U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

92–379 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–357

CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES: AGRICULTURAL

SEQUESTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE,

AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 8, 2003

ON

THE POTENTIAL OF AGRICULTURAL SEQUESTRATION TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH AFFECTING ATMOSPHERIC LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

(
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

JOHN CORNYN, Texas

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

HARRY REID, Nevada

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

BARBARA BOXER, California

RON WYDEN, Oregon

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

ANDREW WHEELER, Staff Director

KEN CONNOLLY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

JOHN CORNYN, Texas

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

HARRY REID, Nevada

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York

(II)
CONTENTS

Page

JULY 8, 2003

OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 10

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 1

WITNESSES

Bast, Joseph, President, The Heartland Institute ................................................ 18

Prepared statment ............................................................................................ 43

Knight, Bruce, Chief Executive Officer, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture ................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Lal, Rattan, Director, Carbon Management and Sequestration Center, Ohio

State University ................................................................................................... 16

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39

Reed, Debbie, Legislative Director, National Environmental Trust .................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Rosenzweig, Cynthia, Research Scientist, Goddard Institute for Space Studies,

Columbia University ............................................................................................ 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50

Stallman, Robert, President, American Farm Bureau Federation ...................... 14

Prepared statment ............................................................................................ 37

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter, Carbon Sequestration, International Association of Fish and Wildlife

Agencies ................................................................................................................ 59

Statements:

International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies .............................. 55

National Farmers Union .................................................................................. 54

(III)

(1)

CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES: AGRICULTURAL

SEQUESTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR, CLIMATE CHANGE AND

NUCLEAR SAFETY,

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:42 a.m. in room

406, Senate Dirksen Building, the Hon. George V. Voinovich [chairman of the committee] presiding.

Present: Senators Voinovich and Carper.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Senator VOINOVICH. The meeting will please come to order.

I apologize to you for being late. I had a breakfast downtown and

ran into a lot of traffic.

We are here today to discuss agricultural sequestration of carbon. Specifically, today’s hearing will focus on the potential for agricultural sequestration to reduce concentration of atmospheric

greenhouse gases, and the Administration’s action to understand

and enhance that potential.

As everyone in this room is aware, the issue surrounding greenhouse gas emissions and climate change have become fairly controversial with people on both sides of the issues. To an extent,

they have become the quid pro quo to move forward on legislation

dealing with SOx, NOx, and mercury.

I have stated several times that we need to enact a comprehensive energy policy that harmonizes the needs of our economy and

our environment. Nowhere is that need more important than with

the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, where

the options that have been proposed to mitigate potential human

impacts on the climate and related environmental systems are likely to have substantial economic and societal consequences, and

where there is a raging debate about whether there are any conclusive environmental benefits from implementing them.

As we look to the issue of surrounding greenhouse gas emissions

and the stability of our utility manufacturing and industrial sectors, it is very clear that the nexus between the environment and

the economy, rather than an academic or political exercise, is a real

issue for those who will be affected by the decisions we make on

this Committee and in the Senate.
2

We in the Senate are here as public policymakers and must have

reliable and readily understood information in order to make informed decisions about them. In 2002, the total greenhouse gas

emissions in carbon dioxide equivalent terms were about 14 percent higher than emission levels in 1990. CO2 accounted for 82 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; methane accounted for

9 percent; nitrous oxide accounted for 6 percent; and other gases

accounted for the rest.

The Administration projects that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will increase by 43 percent between 2000 and 2020. Several

uncertainties are associated with this projection including forecast

methodology, meteorological variations, and rates of economic

growth and technological development. Further, the Administration’s projections do not incorporate future measures to address

greenhouse gas emissions or legislative and regulatory actions not

yet in effect.

Despite the fact that many of the environmental community

argue that the science of the causes, effects, and extent of climate

change is settled there is, in fact, real controversy over whether or

not greenhouse gas emissions affect the climate. The National Research Council has noted that fundamental scientific questions remain regarding the specifics of the connection between atmospheric

greenhouse gas concentration and projections of climate change.

According to the National Academy of Sciences, potential risks of

increased concentration of greenhouse gases are generally characterized as long-term in nature and the current scientific knowledge

and ability are insufficient to conclude whether these shifts are a

result of human activities.

Just yesterday, former Secretary of Energy James Schlesinger

published an op-ed in the Washington Post noting that we are

making only slow progress in our understanding. I would just like

to quote from a couple of paragraphs from his op-ed piece.

