On December 16th California Air Resources Board of approved a cap-and-trade carbon emissions trading scheme for the state. The program, which takes effect in 2012, is supposed to reduce the state's carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The legislation is a large part of the environmental legacy that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has worked hard to develop. There is much concern from critics on both sides of the issue concerning the effectiveness of the carbon-trading scheme to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and its economic effect on businesses in the state. What if California could use this new legislation to actually encourage a growing sub-sector of the mainstay of the state's economy while reducing green house gas emissions?
Agriculture is by far the most lucrative industry in the state, and while it may not produce visible clouds of black smoke pumping into the atmosphere, it is actually a large source of green house gases. Commercial livestock and dairy operations produce a huge amount of methane gas, around 25% of the worlds total, which is 21 times as potent a green house gas as carbon dioxide. It also causes soil degradation and runoff, as does commercial crop production. It is estimated that 7% of net carbon in the atmosphere is a direct result of soil loss.
The worlds cultivated soil contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere - this is a double edged sword because as we strip the soils for agricultural purposes we release all of this carbon. If we were to adopt more sustainable farming practices however, we could actually rebuild soil and suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Many consumers are already turning away from commercial industrialized food, as research continues to show that it is negatively impacting our health not only by degrading our clean air and clean water, but also by exposing us to a toxic mix of chemicals and hormones. The "Slow Food" movement is already growing, and organic, biointensive, permiculture and family owned-and-operated farms are becoming a larger part of the agricultural economy.
If California were to include agricultural emissions and runoff as a source of atmospheric green house gases, industrial farms using unsustainable practices would be required to have permits for all the carbon they waste. But, farms that adopted measures that would actually improve soil health could receive carbon credits which they could sell for an increased profit. If cattle were raised on well managed grasslands instead of commercial feedlots, the grasslands would be a carbon sink and the cattle would not produce methane due to unnatural stress on their digestion system. Thus the conversion cost of switching from a feedlot to a free-range operation could be easily covered not only be reduced input costs and increased product quality, but by the sale of carbon credits. This would encourage the development of the sustainable agriculture industry in California, promoting family owned operations and increasing the number of skilled agricultural jobs.
Not only would this reduce the states total green house gas emissions, it would also improve the states water supply. Inefficient chemically dependent agriculture uses a larger amount of water due to poor soil quality, leading to increased runoff. This contaminates waterways with the harmful agricultural chemicals, and with increased mineral runoff like selenium, a naturally occurring element in California soils which has accumulated so much in soils and waterways the city of Sacramento recently voted to double water rates to pay for a new filtration system to remove it. In a water scarce state like California, encouraging farmers to employ methods that will reduce their water use and eliminate polluted runoff could save the state billions in future water development projects. Healthy soils and waterways also reduce the potential of fires and flooding, both of which are huge economic drains throughout the state.
Californians would also save huge amounts of money in healthcare costs because their air, water, and food would be cleaner and healthier. In the long run, not only would including agricultural systems in a cap-and-trade scheme lead to improved air quality and reduced risk of climate change, it would encourage local agricultural development, sustain this development in the future leading to permanent job growth, reduce state and individual costs for water and healthcare, improve our food supply and make it more self-sufficient.
Even if agricultural waste doesn't get included in the cap-and-trade legislation, you can still help all of this come about by buying sustainably grown food from a local farmer. It's cheaper then you think.
No comments:
Post a Comment