential and variances for different farming
systems to capture carbon and reduce net GHG emissions.
Improve the use of data in farm planning and
measuring results--Data is vital for tracking and verifying
progress in improving the ability of soil to capture and
sequester carbon. Danone North America partners with
Sustainable Environmental Consultants and its EcoPractices
platform to help us and our farmer partners understand two main
issues: the economic return on investment for the farms of
improving the health of their soil, and the environmental
impacts of soil health practices using a variety of measurement
tools.\8\ Working with a trusted third party like EcoPractices
also allows us to ensure farmers' privacy in data collection
and provides ``boots on the ground'' to assist farmers with
creating a continuous improvement plan for soil health
practices. When new activities are implemented, farms then have
the data to understand the impact of their change in management
practices. We are exploring ways to leverage this work with
USDA technical assistance funding so that we can scale-up with
additional farms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Danone North America relies on EcoPractices to establish
application program interfaces (APIs) with various measurement tools
such as Field to Market, COMET-Farm, and Cool Farm Tool. We remain
flexible to improve and adjust our measurement tools should any become
more widely accepted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provide incentives for most impactful practices--
While we have initial findings that practices to improve soil
health can provide a return on investment to farms, the short-
term costs of implementing these practices often stand in the
way of their adoption. Since improving soil health takes a
systems approach, we need to help farms financially to build-in
new practices so that the benefits to soil, input efficiency
and yields can be developed quickly in the fewest number of
crop cycles. We work directly with farms to understand the
financial support they need to implement new practices like
reducing tillage, adding cover crops, enhancing crop diversity,
improved manure management, ensuring irrigation efficiency, and
adding vegetative field buffers to help prevent water running
off fields. We are also working with USDA to incentivize these
practices for soil health and ideally would create contracts
that cover multiple practices over multiple years so farmers
know they will still be profitable while restoring the soil. It
is essential, however, that financial incentives--whether they
come from our company or from USDA--be simple, straightforward
and have low transaction costs with clear paths of access for
the farms. Finally, while there are more than 100 NRCS-approved
conservation practice standards, depending on the farming
system, we generally need to prioritize fewer than 10 or so
practices, and in many cases 3-4 core practices will begin to
achieve real benefits.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See NRCS's description of the four tenants of soil health,
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/mgnt/; and
similarly Soil Health Institute, https://soilhealthinstitute.org/
resources/best-practices/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
importance of public policy
Public targets and strategies like those that Danone North America
has made with our farmer partners are critical to foster U.S.
innovation and leadership, but we cannot just tout our own commitments.
We also support and advocate for state and federal actions to ensure
that as a society, we are able to meet the science-based need to
prevent a rise in global temperatures of more than 1.5 degrees. As an
example, we have joined forces with three other like-minded food
companies to form the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance to advocate for
policy action to address challenges such as climate change.\10\ We
supported policies, for example, in the Farm Bill last year to help
food companies deliver conservation with U.S. farmers through programs
such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. And we will
continue to be a voice for how food and agriculture can and must be
part of the solution to the climate crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Sustainable Food Policy Alliance has take many policy
positions to advocate for policy related to combatting climate change,
see https://foodpolicyalliance.org/issue/environment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion
The climate crisis may be felt first by those who are closest to
the land, but its impact will eventually touch everyone who produces,
sells, buys, and eats food. It has already begun. While there is no
single solution when it comes to our complex agricultural systems,
building new and lasting soil health management systems holds promise
for the climate benefits we need as a society. These systems must be
scaleable relative to the size of the climate crisis, and they must
consider and support the livelihood of the farmers on which we all
rely.
Danone North America is committed to combatting climate change for
the sake of not just our own business but our entire agriculture and
food sector. While we know the work of one company cannot bring all the
climate solutions we need, our scale and our partnerships have the
power to show that the impact of soil health on the climate crisis is
real, measurable, and replicable. We must act together, now, to scale
similar impact through policy and investment in American farms.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Amin, welcome. You have 5 minutes to present your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF VIRAL AMIN
Mr. Amin. Thank you. Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the Select Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Viral Amin,
and I am the Vice President of Commercial Development and
Strategy for DTE Energy's Power and Industrial Group based in
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
At DTE Energy, we believe that climate change is one of the
defining public policy issues of our time. We applaud this
committee for taking the initiative to understand what can be
done.
Today I would like to introduce you to renewable natural
gas, a product that is made entirely from waste and has the
potential to deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions
while also improving air and water quality and creating well-
paying jobs.
Renewable natural gas or RNG is exactly what it sounds
like. It is natural gas made from renewable resources. Derived
from methane creating by the decomposition of organic matter,
rather than being extracted from underground fossil-based
resources, RNG is chemically identical to the natural gas that
most of us use every day. Livestock operations such as dairy
and hog farms can be a renewable source of methane.
Manure management practices are a significant source of
greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Manure is often
stored in uncovered lagoons, leading to the release of methane
into the atmosphere which is 25 times more potent than carbon
dioxide. RNG projects capture methane by diverting manure to
large enclosed storage tanks called anaerobic digesters. The
captured methane is then processed to remove impurities and
produce a product that can be transported and delivered
anywhere in this country through our existing natural gas
pipeline infrastructure and can be utilized by end customers
without any limitations or changes to their equipment.
The primary use for RNG today is as a fuel replacement in
trucks, buses, and cars that are otherwise powered by
traditional fossil-based natural gas. RNG fuel allows for a
carbon footprint that is lower than even electric vehicles due
to the avoidance of farm-based methane emissions. Furthermore,
because RNG is primarily used by medium and heavy duty trucks,
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates
are significantly lower than those of diesel-fueled vehicles.
DTE is working with 10 dairy farms in Wisconsin to develop
RNG projects. We have already committed $140 million and are
looking at more opportunities in other states. We like that our
investments are driving not only significant greenhouse gas
emission reductions but that these projects are creating
economic and environmental wins for the agriculture communities
in which these projects reside.
The financial challenges currently faced by dairy farms due
to low milk prices combined with the additional pressure from
local communities to improve water quality and reduce odor can
be partially mitigated by RNG projects in several ways.
First, DTE pays dairy farmers a share of the revenues
earned from the sale of RNG, allowing these primarily family-
owned businesses to realize value from a waste byproduct.
Second, we create new, well-paying jobs in order to develop,
operate, maintain, and support the complex systems required to
produce RNG. Third, the process used to produce RNG can reduce
the number of pathogens within the manure and thereby lower the
risk of groundwater contamination. And last, but not of least
importance to dairy communities, many of the volatile compounds
that contribute to odor are destroyed in the RNG production
process.
We believe that RNG is a unique solution in the battle
against climate change. Harmful methane emissions are captured
to fuel vehicles, allowing the transportation sector to
significantly lower its carbon footprint. American farmers
benefit financially, well-paying jobs are created, and both air
and water quality in rural communities can be improved.
In order to encourage investment and expand access to RNG,
project developers require stable and transparent policy
mechanisms that promote the use of low carbon fuels and clean
energy. We ask this committee to understand, support, and help
stabilize existing policies that have driven investment to date
and to develop new and additional frameworks that enable the
market to realize the full potential of RNG. These additional
mechanisms could include the allocation of funds for R&D to
drive technology advancement, tax incentives that are at parity
with other renewable energy sources, and to promote the
development of natural gas powered vehicles or other RNG uses.
RNG is a prime opportunity available today to reduce
methane emissions economically, decrease reliance on fossil
fuels, and support American farmers and rural economies.
I appreciate your attention, and I look forward to
answering your questions. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Amin follows:]
__________
Testimony of Viral Amin
Vice President, Commercial Development & Strategy, DTE Energy Resources
U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in Agriculture''
October 30, 2019
Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the Select
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
My name is Viral Amin, and I am the Vice President for Commercial
Development & Strategy for DTE Energy's Power and Industrial Group
based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. DTE Energy is a diversified energy
company with two utility businesses serving Michigan and various non-
utility businesses with investments throughout the United States. The
Power and Industrial group of DTE Energy focuses primarily on
developing renewable energy and industrial energy services projects. At
DTE Energy, we believe that climate change is one of the defining
public policy issues of our time. We applaud this committee for taking
the initiative to understand what can be done.
We are proud to say that DTE Electric, a regulated utility with 2.2
million customers and DTE Gas, a regulated utility with 1.3 million
customers have made commitments to customers to reduce carbon and
methane emissions, respectively, by more than 80% by 2040, and our goal
is to achieve net zero emissions from electric generation by 2050!
Today, I'd like to introduce you to Renewable Natural Gas, a
product made entirely from waste with the potential to deliver
significant reductions in greenhouse gases, improve air and water
quality, and create well-paying jobs.
Renewable Natural Gas, or RNG, is exactly what it sounds like--it
is natural gas made from renewable resources. RNG is chemically
identical to the natural gas that most of us use every day, except that
it is derived from methane created by the decomposition of organic
matter, rather than being extracted from fossil-based resources.
Manure management practices are a significant source of greenhouse
gas emissions in this country. Manure from livestock operations, such
as dairy and hog farms, is often stored in uncovered lagoons leading to
the release of methane into the atmosphere. And, as I am sure this
committee is aware, methane has a global warming potential that is 25
times more potent than carbon dioxide.\1\ Agricultural waste accounts
for over 9% of anthropogenic methane emissions in the U.S., according
to a 2017 EPA report.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Global Warming Potential for 100-yr time horizon. Table TS.2.
Technical Summary in climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
\2\ USEPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,
1990-2017. In 2017, manure management represented 9.4% of anthropogenic
methane emissions; landfills accounted for 16.4%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RNG projects capture methane by diverting manure to large, enclosed
tanks, called anaerobic digesters. The captured methane is then
processed to remove impurities and produce a product that can be
transported and delivered anywhere in this country through our existing
natural gas pipeline infrastructure and can be utilized by end-
customers without any limitations or changes to their equipment. This
is the product we refer to as Renewable Natural Gas, or RNG.
While today's hearing is particularly concerned with the role of
agriculture in addressing climate, it's important to note that the
transportation sector is now the leading sector source of
CO2 emissions in the United States and the use of RNG in
alternative fuel vehicles provides a proven cost-effective option for
reducing the emissions from the heavy-duty transportation fleet.
According to Natural Gas Vehicles for America, 32 percent of all on-
road fuel used in natural gas vehicles in calendar year 2018 was
renewable natural gas (RNG).
DTE and other developers produce RNG from dairy farms for use as a
fuel replacement in trucks, buses and cars that are otherwise powered
by traditional fossil-based natural gas. The resulting carbon footprint
is lower than even electric vehicles! When compared to diesel fuel,
these vehicles have significantly fewer emissions of other air
pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. DTE
has already committed $140 million to develop ten RNG projects at large
dairy farms in Wisconsin which can power approximately 2,000
alternative-fuel trucks every year. Five of these projects are in
operation, while the other five are under construction.
The financial challenges currently faced by dairy farms due to low
milk prices, combined with the additional pressure from local
communities to improve water quality and reduce odor can be partially
mitigated by RNG projects in several ways. First, DTE pays dairy
farmers a share of the revenues earned from the sale of RNG, allowing
these primarily family owned businesses to realize value from a waste
byproduct. Second, we create new, well-paying construction and full-
time jobs in order to develop, operate, maintain, and support the
complex systems required to produce RNG. Third, the process used to
produce RNG can reduce the number of pathogens within the manure and
thereby lower the risk of groundwater contamination.\3\ And last, but
not of least importance to dairy communities, many of the volatile
compounds that contribute to odor are destroyed in the RNG production
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://farm-energy.extension.org/pathogen-reduction-in-
anaerobic-digestion-of-manure/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RNG is a unique solution in the battle against climate change.
Harmful methane emissions are captured to fuel vehicles or other
beneficial uses, American farmers benefit financially, well-paying jobs
are created, and both air and water quality in rural communities can be
improved.
In order to encourage investment and expand access to RNG, project
developers require stable and transparent policy mechanisms that
promote the use of low carbon fuels and clean energy. We ask this
committee to understand, support, and help stabilize existing policies
that have driven investment to date and to develop new and additional
frameworks that enable the market to realize the full potential of RNG.
These additional mechanisms could include the allocation of funds for
R&D to drive technology advancement, tax incentives that are at parity
to those for renewable energy sources, and sensible stimulus designed
to promote the development of natural gas-powered vehicles and other
RNG uses.
RNG is a prime opportunity--available today, using today's
technology--to reduce methane emissions economically, decrease reliance
on fossil fuels, and support American farmers. I appreciate your
attention, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Thank you.
Ms. Castor. I want to thank you. A fantastic job from all
the witnesses.
At this time I recognize myself for 5 minutes for
questions. So the existing Farm Bill has a number of
conservation initiatives. They have been crucial in providing
technical assistance to farmers and financial incentives to
help implement climate smart ag practices such as the
Conservation Stewardship Program, Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program.
They all seem to move us in the right direction, but if
agriculture is going to be part of major climate solutions,
solutions for the lands and from the lands, it seems like we
are nowhere near the scale that we need to be.