‘‘We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be

attributed to the greenhouse effect and how much to other factors.

In climate change we only have a limited grasp of the overall forces

at work. Uncertainties have continued to abound and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation under conditions of such

uncertainty should be taken only on an exploratory and sequential

basis. A premature commitment to a fixed policy can only proceed

with fear and trembling.’’

He finishes the op-ed piece with this:

‘‘There is an idea among the public that the science is settled.

Aside from the limited facts I cited earlier, that remains far from

the truth. Today we have far better instruments, better measurements, and better time series than we ever had. Still, we are in

danger of prematurely embracing certitudes and losing open-mindedness. . . . We need to be more modest.’’

I want to insert in the record this op-ed.

Without objection, so ordered.

[The article follows:]
3

[From the Washington Post, July 7, 2003]

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE SCIENCE ISN’T SETTLED

(By James Schlesinger)

Despite the certainty many seem to feel about the causes, effects and extent of

climate change, we are in fact making only slow progress in our understanding of

the underlying science. My old professor at Harvard, the great economist Joseph

Schumpeter, used to insist that a principal tool of economic science was history—

which served to temper the enthusiasms of the here and now. This must be even

more so in climatological science. In recent years the inclination has been to attribute the warming we have lately experienced to a single dominant cause—the increase in greenhouse gases. Yet climate has always been changing—and sometimes

the swings have been rapid.

At the time the U.S. Department of Energy was created in 1977, there was widespread concern about the cooling trend that had been observed for the previous

quarter-century. After 1940 the temperature, at least in the Northern Hemisphere,

had dropped about one-half degree Fahrenheit—and more in the higher latitudes.

In 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science

Foundation, stated: ‘‘During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen,

irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.’’ Two years earlier, the

board had observed: ‘‘Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the

present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into

the next glacial age.’’ And in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences stated: ‘‘The

climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue

to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how

rapidly they will occur, we do not know.’’ These statements—just a quarter-century

old—should provide us with a dose of humility as we look into the more distant future. A touch of that humility might help temper the current raging controversies

over global warming. What has concerned me in recent years is that belief in the

greenhouse effect, persuasive as it is, has been transmuted into the dominant forcing mechanism affecting climate change—more or less to the exclusion of other forcing mechanisms. The CO2/climate-change relationship has hardened into orthodoxy—always a worrisome sign—an orthodoxy that searches out heretics and seeks

to punish them.

We are in command of certain essential facts. First, since the start of the 20th

century, the mean temperature at the earth’s surface has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Second, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for more

than 150 years. Third, CO2 is a greenhouse gas—and increases in it, other things

being equal, are likely to lead to further warming. Beyond these few facts, science

remains unable either to attribute past climate changes to changes in CO2 or to

forecast with any degree of precision how climate will change in the future.

Of the rise in temperature during the 20th century, the bulk occurred from 1900

to 1940. It was followed by the aforementioned cooling trend from 1940 to around

1975. Yet the concentration of greenhouse gases was measurably higher in that

later period than in the former. That drop in temperature came after what was described in the National Geographic as ‘‘six decades of abnormal warmth.’’

In recent years much attention has been paid in the press to longer growing seasons and shrinking glaciers. Yet in the earlier period up to 1975, the annual growing season in England had shrunk by some 9 or 10 days, summer frosts in the upper

Midwest occasionally damaged crops, the glaciers in Switzerland had begun to advance again, and sea ice had returned to Iceland’s coasts after more than 40 years

of its near absence.

When we look back over the past millennium, the questions that arise are even

more perplexing. The so-called Climatic Optimum of the early Middle Ages, when

the earth temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than today and the Vikings established their flourishing colonies in Greenland, was succeeded by the Little Ice

Age, lasting down to the early 19th century. Neither can be explained by concentrations of greenhouse gases. Moreover, through much of the earth’s history, increases

in CO2 have followed global warming, rather than the other way around.

We cannot tell how much of the recent warming trend can be attributed to the

greenhouse effect and how much to other factors. In climate change, we have only

a limited grasp of the overall forces at work. Uncertainties have continued to

abound—and must be reduced. Any approach to policy formation under conditions

of such uncertainty should be taken only on an exploratory and sequential basis.

