Agriculture is responsible for about 30% of total global Greenhouse Gas emissions. These are produced by:
· fossil fuel use
· flattening forests to grow food
· releasing the carbon dioxide trapped in soil
· raising non-organic livestock, such as cows
But agriculture has a huge potential to create Greenhouse Gas savings. Restocking soil with just a fraction of the carbon content we’ve stripped from it in recent decades could make a significant cut in emissions.
Negotiators gathered in Copenhagen for climate change talks suggest that farmers should be paid to sequester carbon in the soil. This is an extension of a scheme which already exists that protects forests by putting a price on carbon saved by not chopping them down.
But there’s no guarantee that farmers would be either willing or able to participate in carbon trading, and research has shown that forest protection scheme only has short-term benefits for subsistence farmers or foresters.
Dr. Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council says:
“Farmers have always been weather watchers; now they’re the ones under scrutiny. What comes out of Copenhagen will affect farmers, but whether it will benefit them is open to question.”
“Everyone agrees we need to cut carbon emissions. But carbon trading is no silver bullet – it favors the larger players in agriculture, including multinational companies and governments, not small-scale farmers.”
“Government policies on agriculture and climate that take the needs of the world’s poor into account, and a global commitment to promote sustainable consumption are key.”
Please let us know what you think by leaving a comment...
Like this page? Please link to us and let the world know!
This was posted on Tuesday, December 1st, 2009 at 10:13 am by Ysanne Spevack. To link here, use the permalink. You can follow any responses to this post through the 
RSS 2.0 feed.
RSS Feed for news
Bookmark this page
I read something recently on the idea that on a per-animal basis, intensive techniques like battery farming chickens create less carbon emissions than organic techniques. I wondered about your thoughts on this.
While it’s obvious that organic is generally best both in terms of reducing use of fossil fuels and in ethical terms, might there be particular cases where less ethical methods might end up having more going for them than “less efficient” ones (at least, if we decide the bottom line is carbon emissions)?
Posted by Gyrus on 1st December 2009 at 1:36 pm | Permalink
I’ve not heard that, where did you read it?
My bottom line isn’t carbon emissions. If carbon emissions was my absolute bottom line for choosing food, I’d be a vegan. Eating a locally grown vegan diet is for sure the lowest carbon footprint for your larder.
My bottom line is honest to goodness food, common sense eating habits, and clean old-fashioned humane farming practices that are healthy for people, healthy for the planet and make you feel good inside.
Battery chickens don’t make me feel good inside even if the carbon emissions are somehow scientifically lower. Same goes for genetically modified food and any other farming practices that you intrinsically know on a deep level are somehow wrong, however much scientists and politicians tell you they’re right.
It’s about using your heart as well as your logic.
Posted by Ysanne Spevack on 1st December 2009 at 11:35 pm | Permalink
30% of total emissions?! The problem with carbon trading is its benefit to large players in agriculture. Speaking specifically to farming and food production this could pose an opposition to the organic movement. I think that a mixture of carbon trading with the usage a biofuels could be a step in the right direction..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJKogEGnCJE
Posted by Eric Dieter on 3rd December 2009 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
Sometimes carbon sinks can benefit plants because in turn they provide us with oxygen. However, carbon should be cut for agricultural reasons. But it is up to the farmers to plan ahead and prepare the carbon cuts.
Posted by wellbeing on 30th January 2010 at 10:49 am | Permalink
Global Warming and Climate Change is the biggest environmental issue that we face these days. the long term effects of these environmental changes to a nations economy is quite damaging. there would be a shortage in food supply as well as on water supply too ….
Posted by Green Girl on 15th February 2010 at 12:28 am | Permalink