Mr. Yoder, give us some advice on the scale, on how
significantly we need to scale up these initiatives. Which ones
work especially well, and which ones need to be expanded in
some way?
Mr. Yoder. Well, to be clear, there is some really good
programs that you just mentioned that we can utilize, but the
problem we have is we just don't have enough boots on the
ground. I know farmers that have been waiting for up to 2 years
before they get their, like, an interim management plan that
they can improvise, you know, as they go through this.
I would like to see a program where--and maybe I am more of
an innovator--but I would like to see a program where you can
be involved with these programs but also have some sort of safe
harbor provision where, you know, there is farmers out there
trying new things and things that we haven't even thought about
yet that might be a really, really good solution to some of
these things.
And so, again, it is going to have to be--you are going to
have to have a lot of research out there and a lot of places
where different things work in different watersheds. That is
the one thing that we don't have the luxury of doing is a one
size fits all. There is plenty of watersheds out there. There
is plenty of different volumes of water. There is plenty of
different soil types.
There is thousands of different soil types, so we can't
find a one size fits all, but we can provide tools for the
toolbox that they can all implement on their particular farm.
And this is a massive undertaking, but the potential is just
enormous. In fact, I look at it as the low hanging fruit for a
climate change solution.
Ms. Castor. So to speak.
Mr. Yoder. Yes.
Ms. Castor On our trip to Gainesville and the University of
Florida, and then out on the timber ranch in August, I was
impressed with the depth and breadth of knowledge by our
agricultural extension service through the land grant
universities in partnership with State and local officials.
It seems like they are trusted, but they are just skimming
the surface right now. Does everyone agree that we would need
more scientists and technical help for farmers and agriculture?
Okay. Dr. Moore-Kucera, you have a lot of experience with
this. Talk to us about the scale of these current Farm Bill
initiatives and then what is not under the Farm Bill rubric
that we should be thinking about as well.
Dr. Moore-Kucera. Are you referring to the conservation?
Ms. Castor. Yeah. Talk to us first about how much we would
need to scale those initiatives up.
Dr. Moore-Kucera. There is a lot of room for opportunity
and scaling, specifically targeting soil health practices that
have a lot of co-benefits that I mentioned earlier about
improved water quality, air quality, water quantity, and all of
these issues to try to bring it back to other mitigation
opportunities, reduce floods, and reduced inputs.
So there is a lot of opportunities that we can have and
research, and as Mr. Yoder mentioned, increased boots on the
ground and resources for our conservation service and extension
organizations I think is really critical.
Ms. Castor. Ms. Owens, you were specifically focused on
soil health and advised us to invest in the science there,
technical expertise, and it occurred to me that for the United
States of America, we have always been a leader in these type
of agricultural scientific initiatives. And you think of the
challenge with increasing carbon pollution around the rest of
the world, in the developing world and the technical help they
are going to need to sequester carbon and implement smart
farming practices.
You have an international company here. How important is it
that the United States of America is a leader and develops
these technologies that we can export to other countries.
Ms. Owens. Well, thank you, Chair. For our own part, we are
an international company headquartered out of Paris. However,
the U.S. is actually our largest single market. So as a
company, we are focused on the impact that we can have within
the U.S.
You and I have spoken a little bit earlier about the United
States' ability to actually position itself as a leader for
practices around the world, and I agree that that is an
important point.
You had also asked earlier around scale. And while it is
important that we align our research institutions and the
government towards a single goal such as soil health and
climate mitigation, to the point made from some of the other
witnesses, I would like to add that boots on the ground is
actually a very clear need. And one of the ways that we could
offer a new partnership to do that is actually utilizing the
scale of international food companies or others that are
operating within the U.S. and utilize the supply chain that we
have for additional implementation with those farms with which
we partner.
Today that is not the model that is used. It is state by
state, farm by farm, and we would open the door to having a
conversation about a new day where the existing model of the
Farm Bill and the way that payouts happen is used but at a
different scale than farm by farm, county by county, state by
state.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Graves, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Owens, if the U.S. is your largest market, we welcome
your headquarters being relocated here. We have French speakers
in Louisiana, so----
Dr. Moore-Kucera, I wanted to make sure I understood some
of your comments earlier. Right now under the Farm Bill we did
last Congress, we have about $2 billion invested in
conservation programs, voluntary programs. You indicated, and I
want to make--I don't want to put words in your mouth. I want
to make sure I am understanding. You indicated basically
building upon those, or recalibrating those, or introducing new
ones, or all of the above. Could you clarify?
Dr. Moore-Kucera. Well, actually, that gets more into the
policy component of AFT. I am here as a scientific technical
expert, and I would have to defer to our policy team to further
expand on those questions.
Mr. Graves. Okay. If you could do that in writing after the
hearing----
Dr. Moore-Kucera. Absolutely.
Mr. Graves [continuing]. That would be helpful. I want to
understand if you believe that some of the existing
conservation programs, or if your organization does, if those
are sufficient; if they were expanded, more dollars invested;
or if you are talking about new types of incentives or
voluntary programs, just a better understanding.
Dr. Moore-Kucera. I think we need both opportunities,
actually.
Mr. Graves. So expanding on existing programs and also
adding new. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Yoder, in your testimony, and also according to some of
the folks that we have met with, I understand that NRCS
technical staff may be insufficient to address the demand.
Could you expand upon that a little bit and where you see that
as being a problem?
Mr. Yoder. Sure. In my State, Mr. Terry Cosby is the leader
of the NRCS in our State. And one of the things that he is
hampered with is there is not even a member of NRCS staff in
every county, and so there is a lot of demand, and these people
are fantastic. It is just they had a hiring freeze on for a
while. I guess now they can hire again.
Mr. Graves. So how does that impede our ability to advance
conservation initiatives?
Mr. Yoder. Well, one of the things that you find out here
in the countryside is the culture of agriculture, you know, the
thing that is sort of difficult is all productivity is not
created equal.
So you could have very productive farms, and in some ways,
it is almost--I don't want to blame the land grant
universities, but we were always told you add this, this, this,
and this, and you will get, you know, a crop, and it is true.
But we haven't been paying a lot of attention to the soil
health, you know.
When you look at the amount of top soil we burned through
in the last 60 years, it is terrible. And if we burn through
the same amount of top soil in the next 60 years, we won't have
any left.
Mr. Graves. Do you participate in any of the conservation
programs?
Mr. Yoder. I don't participate in any of those programs,
but every bit of my farm, my 1,500 acres, is all no-till, and
we raise cover crops on every single acre.
Mr. Graves. That is great. That is great. The last question
for you, Mr. Yoder. As you know, over the last few decades,
there have been substantial changes in ethanol policies that
have had an impact on crops grown, including proliferation of
corn.
How have you viewed that as having an impact on kind of the
land use, soil conservation, and health?
Mr. Yoder. Well, data will tell you that you can actually
build soil by raising corn, and one of the things that you hear
in the media and other places and some NGOs, you know, is that,
you know, big bad corn is tearing our soil away, and that is
not true, if it is done no-till.
The other thing too is, say, for instance, bio ethanol. The
way we weighed bio ethanol 15, 20 years ago is nothing like it
is today. So today, if you do it with conservation practices,
you can actually--I mean, even with conventional bio ethanol,
you are at 35 percent better than petroleum gasoline, but you
can get up to actually qualify--I mean, statistics wise, that
is advanced biofuels. So it is different today, the
improvements we made with bio ethanol performance.
Also, biodiesel is phenomenal. So as it keeps getting
better and better, we have to be recognizing that it is not the
same as it was just a few years ago, so we are much more
efficient today than we ever were.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. I am trying to get our chair down to
Louisiana so she can see our green diesel facility in
Louisiana.
The last question very quickly, Mr. Amin. You mentioned the
renewable natural gas. You mentioned the need to transport it.
Obviously to the extent we move to more natural gas vehicles,
renewable natural gas vehicles, you are going to change sort of
the transportation routes that they would go.
So I assume that means that we are going to need natural
gas or renewable natural gas infrastructure to be able to
transport that gas to the right locations. Is that fair?
Mr. Amin. That is very fair. We absolutely depend on
natural gas infrastructure, and as this market grows, we see
continued development of that infrastructure as necessary.
Mr. Graves. So we would need to build new natural gas
pipelines in order to transport the gas to places where it is
needed?
Mr. Amin. Absolutely.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Next is Ms. Brownley, but I want to say when I
was able to visit Ventura County, you wouldn't think of it out
there in the west as being a big farming community, but more
strawberries than just about anywhere else. But Congresswoman
Brownley took me to a tomato grower who has a very sustainable
practice, and the community model was very impressive. So you
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the panel
for being here.
Dr. Moore-Kucera, I wanted to ask a question. I know that
the University of California at Davis has been doing some
research around composting and that composting mixed with cover
crops is a better solution than just cover crops in terms of
reducing the carbon footprint. At least that is what their
study is saying, and certainly now in California, there is a
law now called California's Healthy Soils Program which farmers
who are doing this can get some assistance for continuing to do
it.
So I think you stated in your testimony that you have been
doing some research around composting as a greenhouse gas
reduction tool. Could you share with us a little bit about that
research?
Dr. Moore-Kucera. Well, we haven't been doing research
specifically on that topic, but it is one of the practices that
we are looking at to address the contribution of greenhouse gas
reduction and carbon sequestration potential across the U.S.,
coupling comet planter, the USDA tool for that, and so compost,
there have been very successful programs in California applying
that waste stream on range lands with significant increases to
soil carbon contents, and so that is a very encouraging
program.
And then as you mentioned, coupling compost. As we add
conservation practices together, they often become more
synergistic, so coupling compost with cover cropping then
enhances that cover crop to perform the functions that it is
designed to do. So the synergies are really important, and then
also taking that waste out of that stream is a significant
reduction.
Ms. Brownley. Mr. Yoder, you said you have no till cover
crops. Do you use composting also?
Mr. Yoder. I sure do. I love chicken litter too.
Ms. Brownley. Very good.
Mr. Yoder. My neighbors don't exactly like it when I put it
on, but we also use a product called Com-Til which is basically
composted bio solids. It doesn't smell at all. You put that
soil amendment with additional cover crops, and I can't believe
how my soil has improved over the last 15 years. I mean, you
know, it sounds kind of old and goofy, but my dad said, you
know, all I ask when you take the farm is you leave it in
better shape. It is the most productive it has ever been, and
it is because of some of these practices.
Ms. Brownley. I have also been told that, you know, one way
to collect more carbon in the soil is to begin to manipulate
the seeds so that the seeds are producing longer roots into the
soil. Has there been any research that anybody is aware of
around that piece?
Mr. Yoder. Well, there certainly is. There is certainly a
lot of research and selection for genetics. In fact, one of the
things that really aids the deep penetration of roots is
actually no till because as you have a crop and you have roots
that decay, the porosity of the soil is greatly increased.
One of the greatest things that ever happened to me, this
was years ago--I went to a field day, and they opened up a
field tile that had been--this farm had been no-till for many
years. And I thought well, because everybody thought--I mean,
conventional wisdom says well, the ground is obviously hard and
can't get--they put a smoke bomb in that tile, and all over the
field, the smoke came out, and it just told me the porosity of
that soil was better than any kind of conventional soil than I
have ever had. That is when I decided I am doing something
wrong, and that is when I decided to switch to no-till.
Ms. Brownley. Very good. And, Mr. Yoder, in terms of all
the good things that you are doing on your farm, would a carbon
credit or a carbon fee be something that you would want to take
advantage of?
Mr. Yoder. You betcha. I would love to see--I would love to
see us--you know, this is a great example of this year in Ohio.
About 50 percent of the crops did not get planted, and luckily,
we are in the retail business. We sold a lot of cover crop seed
to get on those bare fields.
And there was some help from NRCS as well as the whole
market facilitation program, and to get farmers to just put
their toe in the water and see what a cover crop will do. There
is such a thing called a fallow degree where the ground is
fallow, and you don't have anything growing. The microbes all
dry up and go away and die. So it is important for me, no
matter what, to have something growing on that farm, that
field, at all times, and that way, it is ready for the next
crop.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you so much. My time is up, and I yield
back to the chair.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
Thank you all for being here. This is extremely important.
I have always said as we address climate change, we cannot
leave rural America behind. We have got to make sure that we
include it. I have the honor and privilege of representing a
very rural area, and particularly in the western part of my
district in south Georgia, we have a lot of agriculture, and it
is extremely important to our economy. The number one economy
and the number one industry in the State of Georgia is
agriculture.
I am very proud of that, but, you know, the American farmer
literally feeds the world. We have to remember that, and we
have to make sure that we do everything we can. A lot of people
take it for granted. You ask people a lot of times, where do
you get your groceries from? They say from the grocery store.
You know, they don't understand where it comes from, and
that is why I am just such a great fan of the farmers and
particularly in our area.
Precision agriculture. Ms. Owens, are you familiar with
that?
Ms. Owens. Yes.