A premature commitment to a fixed policy can only proceed with fear and trembling.
4

In the Third Assessment by the International Panel on Climate Change, recent

climate change is attributed primarily to human causes, with the usual caveats regarding uncertainties. The record of the past 150 years is scanned, and three forcing

mechanisms are highlighted: anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gases, volcanoes and the 11 year sunspot cycle. Other phenomena are represented poorly, if

at all, and generally are ignored in these models. Because only the past 150 years

are captured, the vast swings of the previous thousand years are not analyzed. The

upshot is that any natural variations, other than volcanic eruptions, are overshadowed by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Most significant: The possibility of long-term cycles in solar activity is neglected

because there is a scarcity of direct measurement. Nonetheless, solar irradiance and

its variation seem highly likely to be a principal cause of long-term climatic change.

Their role in longer term weather cycles needs to be better understood.

There is an idea among the public that ‘‘the science is settled.’’ Aside from the

limited facts I cited earlier, that remains far from the truth. Today we have far better instruments, better measurements and better time series than we have ever

had. Still, we are in danger of prematurely embracing certitudes and losing openmindedness. We need to be more modest.

The writer, who has served as secretary of energy, made these comments at a

symposium on the 25th anniversary of the Energy Department’s CO2/climate change

program.

Senator VOINOVICH. I think in order to address the potential

risks associated with greenhouse gas and emissions, the Administration has initiated several administrative and regulatory actions

intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance carbon

sequestration, including agriculture carbon sequestration initiatives at the Department of Agriculture.

Last month, Secretary Veneman announced several new initiatives to encourage greenhouse gas reduction and support voluntary

actions by private land owners including farmers, and forest and

grazing land owners to increase carbon storage. Specifically, the

USDA will give consideration to management practices that store

carbon and reduce greenhouse gases and setting priorities and implementing forest and agricultural conservation programs such as

the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wetland Reserve Program, and the Forest Land Enhancement Program.

The USDA will also fund financial incentives, technical assistance, demonstration, pilot programs, education and capacity building, along with the measurements to assess the success of these efforts.

I have long been a supporter of such programs, even when I was

unaware of their benefits in reducing greenhouse gas concentration. When I was Governor of Ohio, we planted 15 million trees

during the 8 years that I was Governor of the State. At the same

time, I knew that it was good for the environment, and it would

certainly help the air. But it was only later, once I had moved onto

this Committee, that I was told by Dr. Lal, who will be testifying

today, that that kind of program and the legislation that I sponsored when I was in the State legislature on reclaiming all of our

strip mines, has had a real measurable impact on reducing carbon

in our atmosphere.

I hope that today’s hearing will provide us with an understanding of the agricultural sector’s potential to sequester carbon

and to increase productivity, and where the Administration’s programs are providing resources and research in the most effective

manner to ensure that our farmers can reach that potential.

We are very fortunate today that our first witness is Bruce

Knight, the Chief Executive Officer of the Natural Resources Con-
5

servation Service at the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Knight, we

are very happy to have you here with us this morning. We are

looking forward to hearing your testimony.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE KNIGHT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

discuss the Department of Agriculture’s carbon sequestration activities.

The issue of climate change is a high priority for Secretary

Veneman and for each of our respective mission areas across the

Department. Last month, as you know, Secretary Veneman announced a series of actions that the Department will take to increase carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emission

from forest and agriculture.

The actions represent a major step forward for the Department.

For the first time, USDA will include the reduction of greenhouse

gases as a consideration while setting priorities and in allocating

resources for the conservation programs that we administer.

Coupled with the increases in overall conservation spending,

these actions are expected to increase the carbon sequestration and

greenhouse gas emissions reductions from the conservation programs by over 12 million tons of carbon equivalent in 2012. This

represents approximately 12 percent of President Bush’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent in the next decade.

I would point out to members of the Subcommittee that we are

talking about carbon and carbon equivalents, which includes methane and nitrous oxide. Also, it is important to note that greenhouse

gas intensity refers to the rate of emissions as compared to overall

domestic economic performance. USDA’s conservation programs

were designed to offer assistance and incentives to farmers and

other land owners in addressing multiple conservation and environmental challenges.

Historically, programs have focused on reducing soil erosion, improving water quality, creating wildlife habitat, reducing air pollution, and protecting sensitive areas. While maintaining these priorities, the programs will now also include explicit consideration of

greenhouse gas reductions and carbon sequestration. We can accomplish this without compromising our other objectives because in

many cases the technologies and practices that reduce greenhouse

gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration also address other

conservation priorities.

For example, the very item that you mentioned, Senator, planting trees and other natural covers can increase above and below

ground carbon. Most importantly—and this is one that I cannot

stress enough—crop land does not need to be taken out of production in order to be able to sequester carbon. For example, conservation tillage increases the level of soil organic matter and provides

many related benefits, while continuing strong and vibrant crop

production.

There are many opportunities to apply these practices in the U.S.

As a farmer myself for much of my life in the State of South Dakota, I would note that nationally crop land soils have lost at least
6

a third, and some up to 60 percent of their carbon, since they were

first converted to crop production, beginning about 200 years ago.

In the case of my own farm operation, most of those soils have

not been under cultivation for over 100 years. Many areas of my

own operation have come into production within the past 20 years,

while maintaining an under-intensive conservation tillage. In fact,

today’s no-till practices, along with our rest/rotation grazing system, had been aimed at improving soil functions and health. I can

state firsthand that I have seen tremendous benefits to my own operation from season-to-season, but also benefits by building soil organic matter for the long-term as well.

While those of us in agriculture see the benefits up close, at the

Department we are working to utilize the portfolio of existing conservation programs to build carbon above and below the soil on a

much more broad scale. Within the Agency I oversee, NRCS provides financial and technical assistance that can help with carbon

sequestration under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. We have provided guidance to States, to reward actions that

sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gases within the equipped

ranking system. These efforts can include the soil conservation

practices already mentioned, and technologies to reduce methane

emissions from livestock waste.

We also recently hosted a summit on one of these promising technologies—anaerobic digesters. Anaerobic digesters, in fact, work to

convert animal waste to energy by capturing and converting the

methane that is given off. At that summit, we unveiled three new

conservation practice standards specifically for digesters.

These new standards will have two major benefits. They will

make it possible for producers to fit anaerobic digesters into their

equipped contracts as parts as a comprehensive nutrient management plan and they will make it possible for producers to use outside resources, technical service providers, to plan and construct

those digesters.

Many other conservation programs, including the Conservation

Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, and the Forest Land Enhancement Program,

have excellent prospects for sequestration of greenhouse gases.

For example, under the new farm bill, the Wetland Reserve Program alone will restore and protect about 1.2 million acres of wetlands, roughly a land area the size of Delaware alone. We know

that what happens on farms and ranches can have a tremendous

positive impact for everyone. It is important for us to better measure those efforts and to get the message out.

To summarize, I would like to highlight the key steps that USDA

plans to undertake. First, improve the methods for measuring and

estimating above and below ground carbon storage on forest and

agricultural systems. Next, collect carbon flux measurement data

at specific locations that can, in turn, be scaled to regional and national statistics. Third, develop management practices and techniques for increasing carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fourth, support demonstration projects to facilitate the incorporation of carbon sequestration into USDA programs. And finally, finalize new accounting rules and guidelines for
7

estimating and reporting carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas

emissions from forest and agricultural activities.

USDA continues to invest in research to improve our understanding of how crops, livestock, trees, and even pests in other facets of our ecosystems will respond either positively or negatively to

higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We are seeking cost effective ways to make agriculture and forests more adaptable to any changes in climate and weather should they occur.

We are pursuing an improved understanding of the role of natural and managed ecosystems in the global carbon cycle. We are

developing technologies and practices to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and increase carbon sequestration. We are now harnessing the portfolio of conservation programs to build carbon back

into the soil and vegetation, integrating greenhouse gas considerations in all our conservation efforts.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to address

this Subcommittee. I would be happy to attempt to respond to any

questions that you may have. I would ask that my written statement be placed in the record in its entirety.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you

very much.

You mentioned in your testimony how this initiative on the part

of the Department of Agriculture fits in with the President’s 18

percent reduction in greenhouse gases. Would you underscore it

some more?

Mr. KNIGHT. The initiative that we are putting under way is

really intended to put the enabling platform out there for the farmers and ranchers who would voluntarily need to step forward in

being able to help achieve these objectives. We put that enabling

platform in place by ensuring that when we are doing any sort of

conservation work on the ground, that we also keep an eye at what

we can do for carbon sequestration.

I mentioned that as much as 12 percent of the overall President’s

objectives could be met thorough these methodologies. EQIP alone

would bring us halfway to that goal, simply by having ensured that

as we are implementing these programs we are doing things that

either do greenhouse gas avoidance, mitigation, or sequestration.