Mr. Carter. Ok. And that is certainly something over the
last decade that we have really stressed, and I just wanted to
ask you. Do you think that prescision agriculture can be a way
that we can bring down carbon emissions as well as save money
for farmers?
Ms. Owens. That is a great question. Thank you, Congressman
Carter. The answer is definitely yes, and I talk about data in
my opening statement, and we have partnered with a platform
called Eco Practices which is part of Sustainable Environmental
Consultants, and they are actually working on aggregating all
of the different data points from farms, but bundling it in a
way that the farmer can actually make sense of it and make
really detailed decisions based off of it.
So whether it is the data from their combine, you know,
from my John Deere, or the economic system that they use to
track what is happening on their farm or how they are tracking
yield. What we are working on now is actually how you use that
precision ag information to project for the farmer as they
adopt soil-friendly practices----
Mr. Carter. Sure.
Ms. Owens [continuing]. How it actually contributes to
their profitability over time and how it projects to help with
their resilience related to climate change.
Mr. Carter. How important is broadband to rural areas and
precision agriculture?
Ms. Owens. Well, you would need broadband in order to have
the farm have access to all the different tools that are
available today.
Mr. Carter. How can we help? I serve on the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and this is something we talk about,
getting broadband to the rural areas. You know, what can we do?
Ms. Owens. I think it would be interesting to have a policy
that broadband is actually a requirement. I myself have always
lived in a rural area. I have always had terrible internet, so
I would love it if the committee would make a recommendation
around broadband related to agriculture because it would affect
me as well.
Mr. Carter. Would it help you, Mr. Yoder?
Mr. Yoder. Thank you for bringing up broadband. You bet it
would because all these new technologies that we are enjoying
today, whether it is, you know, integrated with the machinery
itself, it is all dependent on signals either from internet or
satellites or from the phone lines or whatever. It is
absolutely crucial.
The problem we have is lack of capacity. We are pretty good
where I am at right now from just out of Columbus, Ohio, but I
talk to my friends out in the bare spots. It is terrible.
Mr. Carter. It is awful in south Georgia.
Mr. Yoder. It is absolutely awful. That is a big part--data
is a big part of precision. We are precision ag dealers as
well, and my goodness. I will give you an example of how
important data precision is. We put a high speed planting kit
on our planter, and we literally saved 3 days of planting.
Mr. Carter. Absolutely.
Mr. Yoder. And this year, you know, we had a minimum of 10
days, that was it, that we had to plant, and we got it planted.
Mr. Carter. All right. Let me get to one other thing that I
want to mention. Tier 4 engines. Are you familiar with that,
the tier 4 engines? The EPA has gone to--now they are requiring
tier 4 engines.
We had a problem with this with our bar pilots, our harbor
pilots. They couldn't actually build the boat the size they
needed it to in order to fit the tier 4 engines. Now I have got
the farmers coming to me and saying they are requiring me to
have a tier 4 engine. I can't buy wheels that will get through
the rows and the crops.
And the thing about the tier 4 engines is that the
environmental benefit you get from going from a 3 to a 4 is
just not as good as it was going from a 2 to a 3.
Ms. Owens or Mr. Yoder, any of you all have any experience
with that?
Mr. Yoder. We experience it every day. We have the
transition to tier four, which are fine. That is like a big
giant catalytic converter. But with our tier four semis and big
tractor, you got to have the DEF--diesel emissions fluid or
whatever, and anyway, it is a pain in the rear end.
Mr. Carter. Sure it is. Well, thank you all. Ag is
extremely important. I know that is why we are here. But just
out of curiosity, you all know what the number one forestry
state in the nation is? It is the State of Georgia. Thank you
very much.
And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Castor. I have heard this. I have heard this.
Next is Mr. Huffman, and I do want to say, Mr. Huffman, we
have all been thinking about you in your district with raging
wildfires in northern California, so it is good that you came
back for the hearing. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
appreciate all the concern many of my colleagues have
expressed. My district just got through the last of a
particularly harrowing windy night with pretty limited damage,
so we think we are in a better place today. The last exchange
between Mr. Carter and Mr. Yoder and others about broadband,
and much of the conversation we are having here today, really
highlights the fact that there are aspects of this problem-
solving exercise when it comes to agriculture that really can
bring us together and I think there are so many things that we
share common interest in, but before we go further into that,
this is the obligatory point where I have to push back on Mr.
Graves for his pep rally on behalf of natural gas, okay. Those
of us that believe we are in the middle of a climate crisis, I
think, also have to accept that we just don't have time for
fake solutions, and the idea that somehow U.S. natural gas if
it outcompetes Russian natural gas is somehow going to make us
better in the face of this climate crisis is a little bit like
the captain of the Titanic saying our only choice is to steer
the ship into a U.S. iceberg or a Russian iceberg. I think we
have got to change course here folks, and we know that at some
where between 3 and 3 and a half percent loss from the wellhead
to the point of combustion, natural gas is just as bad for the
climate as coal.
So let's stop pretending that promoting U.S. or any other
natural gas is a solution to this climate crisis. It is just
not. It is actually going to make it worse. But Mr. Amin, I do
want to believe that renewable natural gas as part of our
portfolio of solutions for making agriculture part of the
solution instead of a 10 percent net emitter could be something
that we can do. I want to give you a chance to address that
potential friction, though. If we believe from a policy
perspective we need less reliance on fossil fuels and natural
gases that are not renewable, but we think you are on to
something that could be a good idea, is there a way to
reconcile those two or is the success of your industry
absolutely dependent on continuing to build out this fossil
fuel infrastructure that, frankly, takes us in the wrong
direction on the climate crisis?
Mr. Amin. So we believe that renewable natural gas is a
near-term and immediate solution that is available today
commercially to help resolve the climate crisis. There are
other carbon mitigating solutions out there; electrification
gets discussed quite a bit. That is a longer-term solution and
it is not applicable to every end use. And particularly----
Mr. Huffman. I guess what I am asking specifically is if we
want to support renewable natural gas, do we necessarily have
to support the bigger play on natural gas infrastructure and
natural gas dependency that includes an awful lot of
nonrenewable?
Mr. Amin. We certainly depend on natural gas
infrastructure. We need pipelines.
Mr. Huffman. I think that unfortunately answered the
question. To the rest of you, I am wondering when we talk about
all of these exciting practices, no-till practices and cover
crops and there were less specific references to other
practices that can make a tremendous difference. Ms. Owens, you
talked about some of that.
I have people in my district, like the Marin Carbon
Project, that are doing a lot of research on this and they
believe it shows a lot of potential, but I am really wondering
if we are told that agriculture is 10 percent of our greenhouse
gas emissions in this country, what would it take to make
agriculture part of the solution to either get to zero or net
positive? Have any of you run the numbers? Is there a set of
specific practices that could be scaled up to specific levels
that you can recommend to us? I would just open that up to any
of you that want to elaborate.
Dr. Moore-Kucera. So that is some of the research that we
are working on today. I mentioned that was current and
projected adoption of cover crop in conservation tillage we can
get to about a quarter of the total ag emissions, and if we
couple that with various practices that target nutrient
management, renewer management has already been mentioned,
conservation crop rotations, mulching, compost, etc., there are
lots of different ways to get there, so we are making
progress----
Mr. Huffman. Do you have some metrics? Like if we did this
much of it, we would get there? Are we able to make those kind
of calculations?
Dr. Moore-Kucera. We are in progress doing that right now,
yeah. I think it is important to mention that different--the
best management or the best practice that has the greatest
greenhouse gas reduction isn't the same across the country or
even across the states, so it is important to have that
regionalization that we mentioned earlier.
Mr. Huffman. If the chair allows, I would certainly welcome
any other answers.
Chairwoman Castor. Sure.
Mr. Yoder. Well, it comes down to economics, for sure and
that is how you get a farmer to invest in a new practice. One
of the things that we participated earlier with was the study
from Environmental Defense Fund where do cover crops actually
pay for themselves, and we went through where our farmers one
of about four in the whole Midwest and we went through the
whole thing, not necessarily about what it actually contributes
to greenhouse gas sequestration, but what is the dollar value
for putting those cover crops in place, and we found out from
our numbers on our particular farm that the cover crops more
than paid for themselves and had a 2 to 5 percent increase in
yield, but--that may seem small, but over the time, over many,
you know, more years, your soil becomes much, much better and
more resilient so you actually build a lot of risk management
by doing that over time. I look at my soil as my 401(k), that
if, you know--and that is the problem with bankers. They look
at things on a return on investment for 6 months. You need to
look at this--give it 5 years, you will get your money back.
Chairwoman Castor. Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield to Mr.
Graves.
Mr. Huffman. Oh, here we go.
Mr. Graves. My friend who just got an extra minute and a
half, is he the one that is objecting? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Griffith, for yielding the time. Number 1, Madam
Chair, I want to point to the IPCC report specifically. The
supplement AR5 that refers to the migration to natural gas as a
cleaner energy solution, reminding my friends that often cite
the IPCC report. Number 2, Madam Chair, I would like to submit
for the record a graphic demonstrating the United States has
reduced emissions more than the next 12 emissions-reducing
countries combined. Number 3, I want to submit a graph showing
that the State of California under their aggressive green
energy solutions have increased their dependence upon Saudi
Arabian imports of oil. Number 4, I would like to submit for
the record a news report showing that in the northeast their
aggressive greenhouse gas reducing policies resulted in
increasing the utilization of home heating oil and becoming
dependent upon Russian natural gas. Lastly, in response to my
friend from Georgia, I would like to submit week 10, the AP top
25 that shows LSU is number 1. And my friend from Georgia is
down to number 8.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Castor. We will review those documents and then
handle the UC at the end of it.
Mr. Huffman. Madam Chair, would you submit all the usual
rebuttal documents?
Chairwoman Castor. Yes.
Mr. Griffith. Reclaiming my time.
Chairwoman Castor. Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you. Let me just say that coal is not
dead either and that what we have to do is have parity in our
research on all of our fuels because coal and natural gas are
great, but we have to make sure that we are not increasing our
carbon footprint and/or, in fact, reducing that--and a lot of
research and you can see clips from Energy and Commerce and you
will see me talking about all kinds of great research that is
going on. That being said, Mr. Amin, how many cows do you need
to make it feasible to have one of your anaerobic digesters on
your property if you are a farmer, because most of my farmers
are relatively small?
Mr. Amin. Size can vary quite a bit, and these projects are
scalable. So there is no precise formula, per se. I can tell
you the farms that we have cited at have been anywhere between
1,500 cows per farm to 10,000 cows per farm.
Mr. Griffith. And so the problem is, I don't have that many
cows on any single farm in my district and so that creates a
problem. Now, let me ask this, because I do think the concept
is one that is worthy, how do you get it to the pipe? How do
you get your RNG to the pipe?
Mr. Amin. So we can transport RNG by pipeline through a
direct interconnect with a major interstate pipeline or we can
truck the gas there.
Mr. Griffith. Practically, you would have to be close
enough to a pipeline to make that work?
Mr. Amin. Practically speaking, yes.
Mr. Griffith. Okay. Now when you finish getting the methane
out of the manure, what do you do with it?
Mr. Amin. So we take that manure--we don't take the manure,
the farmer takes that manure and applies it to the land as
fertilizer when the farmer needs it.
Mr. Griffith. So Mr. Yoder could buy some of that if he
wanted to to put on his property because I heard him talking
about using chicken litter and other types of manure on his
property?
Mr. Amin. I think.
Mr. Griffith. All right. That works. Good. We found a way
to marry these two and that is good. Let me get into the
broadband discussion with the time that I have left. I
represent the most rural parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
so don't think of my district as being like Northern Virginia
and all that traffic. We have got lots of traffic issues on I-
81, but once you get off of 81, you don't have that and we have
lots of places, including Montgomery County, home of Virginia
Tech, where because of the way of the lay of the mountains go,
we don't have service. We don't have broadband. You can be
three miles outside of Blacksburg, Virginia, one of the most
wired communities in the country and not have any service.
There is new technology coming for our rural areas. We are
working hard to get mapping that is proper, but we have--there
is some white space technology out there that I think Microsoft
has been working on. There are two or three companies working
on low altitude satellite service. I think within the next few
years we are going to have a lot more broadband available so
that our farmers, even on the small farms that don't have a
thousand cows, we can use modern technologies and go forward
with that. I do appreciate that as well.
Ms. Owens, let's talk soil, because the problem with the
federal government often is, is that we get into these
discussions and we come up with one or two or five sizes and
Mr. Yoder said there are thousands of kinds of soils, and I
learned that as a young lawyer when I had a case that I thought
was a clear winner because somebody had diverted water on
somebody else's property, it broke the foundation in their
house, and then I found out that the soil around that
particular house held water to such an extent that it was the
natural soil, the water in the soil, and not the diversion,
that popped the foundation. So how do we get a policy when we
have thousands of soils? How do we have a policy that everyone
can apply?
Ms. Owens. Well, I am not the scientist on soil. We are
working with folks who are scientists on soil, and I think what
you have seen is consensus from this panel and the fact that
soil is central to the entire equation as well as the fact that
we need a systems approach that is unique to each region of the
country.
Mr. Griffith. Well, in this case, it was not only each
region; it was like neighborhood to neighborhood. Some
neighborhoods have radon, some don't. I mean it changes. Madam
Chair, this is important discussion and I think there is a lot
of common ground not withstanding our good-natured poking back
and forth. There is a lot of common ground where we can make a
positive difference using common sense approaches particularly
in agriculture to solve some of these problems.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Castor. I agree. Mr. Casten, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all so much.
So my colleagues have heard me say this before, my view is that
its super easy to solve the climate crisis. We only have to do
three things: We have to cut our energy use per dollar GDP in
half which would take us to where our best in class trading
partners are. We have to invent whole new technologies to
figure out how to decarbonize industries that we have no idea
how to decarbonize, like fertilizer manufacturing. And then we
have to take about a hundred parts per million out of the
atmosphere to get back to a stable level. If we do all those
three things, we are set. The first of those is economically
acreative, the second one is potentially acreative because we
will invent whole new industries, the third is really, really
hard. Except in the agricultural space where at least,
theoretically, by increasing soil carbon content and picking on
the last, we can increase productivity and there is some
interesting data on how do that. And so I want to focus on that
and I would like to start with you, Dr. Moore-Kucera; is it my
understanding that most of the programs that encourage various
agriculture practices from no-till to cover crops, et cetera,
are essentially practice based rather than performance based?
You don't get a differential incentive to do something that is
going to raise more carbon? It is do this, do this, do this, do
this? Is that a fair characterization?
Dr. Moore-Kucera. I am sorry. I don't totally understand
your question.
Mr. Casten. Well, let me maybe ask it a different way.
Congresswoman Brownley had asked whether a carbon tax or fee or
something like that would be appropriate. Do we actually have a
way to understand this changing agricultural practice will lead
to this much quantifiable precise change in the carbon
absorption in the soil?
Dr. Moore-Kucera. There are a variety of tools. The
quantification and verification steps with soil carbon is very
critical and a lot more research needs to go in that direction.
There is a lot of new novel ways that we can measure carbon
quickly and so developing a platform that is consistent and can
be validated across various regions is a critical component. We
currently have the ability to do that now, it is just very
expensive.
Mr. Casten. So this was my point about practice based
because it is really hard if we can't quantify the baseline in
a consistent way, then it is hard to know what the change is,
but I agree we should do it.
Mr. Yoder, can you just help us understand, and if anybody
else has insight, Ms. Owens, I know you and I talked about this
a little bit yesterday as well, what is the range before we get
to the actual hard numbers on a percentage basis, seasonal
changes, slope changes, weather changes, soil type changes,
what are we talking about with all these various agricultural
practices? How wide is the error band, if you will?
Mr. Yoder. It can be very wide. One of the things we are
going to have to eventually get to is outcome based rather than
just practice based because Dr. Rutan Lao from Ohio State
University has done a lot of work on this and where we can
sequester particular amounts in my soils. If you go to Nebraska
under sandy soils, it doesn't work the same. So the same
practice has the different results, so that is why we have to
really come down and understand each and every soil type and
custom create a program that is going to work for that
particular soil. It is, again, a one size fits all, you are not
going to get to where you need to be. If we are going to really
make a difference in the climate, we need to have a metric that
we can count on that you do this--this can be counted on to do
this much in this particular area, but you can't do that until
we finally get a metric that we can count on.
Mr. Casten. Maybe we have to stay with a more practiced
based system, too. So help me--do any of you have any estimates
of on an absolute basis, what could we do? If we have got to
get 100 parts per million down, that is roughly, if I am doing
my math right, 400 billion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
If we are looking at the absolute best possible scenario for
changing agricultural practices that we think would increase
soil health, are we talking 1 percent of the way there, we
talking 50 percent of the way there? How big is this relative
to what we have to do?
Mr. Yoder. Remember I said earlier you have to look at it
on a systems basis because you are talking about--there is not
a silver bullet, there are several different ways--for
instance, you can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing
your tillage or your trips over the field or you can reduce
your fertilizer use by going on more of a type that you only
fertilize those spots in the field that need it. You can also,
depending on what crop you do, you know, whether you are
growing hay or whether you are growing corn, it all has to be
system based because it is not--we can't have----
Mr. Casten. I am out of time and I take your point, but I
would welcome if any of you have a way because we have to
ultimately figure out how to prioritize the different things we
can do and I think there is something really important here in
this panel, but it is really hard to understand like, yes, all
those things individually are good, but if we are going to
spend the time as maybe we should to say what is the variance
by soil type, I think it would be helpful for us to understand
in the best possible scenario, how big an opportunity is this
so that we can look about that that the other things are
competing resources for and I am way over, so thank you.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Castor. Mrs. Miller, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Castor. For over 20 years,
my family and I have owned and operated a bison farm in
southern West Virginia. We bought our first bull and five
females from Medford, Ohio, Mr. Yoder. His name was Buster.
Alpha female was Flossy and they are both long gone. I have
spent many years at farmers markets selling meats and countless
hours on the farm caring for the land, for the animals, and one
of the most important things I learned was protecting our land
to keep it for generations to come. Probably another important
thing I learned was, don't hit an animal on the hind end and
expect it to move in the direction you want, because I have to
wear this thing for 6 weeks.
We have seen farming evolve across the generations. We have
seen farming practices, government suggestions, government
programs, even in the 20th centuries, that haven't worked, like
planting multiflora rose. That is a mess and it takes years to
clean up. We now see farmers utilizing technology in a
precision agriculture. Farmers are also instituting sustainable
farming practices that are not only benefiting their crop
yield, but also the environment. As we move forward in
considering ways to address climate change, it is important
that we do not become too prescriptive. Farmers know best how
to care for their land without cumbersome government mandates.
Most of you know that the average age in America of a farmer is
58 years old. For organic farmers, it is 52 years old. For
beginning farmers with less than 5 years of experience, it is
47 years old. So we need to keep that in mind as we move
forward.
Mr. Amin, is the pipeline infrastructure in the United
States adequate to meet the needs of the DTE now and for the
expansion of renewable natural gas?
Mr. Amin. The infrastructure that is in place today is
sufficient for what we are doing today. That is correct.
Mrs. Miller. That is good. Are you selling most of your
renewable natural gas to particular states?
Mr. Amin. Most of our renewable natural gas that we produce
in Wisconsin is being sold into the State of California.
Mrs. Miller. How are you getting it there?
Mr. Amin. We are getting there by pipeline.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. Do you think renewable natural gas can
help overcome the intermittency problems of other renewable
energy sources like wind and solar power?
Mr. Amin. I do believe so because renewable natural gas is
a dispatchable resource. You can use it when you need it most.
Mrs. Miller. What are the biggest roadblocks in instituting
your renewable natural gas technology around the United States?
Mr. Amin. There are several roadblocks. I would say, number
1, is being able to access the source, the methane source.
Generally, we need to be relatively close to a pipeline to be
able to make that project work. The farther it is from a
pipeline, it is more difficult to access that particular
project. So that is probably our number 1 roadblock.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Mr. Yoder, can you describe some of
the innovations and advancements in technology that you have
seen to assist the farmers?
Mr. Yoder. Sure. One of the things that we first adopted
several years ago was variable rate technology on fertilizer.
We grid sample all of our fields on, actually, acre grids; so
for every acre we get an actual reading of what that is and so
when we fertilize, we found out because--we did it originally
to cut cost. We found out there was hot spots in the field that
didn't need any fertilizer at all. We found other spots that
were very low. So we spent the last several years evening
things up to try to have more of a uniform field. The problem
you also have though, that you can't do anything about, is the
soil types. We saw that this year with our yields. This year,
we are not quite done yet. Actually, I came out of the field
yesterday--from the corn field--to be here today, but we found
lower yields this year because we had a real wet spring and
then we had a very dry July and August, but surprisingly the
way we are farming today, our farm still produced much better
than what our neighbors did because of the tilled.
The other thing that we have used in our farm is we put
precision parts on our planter. It is actually a high-speed kit
that we put on and so we can go now--we have got a 40-foot
planter that we put--the high speed which we can go up to 10
miles per hour instead of the normal five. We don't go that
fast, but we basically turned our 40-foot planter into the same
amount of capacity as a 60-foot and we actually cut 3 to 4 days
off of our planting. And what my neighbors did because they had
to wait until they could get to it, they didn't get their
planting done. We got everything planted except for about 150
acres, so the technology--but the other thing too, is, we got
all this technology on the planter, we can plant 24 hours in a
row because it has got all the readouts. We can understand the
seed to soil contact, exactly how much seed we are putting on,
the varieties of seed, so we are no longer hampered by day
light. In the old days if you plant after dark, you are going
to have trouble. Not anymore because you know--you are making a
map. Every time you make a trip over the field, you are making
a map of what you have done. And so those two things--farmers
love technology, too, and that is the thing. Data is going to
be the next big thing that we need to do. If we could get our
hands on the data and just like Tina was talking about, the
data that each farm generates is wonderful, but just think if
we could get the data that our own U.S. Government or USDA has,
what if we could put that together and actually have something
that we could get some correlations and actually see the trends
on a big scale. That would be wonderful.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Castor. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you to
all the witnesses. I just want to briefly follow-up on Mr.
Carter's comment that Mr. Huffman followed up on about the
rural broadband and how important that is. There is a little
farm Seeley Mint up in Columbia County, Oregon, where they
sustainably harvest spearmint and peppermint. The last time I
visited, they said, see the tracks down the road? You have to
go over the tracks and then you have internet, so it is a real
challenge with the growing business. But I also wanted to
mention we heard about the importance of small farms in
agriculture. Summit foods in Cornelius, Oregon, which is pretty
far west of Portland. We grow grape blueberries in Oregon, and
Summit Foods dries them, sells them nationally/internationally.
They take the processing waste, which is fermented and sent to
their sister company, Summit Natural Energy, where they make
Thunderbolt Racing Fuel, which the race car drivers like
because not only is it 100 percent renewable, it also is high-
octane and smells like blueberries. So we are doing creative
things doing our part with agriculture. I just wanted to
mention on the same day in August when the IPCC released its
special report on land degradation and sustainable land
management, I was visiting 46 North Farm in Astoria, Oregon. 46
North is participating in a dry farming project with partners
at Oregon State University's extension service. People think,
well, it rains all the time in Oregon, but they really don't
need to irrigate, even during a dry season, because they work
to conserve soil moisture through dry strategies like the use
of cover crops, which then help them access water and nutrients
in the soil later in the growing season. So these practices
have allowed them to restore a significant portion of their
land, which is heavily degraded from the previously land owner.
It is kind of a great example of sustainable agriculture,
which, of course, on a large scale could help reduce emissions,
restore carbon, and preserve natural habitats, but also
providing tasty vegetables and beautiful flowers. Many of our
ecosystems have been pushed to the brink with their ability to
naturally adapt, but farmers are natural stewards of the land
and have direct experience with conserving natural resources,
and I know their perspectives are really valuable.
Dr. Moore-Kucera, variable precipitation and rising
temperatures are intensifying droughts in some places and
increasing heavy downpours in others reducing snow pack,
especially in the Pacific Northwest, and leading to significant
differences in supply and demand, and it really has changed our
crop productivity. So in your testimony, you outlined the
substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions from cover crop
and conservation tillage and you noted that the real and
perceived risks that farmers face when considering how to adopt
strategies. So as water supply changes in the Northwest in the
face of the climate crisis, how can we effectively incentivize
and encourage more farmers to transition to no-till dry farming
and cover cropping practices?
Dr. Moore-Kucera. Yes. Thank you for that question. Climate
discussions must also include discussions around water, not
only water quality like I mentioned, but water quantity and
availability. And so all of the soil health practices that I
mentioned earlier help to get water into the ground and that
water is then available later for the plants, so that is a win-
win for sure. You asked about how we can help promote those
different practices and break down the barriers. I think it was
alluded to earlier, but the relationship building is critical
between farmers and conservationists and so communicating that,
getting workshops, hearing where the farmers are, where they
are in their success, where they are in their challenges, is
critical to help move some of those programs forward.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And to you and also Mr. Yoder, we
know that smart agriculture practices have other benefits like
reducing fertilizer runoff. I am the co-chair of the Oceans
Caucus and the Estuaries Caucus. I've been concerned about
runoff and pollution from human activities increasing the
presence of harmful algal blooms or habs in marine, coastal,
estuary, and freshwater systems, and that has happened in every
state.
So I wonder about how healthy soils, reducing dependents on
fertilizers; I worked on pesticide reductions programs when I
was in state legislature. What are some other benefits and how
can healthy soil stewardship practices and how can we
effectively reduce those pollutant inputs to maximize the
benefits to our soil?
Mr. Yoder. Again, I go back to the economic reasoning.