Senator VOINOVICH. You talked about being able to measure and

capture the statistics. How precise is that technology that would

allow you to do that? How precise can you get in terms of measuring what impact it has in terms of sequestration?

Mr. KNIGHT. We are continuing to work to improve the precision,

the reliability, and the ability to verify and repeat each of those

measures. The Department of Agriculture, NRCS, is in a leading

position and is working very closely with the Department of Energy

and EPA in ensuring that across the Agency lines we have agreement on the verifiability and the measurability of each of these

practices.

There are continuing efforts to enhance that. It is a real struggle

to ensure that you have something that is reliable enough for the

market place to step in. We have actually been working very closely with some of the folks in the private community that are interested in doing carbon trading. It is very important that we provide

this basis of measurements that they can then use in the private
8

sector to make the private carbon trading sequestration efforts

work, and work reliably.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Knight, I have always been a strong

supporter of the public-private partnership. I believe this is the

way the Government should be run. I was interested to read in

your testimony how the Department is working on sequestration

with private entities such as the American Forest and Paper Association. Can you give us a little more information about these partnerships and how along are they? Have these just come about in

the last month or two?

Mr. KNIGHT. Certainly the American Forest and Paper Association, Weyerhauser, and several of those have been working very

closely with the Forest Service on how to build those partnerships.

In the case of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, we have

been working on the measurement side with a couple of the companies that are trying to put the trading mechanisms in place, either

from the Chicago Exchange or others, that are looking at being

able to do that. There is a real ground-swell of private sector interest in moving forward on these voluntary partnership approaches.

Senator VOINOVICH. Does that anticipate that down the road

there would be some trading going on?

Mr. KNIGHT. That is certainly the expectation of that community

that is working with us on the measurability and verifiability of

these practices.

Senator VOINOVICH. In terms of the Department of Agriculture,

I am delighted to know that this could be a two-for. I was one of

those that was a little skeptical about the farm bill. We put a lot

of money into this proportion of it. Do you recall the number?

Mr. KNIGHT. We have nearly an $18.5 billion increase for conservation programs alone over the life of the farm bill.

Senator VOINOVICH. The fact is that you are going to coordinate

that expenditure of money with the sequestration is very encouraging.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you. It is also very important that while the

science is still evolving, we are able to make the best and most

practical decisions of how we achieve our other conservation objectives—soil erosion, water quality—while being able to find that

win-win solution. That may be able to help us on greenhouse gases

while the science continues to evolve and build. In that way we are

not sacrificing in any way our core objectives of water and soil

quality, but we are able to find these win-win solutions that have

enhancements.

Senator VOINOVICH. Do you think that beyond the money that

the Department of Agriculture puts into this, that there is a potential to even do more in the arena? By that, I mean, you are going

to be paying farmers to get involved in these projects and to spend

this money. Is there any other possibility that beyond what you are

doing that, for example, if private sector people wanted to invest

and encourage people in the agriculture and the forest business to

do more in that area, that that is a potential?

Mr. KNIGHT. It is certainly a potential, sir. It is to make meaningful gains on carbon sequestration. Even with the resources that

the Department of Agriculture has, they are modest compared with

the potential that you can see as we have illustrated already.
9

That is one of the reasons why in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, we clarified the rules this year that would allow

a producer who is utilizing the EQIP Program, to go ahead and

trade any carbon sequestration credits that may result of that investment on the open market, should those markets come about.

Short of a market place development, that is going to be very important and key for the long-term ability to achieve these sorts of

objectives.

Senator VOINOVICH. One of the things that I was interested in

is this. You stated that the Department is involved ‘‘in the Government’s activities to address climate change, including international

bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Can you tell the Committee

what the Department has been involved with in terms of the international arena?

I think sometimes we think about the issue of greenhouse gases

and carbon as being a U.S. situation. It is a worldwide situation,

and one of the concerns that many people have is that we could

deal with our problem and not see any kind of corresponding activity going on in other parts of the world since we are all part of this

whole situation. Could you tell me what is going on in that arena?

Mr. KNIGHT. When Mr. Connaughton testified before you a year

ago, he made mention of several of the bilateral negotiations that

have been going on. There are nearly 14 agreements with countries

around the world that the USDA and the State Department have

been involved in—India, China, and Russia, for example. We would

be pleased, in follow up work, to give you a more detailed list of

those endeavors that the Department has been involved in.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

USDA works closely with the Department of State and other technical agencies

and departments to support US bilateral and multilateral climate change efforts.