Okay. For instance, I am from Ohio and we have--we had some
challenges with algal blooms in the lake area basin because of
the northwest Ohio--that has been blamed for a lot of it. We
have a lot of dissolved reactive phosphorus moving which we
never thought we would ever. When I was in college and you
talked about phosphors, it never moved more than two inches
forever. Well, dissolved reactive phosphorus does.
So what we are trying do is figure out soil amendments to
stabilize those nutrients, and the best way you can do that is
a cover crop because it just basically takes up all the unused
nutrients and waits for the next crop. But it does that, but it
also, in economic reasons, you can actually lose. And I use
this argument all the time with farmers. Over $100 an acre of
some of the nutrients worth that you see go off your farm, that
is money--a dollar saved is better than a dollar on a gross. So
farmers are saying, hey, you know, if I can save this--so what
you do is, you know, these farmers that put on the nitrogen and
the phosphorus in the fall and they know half of its going to
be gone--that doesn't make sense. And so we have moved to an
as-needed basis. Basically, you feed the crop as you take it
and you do tissue test and you find out what is it needing
instead of just putting it all on and get it out of the way. We
have to change our thinking about it. You have to really stress
the economic value of that, and when farmers see the economic
values they will change. But they are not interested--that is
why I said before, there is also controversy. They don't want
to talk about climate change, but they will sure talk about
weather pattern changes so that is what they do.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I am out of time.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Castor. Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Yoder, I am interested in your no-till
farming. I own timberland and we have grain fields for wildlife
and we did no-till this time, but are you doing corn no-till?
Mr. Yoder. We are. We are 100 percent no-till.
Mr. Palmer. How do you do that when your seed has to be at
a certain depth, soil depth?
Mr. Yoder. There are so many new tools in technology. Our
planters got the latest----
Mr. Palmer. You are doing drilling or----
Mr. Yoder. No. It is actually a planter, but we control the
down force. We call Delta Force; that is our brand name. We can
literally put enormous amount of pressure to get it down to
where we used to have just springs keeping it down and then you
get a tough spot, it rises up, and then you wouldn't get your
depth. This guarantees it is going to be a certain depth. And
the other thing too about no-till is after continuous no-till,
your ground actually gets looser and so you can be more
precise. And we also--we have indications of seed to soil
contact, we have indications of dropping doubles or skips and
things like that. So when we go through with the planter, we
can actually do way more than we did when we used to have to
stop and dig it out and see what it is like. So technology has
been a tremendous tool for our efficiency.
Mr. Palmer. All right. I was--I didn't think you were just
throwing seed on top of the ground, so I knew you had to
penetrate the soil in some fashion. I just want to share
something with you and just get your response to it. The
statement was that the greenhouse effect would be desolating
the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific
drought causing crop failures and food riots. The Platte River
in Nebraska would be dry while a continent-wide black blizzard
of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on the interstate, strip
paint from houses, and shutdown computers. Do you anticipate
that?
Mr. Yoder. I hope not.
Mr. Palmer. I am asking.
Mr. Yoder. Well, this is what I am stressing----
Mr. Palmer. Any of you?
Mr. Yoder. I think you are going to be more effective with,
instead of scare tactics like what you have been hearing, to
show farmers the economic value of changing their practices of
what they have been doing, not only cutting their cost but
increasing their yields. And if that is going to be a way to a
solution for climate change, then that will just help things
along.
Mr. Palmer. My question is, and to the entire panel, Dr.
Moore-Kucera, is that a reasonable expectation as an outcome
for failing to eliminate all carbon emissions?
Dr. Moore-Kucera. I just think that there is a lot of hope
and there is a lot of opportunity----
Mr. Palmer. I am asking, is this a reasonable expectation?
That is a yes or no. Okay. You won't answer. How about you, Ms.
Owens.
Ms. Owens. I would say that we should reasonably expect to
see some of our societal fabric breakdown if we continue on
this path of extreme climate change.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Amin.
Mr. Amin. So this is not an area of my expertise per se, so
I will defer that question.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. Thank you. That was from Michael
Oppenheimer who is a climate scientist in the Albert G. Milbank
professor of Geoscience and International Affairs at the
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at
Princeton University and he said that in 1990. And he predicted
that by 1995, he also said that Mexican police will round up
illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as
field hands. A lot of my problem with this and we--I understand
the climate's changing, the geologic record shows that, and we
are so wrapped around the axle about carbon when I think there
were three scientists were all witnesses called by the majority
that admitted if we completely eliminated all carbon emissions,
went to zero emissions, it would not stop climate change. That
was an accurate answer. It will not stop it. The geologic
record shows that the climate is changing, it will continue to
change, and to some of what you have talked about, Mr. Yoder,
in regard to the technology and Mr. Amin, the science behind
renewable natural gas is I think how we ought to be approaching
this. We need to be looking for adaptation and mitigation
solutions because it is coming no matter what we do. But all we
are doing is talking about eliminating CO2 and I am
for reducing carbon emissions, I am for--we have done a
tremendous job in the last 34 years in regard to the six
criteria pollutants that the EPA tracks in reducing that.
In terms of farming, I mean, we basically have an
agricultural miracle that has played out over the last 50
years. So my point is, is that, I want us to get serious about
being prepared for the climate change that is coming and not
buy in to a lot of the fake science.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Castor. Perfect. Next Ms. Pingree, we are going
to recognize you for 5 minutes. Thank you for your interest in
this hearing. Ms. Pingree's a farmer herself and one of the
members of Congress we look to for expertise in this area. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thanks to you
and the ranking member and the members of the committee for
letting me sit in on what has been a very interesting hearing.
Thank you to the panel for really great testimony and really to
the committee for such good questions and truly some bipartisan
areas of agreement, so it has been a pleasure to be able to be
in here with all of you.
I am particularly interested in this. I have been an
organic farmer since the 1970s and I have seen a huge
transition of when that was, sort of, a funny back to the land
idea to $50 billion industry and so many practices that happen
in organic agriculture are the things you are talking about
today particularly cover crops and composting. I am working on
myself, on a bill related to agriculture and climate change,
and so many of the pieces that people have been talking about
today are a part of that. I have sort of a five-part strategy,
which is support soil health, promote pasture-based livestock,
preserve farmland, support unfarm and renewable energy, and
reduce food waste, so you all have kind of covered it a little
bit. Food waste didn't come up, but just to mention to the
committee, in Maine, we have one big bio digester that collects
from a dairy farm, but also collects a tremendous amount of
food waste as well and bio digests together and then produces
electricity on site so there is actually no transportation. I
also am very, very interested in some of the questions that
came up around the metrics of understanding how much carbon is
sequestered in the soil and that is one area that got talked
about a little bit, but not developed as much today and I have
certainly met with a lot of different organizations and
university people who are trying to crack this nut of, you
know, how do we look at the outcomes and then how do we pay
farmers for the performance. And I am interested just for any
of you who want to answer--I mean, one idea is that farmers
could participate in carbon markets. I come from actually the
most forested state in the nation, so we have been able to take
advantage--so I did mention it to my friend from Georgia as
well--but we have been able to take advantage a lot of the
offsets because we have that, but we also have hundreds of
years of developing an understanding of how much carbon is
produced in a tree. So a lot of this is new, but we would like
to see farmers take advantage of that. So if you were able to
participate in a carbon market, if there were some metrics that
we could all agree on, either developed through the USDA or one
of these many programs, what do you see as the benefit of that,
and also, I would say, there is also some talk of a tax credit
on this? We give a tax credit to wind and solar, what about a
tax credit on carbon produced? So that is just an area of
interest, and go ahead and add in whatever you think.
Mr. Yoder. Well, I thank you for that question. One of the
things that we deal with a lot is what is good for the land and
what is good for the farmer. We also have to get buy-in from
the land owner, and one of the problems we have is an awful lot
of land is leased on a yearly basis and how do you--for the
most you can get--money you can get for that land, how do you
convince the land owner that these practices, which may be
different than what the farmer's been doing, that it is worth
it and so that is why I think a tax credit or something like
that would be really helpful.
The other thing, too, is, I would like to see us develop
some different programs just as a starter, just to get farmers
to stick their toe in the water and try something. I have never
taken any money to try to these due practices. I actually
started a no-till to save money, but today I would never go
back to farming like I used to because I have seen the value
and the resilience of my soil. For every 1 percent organic
matter that you increase in your soil, 20 to 25,000-gallon more
capacity for holding water. And so if you look at it that way,
and that is how you get to farmers is managing that risk. It is
making your stuff more resilient that they can actually have an
economic gain for it, but things--we've got to figure out a way
to get all farmers interested in looking at different ways to
do things.
Ms. Pingree. Ms. Owens.
Ms. Owens. I would like to add a bit to that. So Mr. Yoder
actually talked very well about some of the practices that lead
to economic resiliency within farms and I think that that is a
much more immediate approach that we can take given what we
have available using the NRCS resources, and the Farm Bill, and
other things at our disposable. We are actually as a company at
the table having the conversation around an eventual carbon
market, we are supporters of it, and there is a lot of
consensus that needs to happen in order for that to get off the
ground. What we can show farmers today is a way to use existing
tools, data, and the practices that we have talked about
several times as a panel on how they can actually impact their
profitability starting within, you know, 2, 3 or less years,
that they actually can really move the needle. There is some
great case studies that we like to point to. AFT actually
published some using funding from NRCS. There is a company
called Day Two Research that also has open case studies that
very specifically shows in states like Illinois, Ohio, and
other midwestern states that there is a very real profitability
model here for farmers to adopt and that is much more tangible,
real, and been demonstrated by farmers such as Mr. Yoder.
Ms. Pingree. Great. Well, thank you very much. I am out of
time. Thank you so much for letting me sit in.
Chairwoman Castor. Thank you for your interest. I would
like to thank our witnesses for your testimony today. It has
been very helpful. The committee is currently accepting policy
proposals if anyone has a policy proposal beyond the ones
addressed today. Please go to our website at
House.climatecrisis.gov. We have a request for information, the
due date is November 22nd. So if you have some other
institutions or advocates or interested parties, other farmers
who would like to submit some ideas to the committee, please
pass that along.
At this time I would like to ask unanimous consent to add
to the hearing record, number 1, a letter from the Defenders of
Wildlife with their policy recommendations and, number 2, a
policy paper from the Breakthrough Institute. And any
additional questions for the witnesses, the members will have
10 business days within which to submit those and I ask all of
the witnesses to respond. Did you have----
Mr. Graves. I just wanted to make sure that our pile of
documents was submitted and also I left out a letter by
Senators--this is Mr. Huffman's favorite--letter by Senator
Schumer, Menendez, Markey, and Cantwell asking that we increase
global oil production. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Chairwoman Castor. They did over a year ago. Okay. So
without objection, those being incorporated into the record,
thanks again, everyone. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
__________
Submission for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 30, 2019
October 30, 2019.
Hon. Kathy Castor,
Chairwoman.
Hon. Garret Graves,
Ranking Member House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Castor and Ranking Member Graves: Defenders of
Wildlife (Defenders) is pleased to offer testimony for the record for
the hearing, ``Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in
Agriculture,'' conducted by the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
on October 30, 2019.
Defenders is a national nonprofit conservation organization
dedicated to the protection of all native plants and animals in their
natural communities. For more than 70 years, Defenders has protected
and restored imperiled species throughout North America by securing and
strengthening state, national, and international conservation policies;
working on the ground at the state and local level; and upholding legal
safeguards for wildlife and habitat in the courts. We represent more
than 1.8 million members and supporters nationwide.
Defenders has led efforts to develop and implement climate change
policies for wildlife for more than a decade. Our work on climate
change has two main foci: 1) ensuring that wildlife and habitat are
managed in a manner that promotes resilience to climate change impacts;
and 2) supporting emissions reduction through wildlife-responsible
renewable energy development nationwide. We believe it is critical that
Congress and the administration provide for wildlife, habitats and
ecosystems as part of a climate change policy agenda.
Following are policy recommendations for bolstering current
agricultural conservation programs and establishing new initiatives to
support wildlife conservation and climate change mitigation and
adaptation on our nation's working lands.
Increase Annual Appropriations for Farm Bill Conservation Programs for
Landowners to Adopt Climate Stewardship and Wildlife
Conservation Practices
Farm Bill conservation programs help farmers and ranchers implement
conservation practices on their lands, including wildlife conservation
and climate stewardship practices. Congress should avoid using Changes
in Mandatory Program Spending (CHIMPS) in annual appropriations
processes to raid mandatory Farm Bill conservation programs in order to
fill discretionary spending gaps elsewhere in the federal budget.
Increase Funding for Farm Bill Working Lands Programs to Assist
Farmers, Ranchers, and Natural Resource Managers to Adapt to
Climate Change Impacts
Farm Bill working lands programs, including the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program,
provide financial and technical assistance to landowners to implement
conservation practices on their agricultural lands, including climate
stewardship practices. Supporting climate stewardship on over 100
million acres of farmland would reduce or offset agricultural emissions
by one-third by 2025. Dedicated funding would support practices such as
rotational grazing, improved fertilizer efficiency, and use of cover
crops to retain and improve soils and carbon sequestration.
Example legislation: Climate Stewardship Act (S. 2452) (https://
www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2452)
Increase Acreage Enrolled for the Benefit of Wildlife under the
Conservation Stewardship Program
The Conservation Stewardship Program is a Farm Bill working lands
program that supports farmers and ranchers to adopt conservation
practices on their agricultural lands, including climate stewardship
practices. Defenders recommends that a minimum of 10 percent of the
acreage annually enrolled in each state under the program directly
support wildlife conservation. Targeting a minimum amount of the
program's funds to wildlife conservation will help support landowners
to implement practices that benefit wildlife, reduce emissions, and
respond to climate change.
Increase Funding for Conservation Easements on Private Agricultural
Lands to Prevent Conversion of Agricultural Land to Development
The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program is a Farm Bill
program that that helps landowners protect, restore, and enhance
wetlands, grasslands, and working farms and ranches through
conservation easements. The conservation of privately held agricultural
land helps prevent conversion to development, so that they can continue
to actively sequester carbon rather than contribute to greenhouse gas
emissions that results from other land uses. Strategic land
conservation can also support habitat connectivity and ecosystem
resilience against climate change impacts.
Increase Funding for Restoration and Conservation Easements on Private
Forestlands to Support Carbon Sequestration
Preserving forests as forests helps prevent their conversion to
development and allow them to continue absorbing greenhouse gases. The
2018 Farm Bill reauthorizes three programs that support habitat
acquisition and/or conservation easements on privately held forests.
The Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP), administered by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, provides landowners with 10-year
restoration agreements and 30-year or permanent conservation easements
for the purpose of recovering species listed under the Endangered
Species Act, improving biodiversity, and enhancing carbon
sequestration. The program should be improved by allowing land that has
already been restored and is providing wildlife benefits to be eligible
for long-term or permanent easements. Like HFRP, the Community Forest
Program, administered by the U.S. Forest Service, and the Forest Legacy
Program, administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, protect
forests that are threatened with conversion to non-forest uses.
Support Enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program that Creates or
Enhances Wildlife Conservation and Habitat Connectivity
The Conservation Reserve Program conserves and improves soil and
water quality and creates and maintains wildlife habitat by providing
cost-share and rental payments for farmers to establish long-term
vegetative cover on highly erodible or environmentally sensitive land
that has usually previously been converted to crops. For grasslands
enrolled in the program, the 2018 Farm Bill directs the Farm Service
Agency to prioritize land of ecological significance, including land
that would conserve habitat connectivity or federally protected species
and/or species of conservation concern. We recommend that the Farm
Service Agency prioritize properties that simultaneously serve both of
those purposes.
Authorize Perpetual Easements for Land Enrolled in U.S. Department of
Agriculture Habitat Conservation Programs
To increase cost savings and the effectiveness of U.S. Department
of Agriculture conservation programs, we recommend authorizing
perpetual easements for land enrolled in any of the Conservation
Reserve Program or Natural Resources Conservation Service habitat
initiatives. These new permanent easements should be particularly
targeted at land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program that
exceeds an erodibility index of greater than 15 or is adjacent to
riparian areas that should be protected as conservation buffers in
perpetuity. Perpetual easements extend the conservation investment and
prevent agricultural land from being converted to development at the
end of the contract.
Prioritize Enrollment of State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement in the
Conservation Reserve Program
The Farm Bill's Conservation Reserve Program includes a State Acres
for Wildlife Enhancement initiative, which allows states to design and
implement practices that conserve soil and water and also benefit high
priority wildlife species. However, and despite the success and
popularity of the initiative, the Farm Service Agency has not made
these practices available for sign-ups on a nationwide basis since
2017. We recommend that Congress urge the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to prioritize enrollment and implementation of this
initiative.
Increase Acreage Enrolled under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program and Compensate Participants for the Full Cost of
Riparian Buffer Protection
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is part of the Farm
Bill's Conservation Reserve Program that targets high-priority
conservation concerns identified by a state. Farmers and ranchers are
paid an annual rental rate along with other incentives to remove
environmentally sensitive land from production and establishing
permanent resource-conserving plant species. The 2018 Farm Bill
codified the program and incentivizes enrollment of riparian buffers,
including forested riparian buffers, by authorizing the U.S. Department
of Agriculture to make cost-share payments for forested riparian buffer
maintenance throughout the term of the agreement, and to cover up to
100 percent of the cost incurred by the owner or operator for
maintenance activities. Now the Department must follow through on this
authorization to compensate program participants for the full cost of
riparian buffer establishment and maintenance as authorized by
Congress.
Increase Funding for Natural Resources Conservation Service's
Conservation Technical Assistance Program
The Natural Resources Conservation Service's Conservation Technical
Assistance program provides land users with proven conservation
technologies and the delivery systems needed to achieve conservation
benefits on working lands, such as reducing soil loss from erosion,
reducing potential damage from natural disasters, and enhancing the
quality of fish and wildlife habitat. The long-standing shortage in
funding for technical assistance hampers delivery of conservation
programs, a problem that will be exacerbated by the need to implement
new climate stewardship conservation practices on private lands
nationwide.
Example legislation: Climate Stewardship Act (S. 2452) (https://
www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2452)
Increase Annual Appropriations for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program for Landowners to Adopt
Climate Stewardship and Wildlife Conservation Practices
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program provides financial and technical assistance to private
landowners interested in improving habitat for migratory birds, and
endangered, threatened, and at-risk species on their working lands.
Expand the Farm Bill Sodsaver Provision Nationwide to Support Carbon
Sequestration
The Sodsaver provision in the Farm Bill limits the loss of native
grasslands by reducing federal subsidies for crop insurance premiums on
acres that are converted from prairie to cropland. Currently the
provision only applies to the six states of the Prairie Pothole region.
Extending the provision to the entire country would help prevent
conversion in other areas, such as Texas and Kansas, that are
experiencing some of the highest rates of grassland loss. Preserving
grasslands allows them to continue to actively sequester carbon rather
than contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that results from
agricultural conversion.
Example legislation: American Prairie Conservation Act (S. 1913/
H.R. 3939) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/
1913)
Authorize a Program for Measuring Outcomes of Farm Bill Conservation
Programs
Measuring outcomes helps ensure that investment in Farm Bill
conservation programs is achieving conservation goals, helping to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increasing terrestrial carbon
sequestration.
Example legislation: Healthy Fields and Farm Economies Act (H.R.
4751) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4751)
Thank you for providing the opportunity to provide testimony for
the record that will help to address our current climate crisis. We
commend the Select Committee on its vital work.
Sincerely,
Mary Pfaffko,
Private Lands Policy Analyst.
Submission for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 30, 2019
Climate Mitigation Through Agricultural Productivity, Innovation, and
Trade
the breakthrough institute
Despite calls for radical transformation of American agriculture
from many critics, American farmers are currently some of the most
productive and environmentally friendly producers in the world.
Congress should double down on the many existing strengths of the US
agricultural system, most notably by seeking to increase productivity,
research and development (R&D) funding, and global exports.
Farmers are America's unsung environmental and climate stewards.
Increases in farm productivity over the past half-century have made
American producers some of the highest yielding in the world. US corn
farmers, for example, produce roughly 4.9 tons of corn per acre,
whereas French farmers produce about 3.9 tons, and Chinese farmers
produce 2.75 tons.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAOSTAT (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due in large part to farmers' high yields and the efficiency with
which they use resources, the US uses less land and produces less
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of food or beverage than most
other countries. For example, the US emits roughly 25% and 50% less GHG
emissions per pound of beef produced than the UK and Mexico,
respectively.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ FAOSTAT (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering US agriculture and policy options from a global
perspective reveals that American farmers have not only been reducing
domestic, but also international emissions. The US is the number one
agricultural exporter in the world, exporting more than 20% of its
production. These exports cut global emissions by reducing the amount
of food that would be produced in other countries with less efficient
production systems.\3\ For example, the US exported almost 72,000 tons
of beef to the Republic of Korea in 2017. If that beef was produced
locally in Korea--where beef production is 25% more emissions intensive
than in the US--it would release an additional 300,000 tons of CO2
equivalent.\4\ If the US were to increase agricultural exports to
regions with less efficient farm systems, the impact on global
emissions could be even higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ USDA ERS (2018). FAQ. https://www.ers.usda.gov/faqs/
\4\ FAOSTAT (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
US public R&D is what makes the farm sector's productivity and
global environmental benefits possible.\5\ USDA economists estimate
that investing in agricultural R&D has reduced GHG emissions at a cost
of $8-13 per ton of CO2 equivalent. For reference, conservation
programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program have
reduced emissions at an estimated cost of $14 to $75 per ton.\6\ Our
preliminary research, in partnership with Purdue University, indicates
that doubling R&D funding would reduce global emissions from crop
production by more than 100 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per
year by 2050.\7\ That is equivalent to cutting current US enteric
fermentation from cattle--or cow burps--by two-thirds.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Wang, S. L., Heisey, P., Schimmelpfennig, D., & Ball, V. E.
(2015). Agricultural productivity growth in the United States:
Measurement, trends, and drivers. Economic Research Service, Paper No.
ERR-189. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45387/
53416_err189_summary.pdf?v=42212.
\6\ Jones, C. A., Nickerson, C. J., & Heisey, P. W. (2013). New
uses of old tools? Greenhouse gas mitigation with agriculture sector
policies. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(3), 398-434.
Note: CO2eq are in metric tons.
\7\ Working paper available upon request.
\8\ US EPA. (2019). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks: 1990-2017 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/
documents/2018_chapter_5_agriculture.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing US R&D funding can also help other countries make their
agricultural sectors more environmentally friendly. Our research
indicates that sharing US agricultural knowledge and innovations
internationally, as the US has done for decades, can approximately
double the climate benefits of increasing R&D.\9\ By maintaining a
trade and IP regime that increases exports not just of food, but also
agricultural knowledge and technology, the US could become a global
leader for environmentally beneficial and highly productive
agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Working paper available upon request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On top of its environmental potential, investing in R&D benefits
American farmers and consumers across the globe. Increasing R&D funding
would help American farmers cut their production costs and compete in
an increasingly challenging global market. Moreover, by reducing global
food prices, investments in R&D improve the nutrition and health of
millions of urban poor.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Baldos, U. L. C., & Hertel, T. W. (2016). Debunking the `new
normal': Why world food prices are expected to resume their long run
downward trend. Global Food Security, 8, 27-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking a global perspective to mitigating agricultural emissions
also leads to new and creative ideas. For instance, as corn producers
are discontented with current ethanol demand, instead of subsidizing
ethanol production, the US government could incentivize those farmers
to sell surplus corn to foreign markets.
Historic growth in farm productivity has curbed emissions from US
agriculture. To continue this overly positive trend, Congress should
not attempt to reorganize a system from scratch. Instead, the US
government ought to prioritize the factors responsible for past
environmental improvements, namely, innovation driven by public R&D and
global exports.
For More Information:
Dan Rejto, Associate Director of Food and Agriculture,
[email protected].
Submissions for the Record
Representative Garret Graves
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
October 30, 2019
ATTACHMENT: IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing
Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland,
151 pp.
The submission for the record reference can be found on Page 100 of
the report; the full report is retained in the committee files and
available at: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/
SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf
ATTACHMENT:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This graphic is retained in the committee files.
ATTACHMENT:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The chart is retained in the committee files. The data for this
chart (2014-2017) was compiled from a 2018 report; the report from
which the data was pulled is retained in committee files and available
at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleum_data/statistics/
2018_foreign_crude_sources.html.
ATTACHMENT: Everly, Steve. ``Why Natural Gas from Putin's Russia
Has to Be Imported to New England.'' Washington Examiner, 24 March
2018.
The article is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/why-natural-gas-from-
putins-russia-has-to-be-imported-to-new-england.
ATTACHMENT: Letter from Sens. Maria Cantwell, Robert Menendez,
Chuck Schumer, and Ed Markey to President Trump, 23 May 2018.
This letter is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Oil.pdf.
United States House of Representatives
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Hearing on October 30, 2019
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in Agriculture''
Questions for the Record
Jennifer Moore-Kucera, Ph.D.
Climate Initiative Director
American Farmland Trust
the honorable kathy castor
1. Currently, most agricultural conservation programs that can help
sequester carbon are practice-based, meaning that funding is
provided based on the adoption of certain techniques as opposed
to the achievement of specific performance metrics. How could
we move from a practice-based to a performance-based system to
ensure that the estimated carbon drawdown is occurring at
predicted levels?
While the scientific community has consistently demonstrated the
carbon sequestration benefits of various soil practices, additional
research is needed to ensure that anticipated outcomes more fully align
with actual performance. Shifting to a performance-based system would
require additional data and data standardization as well as
improvements in modeling and testing technology.
A crucial step towards these goals could be the establishment of a
national agricultural sequestration quantification program. Models of
such programs exist from other countries such as Australia and Canada
(see Paustian et al., 2019 for details) and could be used as a template
for the US to modify and improve upon. A national sequestration
quantification program would strengthen the ability of our nation to
project outcomes, inform recommended practices, and provide
policymakers with a greater understanding of how to maximize limited
public dollars. Coordinated through current USDA agencies (primarily
NRCS and ARS), this program would develop the necessary components for
assessment, interpretation, and implementation as outlined below.