The United States international global climate change strategy emphasizes cooperation with key partners and promotes work with other nations to develop an efficient

and coordinated response to global climate change. Over the past 2 years, the Department of State has pursued a series of 14 bilateral agreements with other countries and groups of countries. The countries include: Australia, Canada, China,

seven Central American countries CONCAUSA (Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador,

Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama), the European Union, India, Italy,

Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Brazil, and the Russian Federation. There is a keen interest in forest and agriculture issues related to

climate change in many of these countries. The range of interests includes assessments of the potential impacts of climate change, inventories of greenhouse gas

emissions and sinks from forests and agriculture, and the pursuit of mitigation opportunities.

Specifically the Department of State requested assistance from USDA in coordinating potential forestry and agriculture activities and projects in response to requests from these countries. USDA has provided inventories of current activities, explored proposals to initiate new cooperative work, and served on State Department

delegation that met with representatives of other governments.

USDA also supports the Department of State in multilateral efforts. USDA representatives have served on State Department led delegations to international scientific and policy meetings, including ongoing negotiations under the Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and scientific meetings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Carper, do you have an opening

statement?
10

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to be

with you, and I am pleased that you are with us.

Mr. Knight, welcome. It is good to see you. I apologize for being

a little bit late.

I have a statement here. I think this hearing is a revival to all

of us. I have not been able to read your testimony, Mr. Knight, but

I will see a summary of it. I look forward to reading that.

In the legislation that Senators Gregg, Chafee, and I have introduced, we anticipate reductions in CO2 over the next dozen years.

In doing that, we permit utility plants to invest in technology to

reduce CO2 emissions. If they choose to change their mix of fuels,

they could do that. We also enable the emitter to underwrite the

costs of reforestation, the changes in planting patterns, and even

changes out of feedlot operations, in order to address the issues of

increasing greenhouse gases.

Could you just talk with me a little bit today about how such a

system would work? You have the emitter on the one hand who

needs the credit for the emission reductions. They choose not to

change the fuel mix. They choose not to invest in technology. They

say they are going to go a third way.

I think I am pretty clear on reforestation. Talk with me a little

bit about planting patterns and how this might help us in this battle. Talk with me a little bit about feedlot operations. Talk about

any others that I am not aware of.

Mr. KNIGHT. At the Department we have continued to work on

this issue. You are seeing quite an evolution of mindset on what

you can do. I will just give a couple of examples. This is as much

from my own experience as a farmer as it is from the experience

from the Department.

I have no-till on my operation, which means that I have replaced

what used to be three or four tillage passes with one-plant/one-pass

at planting. This means a lot less soil disturbance. I have removed

the summer fallow that I used to have in the operation where we

would let it rest for a year to save moisture.

All of those tillage practices churn up the soil, mixes the stubble

and the aftermath into the soil, and speeds up decomposition. Instead that is sitting on top of the soil building organic matter. It

is improving the overall level of organic matter in that soil. That

means that we have dramatically boosted the overall amount of

carbon that is sequestered on those soils.

I will give you an example from the livestock side. There are two

ways to control greenhouse gas emissions on livestock. One are

things like the methane digesters, where we capture the methane

that may be given off by the manure, and are able to run that

through a generation facility of some sort, burn that off, create

electricity, and convert that into hopefully a better and more stable

gas. Or, you do avoidance. You can do avoidance by how you either

manage the manure, or in what you feed the critter at the front

end and have a better match of their nutritional needs.

Each of those are methods that we can do to either avoid greenhouse gases, or control them from being emitted.
11

Senator CARPER. The animal operations with respect to methane,

is that something that is being talked about or is it something that

is actually being done on a widespread basis?

Mr. KNIGHT. We are working very aggressively on that. We put

several standard changes in place this year in one of our most important programs, EQIP, in order to ensure that we could do costshare and assistance with farmers and ranchers that are wanting

to put methane digesters in place. So, yes, we are doing that very

rapidly.

Senator CARPER. In addition to reforestation, the kind of no-till

approach you have described, and the animal lot operations, what

other opportunities are there out there that maybe I am not mindful of?

Mr. KNIGHT. The other side of the work that the Department of

Agriculture is doing a great deal of effort on is how to ensure that

we have a registry established between the Department of Agriculture, DOE, and EPA. Once we have these efforts underway, the

question is how do you measure them, how do you make sure that

they are repeatable and verifiable, and able to register them. The

market place can then help those utilities trade that particular

credit that may result from the activities that a farmer is doing

and the activities that the utility may want to be able to offset.