Assessment
Develop standardized methodology for both soil sampling
and carbon measurements. Currently, the most accepted approach is to
monitor changes in soil carbon stocks (Paustian et al., 2019). A
standardized methodology should include a focus on using appropriate
tools to evaluate management impacts on soil carbon stocks and dynamics
at different scales (e.g., field, farm, and region).
Establish a standardized approach for fully evaluating and
cataloguing management history. This step is critical for proper
interpretation.
Support research into the development of new, inexpensive,
novel, in situ (on-site) soil carbon measurement tools that reduce
assessment costs and labor.
Interpretation
Regionally parametrize acquired data with historical
management data to provide greater context and identify baselines to
enable better assessment of changes (Manter, Delgado, & Moore-Kucera,
2018).
Provide additional or programmatic support of on-farm
research and grower-driven demonstration programs.
Increase staffing capability and technical training of
NRCS field staff dedicated to soil sampling, carbon evaluation, carbon
farm planning, and collection of standardized management history
information. These data could be preserved in public databases such as
the current ARS-AgCROS (Agricultural Collaborative Research Outcomes
System) database system (Delgado et al., 2019).
Develop a soil sample repository that can facilitate
cutting-edge soil carbon quantification tools. These tools will
ultimately save time and money from field-collected samples sent for
typical soil carbon estimation. This effort could be expanded to
include soil health measurements (Manter et al., 2017).
Implementation
Provide dedicated resources and programmatic funding to
enhance coordination between government agencies within the USDA (e.g.,
between NRCS and ARS). A national network of on-farm demonstration
sites or long-term monitoring sites could be established in conjunction
with the development of national soil laboratories dedicated to
providing consistent and standardized protocols that leverage current
databases (e.g., SSURGO and AgCROS) and provide open-source, crowd-
sourcing capabilities to expand the knowledge base of practices and
quantifiable outcomes.
Enhance/secure regionally specific technical assistance to
develop monitoring and evaluation strategies to determine how
conservation practice adoption impacts soil carbon stocks.
Develop an approach to reward early adopters who have
paved the way for wider-spread adoption of carbon sequestration
practices. For instance, programs could reward producers for
maintaining practices (to avoid negative reversals), establish
mentoring programs (for example, farmer-to-farmer learning networks
where early adopters are paid to train the next wave of adopters),
develop payment incentives for soil sampling prioritization on sites
where long-term adoption has occurred, etc.
Additionally, we need to identify other approaches to help
sequester carbon. More resources are needed for research into novel
carbon reducing practices such as biochar and increasing deep-rooted
plants. Support is also need for plant breeding efforts that increase
productivity with fewer inputs and produce perennial plants that could
replace annuals (e.g., Kernza), as well as other cutting-edge
approaches.
Other important considerations are the co-benefits of supporting
agricultural systems for climate mitigation and adaptation to ensure
food security and address other issues such as flood mitigation and
buffering temperature extremes. Many soil sequestration practices also
cut GHG emissions indirectly via reductions to fuel (e.g., fewer passes
with the tractor with no-till), reduced synthetic fertilizer
applications (via increased soil organic matter, a natural warehouse of
nutrients and additions of animal and plant waste via composts and
through extraction of nutrients via cover crops), and water savings
(via increased water storage capacity with improved soil organic
matter).
2. What is the current state of knowledge on the potential of
agriculture to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions?
Agricultural practices, in part, contribute to total greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions in the United States (US). The most recent EPA report
indicates that agriculture releases about 582 million metric tons (MMT)
of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e)0F,\1\ which translates
to approximately 9% of total US emissions (USEPA, 2019). In contrast to
other production sectors, which are dominated by energy-related
CO2 emission sources, the bulk of agriculture's impact on
climate change is due to nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane
(CH4) emissions from fertilizer application, manure
handling, and enteric fermentation from livestock (USEPA, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CO2e refers to the carbon dioxide equivalent,
because methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are
converted to their CO2 equivalent, in terms of their global
warming potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With over 396 million acres of cropland and 440 million acres of
pastureland in the US, there are numerous practices that have the
potential to reduce US GHG emissions and sequester carbon. Based on
current adoption of cover cropping and conservation tillage practices
(no-till or reduced till), it is estimated that US cropland has reduced
GHG emissions between 64.5 to 78.5 million metric tons (tonnes) of
CO2e per year with much more potential with widespread
adoption of these practices. Adoption of other conservation practices,
already established and promoted by NRCS, can lead to even greater
reductions.
Table 1 (below) summarizes GHG reduction potential estimates of key
NRCS conservation practices as calculated using the Carbon Reduction
Potential Evaluation (CaRPE) Tool developed by me in collaboration with
USDA-ARS scientist, Dr. Daniel Manter. To calculate these values, we
coupled data from the 2017 USDA AgCensus with county-level emission
reduction values provided by the COMET Planner Tool (developed by
Colorado State University and USDA-NRCS) and scaled to a national
level. By combining practices such as conservation tillage with cover
cropping, US croplands have the potential to reduce emissions by 338
million metric tons CO2e per year. If nutrient management is
added, these lands could reduce emissions by 508 million metric tons
CO2e per year.1F \2\ While this number assumes the highly
unlikely case of universal practice adoption, it nonetheless
underscores the vast potential of our croplands to serve as carbon
sinks since removing 508 million metric tons of CO2e per
year is equivalent to eliminating 87 percent of US agriculture's GHG
footprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Our estimates are in accordance with an earlier report by Lal
et al. (1998) who estimated approximately 360 million metric tons
CO2e per year on US croplands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, there are numerous management practices that can be
implemented on grazing lands as well as restoration of degraded lands
that can contribute to further reductions. For example, combining
prescribed grazing and nutrient management practices on grazing lands
can reduce GHG emissions up to 56 million metric tons CO2e
per year with substantially more potential with rangeland plantings
(Table 1). Again, these estimates assume complete adoption on all
agricultural lands, and thus, a plan that projects phased-in adoption
rates should be considered to hit targets along the way (e.g., see
Chambers, Lal, & Paustian, 2016).
In summary, if the best carbon sequestering practices for croplands
and grazing land are implemented, US agriculture would be significantly
closer to Carbon neutral and could even have a net negative Carbon
footprint.
TABLE 1.--EXAMPLES OF CROPLAND AND GRAZING LAND CONSERVATION PRACTICES
AND GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSION REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR US
AGRICULTURAL LANDS
[Based off 2017 AgCensus data and emission coefficients from USDA COMET-
planner]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG Reduction
Potential
Conservation practice (million
metric tons
CO2e per year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Cropland Practices:
Conservation tillage practices...................... 63-197
Cover cropping...................................... 99-140
Conservation crop rotation.......................... 91
Stripcropping....................................... 82
Nutrient management................................. 23-145
Combined Cropland Practices:
Conservation tillage plus cover cropping............ 266-338
Conservation tillage plus cover crop plus compost... 367-508
Grazing Land Practices:
Prescribed grazing.................................. 6.2
Nutrient management................................. 10.2-55.5
Range planting...................................... 147
Silvopasture........................................ 324
------------------------------------------------------------------------
reference page
Chambers, A., Lal, R., & Paustian, K. (2016). Soil carbon
sequestration potential of US croplands and grasslands: Implementing
the 4 per Thousand Initiative. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
71(3), 68A-74A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.71.3.68A
Delgado, J. A., Vandenberg, B., Neer, D., & D'Adamo, R. (2019).
Emerging nutrient management databases and networks of networks will
have broad applicability in future machine learning and artificial
intelligence applications in soil and water conservation. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 74(6), 113A-118A. https://doi.org/10.2489/
jswc.74.6.113A
Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett, and C.V. Cole. 1998. The
potential of U.S. cropland to sequester carbon and mitigate the
greenhouse effect. Sleeping Bear press, Inc., Chelsea.
Manter, D K, Delgado, J. A., & Moore-Kucera, J. (2018). Integrated
soil health management: a framework for soil conservation and
regeneration. In D. C. Reicosky (Ed.), Managing Soil Health for
Sustainable Agriculture (1st ed., Vol. 1, p. 352). https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351114530
Manter, Daniel K, Delgado, J. A., Blackburn, H. D., Harmel, D.,
Perez de Leon, A. A., & Honeycutt, C. W. (2017). Opinion: Why we need a
National Living Soil Repository. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 114(52), 13587-13590. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720262115
Paustian, K., Collier, S., Baldock, J., Burgess, R., Creque, J.,
DeLonge, M., . . . Jahn, M. (2019). Quantifying carbon for agricultural
soil management: from the current status toward a global soil
information system. Carbon Management, 10(6), 567-587. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17583004.2019.1633231
Questions for the Record
Tina Owens
Sr. Director, Agriculture Funding & Communication
Danone North America
Dear Chair Castor and Ranking Member Graves: Attached is our
response to the follow up question from the 10/30 Select Committee
Question for the Record. Please note that we have collaborated with
Scientist Steven Apfelbaum via our mutual collaboration with Green
America to provide the scientific basis for the responses submitted in
the attached letter, and would like to note these associations in the
record.
Sincerely,
Tina Owens,
Sr. Director, Agriculture Funding & Communication,
Danone North America.
the honorable kathy castor
1. If the agricultural sector currently contributes approximately 9% of
total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, how much,
or under what scenarios, can agriculture potentially turn into
a carbon sink and contribute to climate mitigation?
Ecosystem carbon sampling modeled by Steven Apfelbaum/Applied
Ecological Solutions demonstrates:
1. A number of scientific studies have concluded that, with
its abundance of crop and pasture land, US agricultural land
has significant potential to contribute to our overall goal of
sequestering carbon.[i]
2. With over 1.04 billion acres of cropland and pastureland,
the US has the potential to sequester anywhere from 25 billion
tons of carbon to 50 billion tons by 2050.[ii] The range
depends on how quickly we scale and could go even higher if the
rate of adoption increases for stacks of soil health practices,
sometimes called regenerative agriculture. Thus, the U.S. can
play a leadership role, by owning a significant percentage of
the total drawdown goal.
3. That soil-carbon in cropland and pastureland is durable
across time and weather conditions.[iii] Meaning that the
carbon remains in the soil once sequestration is achieved.
There is broad consensus regarding which best management practices
(BMPs) are the most important to optimize. These practices are also
central to the USDA's 5 Principles of Soil Health:
Recommendations for Prioritization
1. Prioritize soil health as the key focus in the carbon
sequestration ``pillar'' of climate solutions.
2. Align policy and public programs to support farmers going `all-
in' for soil health, specifically the rapid transition to best
management practices for soil health.
3. Support outcomes-based measurements some of which are already
underway and supported by farmers, soil scientists, and supply chains.
Examples of these would include the approved VERRA VM0021 and the Soil
Carbon Index standard currently in its pilot stage.
4. Simultaneously support research to help speed climate and
economic benefits along with implementation of a nationwide shift to
`all-in' soil health.
the honorable garret graves
1. Ms. Owens, I really appreciate you coming in today because it helps
us remember what the end state of agriculture looks like after
going through the supply chain. You mentioned in your testimony
the need for continued U.S. leadership and innovation in
climate sustainability in agriculture.
a. Your company is a global one, so can you give some
insight as to how important these farming practices
are for your company when selecting suppliers?
Danone North America buys directly from more than 700 American
farms across the country for our most important ingredient--milk.
Rather than categorizing these farms as suppliers we view them as
farmer partners, and as such we work hand-in-hand to provide them with
unique financial tools and opportunities to convert their practices to
impact soil health.
In 2018 Danone North America launched a five-year, $6 million Soil
Health Initiative to help our farmer partners to restore the ability of
soil to capture carbon and overcome common obstacles to building soil
health management systems. We are currently tracking over 50,000 acres
with plans to expand to 100,000 acres by 2022.
While we believe this program to be impactful, we are not able to
scale full adoption of these practices for the future without
challenging the current systems of agriculture that reward practices
from the past. This program, which targets both economic resilience and
environmental impact, is a strong starting point for Congress to
develop complementary policy options to incentivize and assist farmers
and their partners for lasting impact at a nationwide scale.
b. Are developing countries like China and India
prioritizing long term soil health and carbon
sequestration?
While other countries will have to do their part as well,
especially countries with large tracts of agricultural cropland such as
Russia, Brazil and China, the US should move quickly to get `first
mover advantage' and scale the adoption of stacks of soil health
practices.
2. Do you think showing that the farming practices we adopt
here are low-cost, highly-productive, and improve
long-term soil health can be a good model for other
nations?
By moving quickly we will ensure economic advantages for our
farmers, rural revitalization, weather protection and resiliency and
secure our domestic food production. This will, in turn, become a model
for other nations.
______
Thank you for the opportunity to address the questions of the
Committee. We will continue our work hand-in-hand with our farmer
partners and welcome continued collaboration with the Committee on the
significant policy and implementation potential at hand.
December 20, 2019.
Dear Chair Castor and Ranking Member Graves: Thank you again for
the opportunity to present our points of view at the recent hearing
``Solving the Climate Crisis: Opportunities in Agriculture'' on October
30, 2019. In addition to our testimony, we are responding to the
questions of the Committee regarding the size of the opportunity for
carbon sequestration in soil, under what scenarios could agriculture
become a `carbon sink', where we are now relative to that opportunity
and how to prioritize this opportunity given America's economic
interests and environmental interests.
Simply put, the size of the opportunity is enormous. Globally,
agriculture as a whole could remove at least 400 billion tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2) over thirty years.i This is roughly the
equivalent of 100 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric carbon, which
currently stands at roughly 415 ppm (NOAA).
size of the opportunity
Rigorous soil carbon studies clearly and conservatively document
that all cropland and pastureland can increase soil carbon by at least
2% over baseline conditions under improved land management practices
optimized for soil health. These practices simultaneously save farmers
and ranchers money, provide flood and drought protection, reduce
erosion, improve water quality for rivers, lakes, and coastal zones,
and improve overall resiliency.ii Further ecosystem carbon
sampling modeled by Steven Apfelbaum/Applied Ecological Solutions shows
that soil-carbon in cropland and pastureland is durable across time and
weather conditions.iii This means that significant carbon
remains in the soil once sequestration in healthy soil is achieved
through improved land management practices optimized for soil health.
A number of scientific studies have concluded that US agricultural
land, with its abundance of crop and pasture land, has the greatest
potential to contribute to our overall goal of sequestering
carbon.iv
With over 1.04 billion acres of cropland and pastureland, the US
has the potential to sequester anywhere from 25 billion tons of carbon
to 50 billion tons by 2050.v The range depends on how
quickly we scale and could go even higher if the rate of adoption
increases with robust soil health practices optim. Thus, the U.S. can
play a leadership role, by owning a significant percentage of the total
drawdown goal.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
By moving quickly we will ensure economic advantages for our
farmers, rural revitalization, weather protection and resiliency and
secure our domestic food production.
There is increasing momentum among global food brands to secure
their supply chains, to identify suppliers that have addressed their
own climate risk and who align with the corporate ESG (Environmental,
Social, and Governance) targets. US farmers have the size, the skill,
the technology, and the infrastructure to dominate an emerging climate
positive commodity market.
farmer economic resiliency and opportunity
Beyond scientific studies, farmers using robust soil management
practices experience even greater rates of soil carbon accumulation.
Case studies collected from numerous farmers and ranchers across the
U.S. who go `all-in' on soil health, achieve significant climate,
environmental, farming economics and rural community results in as
short as 3-4 years.vi Furthermore, farmers practicing these
principles increase net profit on average by $100-$150/
acre.vii
With much of U.S. agricultural soils coming in at 1% or less soil
carbon, recent sampling studies conducted by both scientists and
companies found that among farmers practicing robust soil health
practices, a stacking of best management practices for soil health,
soils presented with between 3 to 6% soil carbon. (Williams, Indigo).
which agriculture practices do we need to encourage?
There is broad consensus regarding which best management practices
(BMPs) are the most important to optimize. These practices are also
central to the USDA's 5 Principles of Soil Health:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
recommendations for prioritization
1. Prioritize soil health as the key focus in the carbon
sequestration ``pillar'' of climate solutions.
2. Align policy and public programs to support farmers going `all-
in' for soil health, specifically the rapid transition to best
management practices for soil health.
3. Support outcomes-based measurements some of which are already
underway and supported by farmers, soil scientists, and supply chains.
Examples of these would include the approved VERRA VM0021 and the Soil
Carbon Index standard currently in its pilot stage.
4. Simultaneously support research to help speed climate and
economic benefits along with implementation of a nationwide shift to
`all-in' soil health.
It is abundantly clear, based on what we already know about
improved soil health management, we can continue to optimize for better
and faster results as the research brings new data forward.
The urgency of the climate crisis calls us to get started now. The
economic benefits and weather protections for our farmers and rural
communities calls us to accelerate our efforts immediately.
We are honored to follow up with the Committee on the question of
potential rates of carbon sequestration. We welcome any and all follow
up relative to the size of the soil-carbon opportunity, the speed of
scale-up, and the positive farm economic impacts.
Sincerely,
Chris Adamo,
Vice President, Federal &
Industry Affairs, Danone
North America.
Alisa Gravitz,
President and CEO, Green
America.
Steven Apfelbaum, Ph.D.,
Scientist, Author & Chair,
Applied Ecological
Services, Inc.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
references
[i] Zomer, R.J., Bossio, D.A., Sommer, R. et al. Global
Sequestration Potential of Increased Organic Carbon in Cropland Soils.
Sci Rep 7, 15554 (2017) doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15794-8.
[ii] Apfelbaum, Steven AMP Grazing/Low Disturbance
Cropping data. Presentation.
[iii] Apfelbaum, Steven, ``How Durable is Soil Carbon,''
Presentation, Eco System Carbon Durability.
i Lal, Rattan, ``Conceptual basis of managing soil
carbon: Inspired by nature and driven by science,'' Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 74(2):29A-34A, 2019.
ii Apfelbaum, Steven, Teague, Richard et al, AMP Grazing
Presentation, November 2019.
iii Apfelbaum, Steven, ``How Durable is Soil Carbon,''
Presentation, Eco System Carbon Durability.
iv Zomer, R.J., Bossio, D.A., Sommer, R. et al. Global
Sequestration Potential of Increased Organic Carbon in Cropland Soils.
Sci Rep 7, 15554 (2017) doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15794-8.
v Apfelbaum, Steven AMP Grazing/Low Disturbance Cropping
data. Presentation.
vi Case Studies on Soil Health Practices, Farmers Rick
Clark (IN), Will Harris (GA), Adam Chappell (AR), compiled by Green
America.
vii Hatfield, Jerry, USDA/ARS, Soil Health Presentation
Iowa City, June 2019.
viii W.R. Teague, S. Apfelbaum, R. Lal, U.P. Kreuter, J.
Rowntree, C.A. Davies, R. Conser, M. Rasmussen, J. Hatfield, T. Wang,
F. Wang and P. Byck, ``The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's
carbon footprint in North America,'' Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation March/April 2016 vol. 71 no. 2 156-164.
Questions for the Record
Fred Yoder
Corn, Soybean & Wheat Farmer
Co-Chair, Solutions from the Land
the honorable garret graves
1. As a farmer, you have the EQIP and CSP farm bill programs, co-ops,
and other ways to get help and funding for conservation
purposes on your land, so I'm curious as to why more farmers
aren't participating.
a. What are the biggest barriers?
A big challenge is the shortage of staff at NRCS, which are charged
to put these plans together for the farmer. They are the only ones at
USDA who actually have to visit the farms themselves. Here in Ohio, at
least, are counties that don't even have a representative from NRCS to
facilitate applications. I have heard of wait times for an NRCS rep to
be as long as 2 years for a nutrient management plan, or a wetland
designation. Perhaps using contract representatives such as Certified
Crop Advisors could alleviate the backlog of requests for help. Also,
it depends on what outcome you are looking for. For instance, the
adoption of cover crops are not emphasized much at all, nor is there a
specific program to incentivize adoption, as well as no-till practices.
Also, why tie everything up with NRCS? How about considering offering
discounts to those who use Federal Crop Insurance that use practices
that make them less of a risk than status quo? It happens all of the
time in the insurance world, granting discounts if the client
demonstrates a reduction of risk by performing various tasks.
b. Can you talk a bit more about the importance of
precision ag technology, and then discuss the
barriers to this technology being deployed? (like
lack of broadband)
Today, most new technologies coming with the newest precision tools
are tied directly to access to broadband services as well as satellite
and/or phone service. There are places in rural America that don't even
have cell phone coverage. This can put farmers at a tremendous
disadvantage based on where their farm is located. This can mean the
difference of staying in business or being forced out of farming.
c. What have you heard from other farmers about their
issues with broadband and internet access?
I have visited with farmers in places like rural Iowa, where the
soils are rich and productive who complain they can't even purchase
certain technologies because of lack of access of broadband or
satellite coverage. If the US is to be the breadbasket of the world,
and the leader in technology, this is embarrassing.
I would be glad to answer any other questions that the committee
may have. Please let me know what those questions may be and I will
answer them as best as I can.
Best regards,
Fred Yoder.
Questions for the Record
Viral Amin
Vice President, Commercial Development & Strategy
DTE Energy Resources
the honorable garret graves
1. Can you elaborate on the environmental benefits that RNG can deliver
today?
First and foremost, renewable natural gas (RNG) projects capture
methane that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere or flared.
RNG can be used as a fuel replacement in trucks, buses and cars that
are otherwise fueled by traditional fossil fuels. When compared to
diesel fuel, these vehicles have substantially fewer emissions of other
air pollutants like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates.
Moreover, the transportation sector is now the leading sector source of
CO2 emissions in the U.S., and the use of RNG is alternative
fuel vehicles provides a proven, cost-effective option for lowering the
carbon footprint of the heavy-duty transportation fleet. Finally, the
process used to produce dairy RNG can significantly reduce odor and the
number of pathogens within the manure.
2. Can you describe why you believe RNG can be a long-term solution for
reducing emissions from the transportation sector, even for
those who are seeking deep decarbonization?
RNG provides both an immediate-term and a long-term solution for
reducing transportation emissions when it is used to power Natural gas
vehicles. As electric vehicle battery technology continues to mature,
heavy duty CNG/LNG trucks running on RNG are achieving cost-effective
emission reductions today. RNG produced from DTE's agricultural
projects, when used as a vehicle fuel, results in a lower carbon
footprint than using electric vehicles. This is due to the fact that
these projects don't just provide lower-carbon energy by displacing
fossil fuels, they also prevent methane from entering our atmosphere.
3. Is it possible for you to partner with small and medium farms?
Although there is no precise formula for how big or small a farm
must be to support an RNG project, DTE has developed projects in
partnership with farms between 1,500 to 10,000 cows. Even smaller farms
could be viable if they are located in close proximity to an existing
RNG project, digester, or the necessary pipeline infrastructure.
Also, if several small farms were located adjacent to one another,
a large digester might be constructed to serve them all.
4. Can you think of ways USDA and EPA can assist dairy operators and
swine producers to move toward RNG through the use of anaerobic
digesters?
Congress should work closely with the EPA and USDA to demonstrate
continued support for the cellulosic biofuels category under the
Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS). RNG production has grown at more than
30% per year since qualifying as cellulosic fuel under the RFS, and
there remains considerable untapped potential to create RNG with the
waste produced by dairy and swine farms. Creating RNG from waste
materials is a real success story of the RFS. It helps farmers and
results in substantial reductions in greenhouse gases.
Additional ways that the EPA and USDA could support dairy and swine
RNG projects include:
Providing additional incentives for the use of low-
carbon fuels and the deployment of natural gas-powered vehicles
Invest research funding to support the advancement
of RNG technologies
Promoting the installation and adoption of anaerobic
digester and nutrient recovery technologies through new or
existing grant programs.
5. Infrastructure, specifically natural gas pipelines, are a necessary
component for getting renewable natural gas into the gas
stream.
a. Can you elaborate on the necessity of these pipelines in
order for RNG?
DTE transports RNG from farms in two ways: Directly, via a pipeline
lateral connecting to the interstate pipeline system, and by trucking
the RNG to an existing pipeline interconnect. There are limits to the
distance RNG can be trucked before it becomes uneconomic. Therefore,
proximity to pipeline infrastructure is often critical to the
successful development of an RNG project.
b. What are the biggest barriers you are experiencing in
the context of infrastructure?
DTE continues to see growth opportunities in the RNG market using
the existing pipeline infrastructure. However, pipelines are a more
efficient and a less carbon intensive means of moving the RNG to
market.
The existence of a nearby pipeline is often necessary to make an
RNG project economically viable. Therefore, additional pipeline
infrastructure would likely increase the number of RNG projects and
increase the volume of RNG brought to market.
6. In your testimony you mentioned that using RNG as a fuel replacement
in vehicles results in a lower carbon footprint than using
electric vehicles. Will you elaborate on this?
The use of RNG as a vehicle fuel, and especially RNG from
agricultural waste, can result in a lower carbon footprint than using
electric vehicles. This is due largely to the fact that agricultural
waste-to-RNG projects can capture and destroy methane that would have
otherwise been emitted to the atmosphere. According to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, methane has a global warming
potential that is 25 times more potent than CO2.
An RNG project's Carbon Intensity (CI) score can provide a more
specific comparison. CI is a metric used by the State of California's
Air Resources Board (CARB) to measure the lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions for a fuel, per unit of transportation energy delivered. The
lowest overall CI scores granted by CARB have been for dairy and hog
waste-to-RNG projects, which have negative carbon footprints and
substantially lower CI scores than electric vehicle pathways scored by
CARB.
[all]