The final component that you see folks already starting to work

on, and is going to be very important, is that the utilities tend to

not want to work with 500 farmers out there. What is needed is

an aggregator that actually combines the interests and efforts of

400 or 500 farmers across the geographic area, puts that together,

pools that, and then transfers that pooled collective action to something that a utility or some other purchaser of those credits may

be interested in buying.

Senator CARPER. If I understood you correctly, you are talking

about a registry? I would call it almost an entity to certify the

value of the amount of sequestration or reduction of CO2. There

has to be some entity there.

I had not thought about the aggregator before we talked about

the registry. I am sure that others, like Jim Reilly sitting right behind me, have thought about the aggregation. If I were an utility,

I would not want to deal with 500 or 5,000 farmers if I could deal

with just one entity.

I was just thinking, Mr. Chairman, we have farmers in Ohio and

Delaware and a lot of other places where they are badly strapped

financially these days. Commodity prices are not what they need

in order to make much of a living. In order to be able to come up

with ways for farmers to sustain themselves economically, one of

the ways they can do it is to encourage the use of more bio-fuels,

whether it is bio-diesel or ethanol. That will enable the farmers to

supplement their incomes as well through a market system instead

of a system that some would describe as welfare payments to our

farmers.

Let me ask another question of you, if I could, Mr. Knight. Do

you believe that it would be prudent to reduce our net emissions

of greenhouse gases given what we have heard from the National

Academy and other world scientists? If you think it might be prudent, would you explain why?
12

Mr. KNIGHT. Sir, I tend to be a pragmatist on these things. There

is a clear opportunity in managing this Agency for us to be able

to find these win-win solutions of the work that we are doing on

conservation, on water quality, on soil conservation, and to be able

to have a reduction in greenhouse gases as a result of carbon sequestration from that aspect.

While I continue to see a vast array of scientific debate about

how far to go and how rapidly to go, I see for the Agency an opportunity while that debate swirls, for us to manage our way through

it in a manner that just continues moving ahead on those things

and finding that win-win solution. We are going ahead with those

opportunities of being able to do that while that larger debate

swirls.

Senator CARPER. It is going to swirl for a while.

What do you think some of the risks are to American agriculture

of increasing greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change?

Mr. KNIGHT. One of the more intriguing scientific efforts that the

Department is pursuing is what the potential impacts of greenhouse gases are on the pest community. We have to look not only

what the greenhouse gas emissions do conceivably to the production of corn, soybeans, cotton, or rice, but also what do those greenhouse gas emissions do to the weeds that are in that field. Does

that put a particular weed at a greater advantage compared with

those crops in competing for the limitations of soil, water, air, and

sunlight?

You have the same sort of things with the insect community if

you have changes in temperatures, growing degree days, all of

those sorts of things. There is a large amount of research that has

to be done in that arena as well as we move forward on looking

to manage through this very difficult issue.

Senator CARPER. Can you talk with us a little bit about weather

patterns and how that may have some impact on agriculture?

Mr. KNIGHT. I may have to beg off and have us follow up with

you on that one. Weather patterns are a little beyond my comfort

level to discuss.

Senator CARPER. All right.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

Recent studies have examined the potential implications of climate change for

U.S. agriculture. Most studies indicate that, for a range of potential climate changes

and atmospheric CO2 levels, crop production in the United States during the 21st

century will not be imperiled. Under some scenarios, productivity of many major

crops increased at a national level. However, not all agricultural regions of the

United States are projected to be affected to the same degree or in the same direction by the climates simulated in the various scenarios. In general, the Midwest (especially the northern half), West, and Pacific Northwest exhibit large gains in yields

for most crops while the South and Southern Plains exhibit losses in yields.

However, the multifaceted impacts of climate change defy a simple characterization. The results for one crop or one region may be opposite the results for another

crop or another region. Further, the details of climate change and its impacts on

agriculture remain hard to predict with confidence given the existing state of the

science, but the results of this study offer some detailed estimates as a first step

toward thinking about how U.S. agriculture can better prepare for the climate

changes it may face in the future.

As noted by the National Research Council, in response to questions from the Administration on the state of climate change science ‘‘one of the weakest links in our

knowledge is the connection between global and regional predictions of climate

change.’’ The National Research Council’s response to the President’s request for a
13

review of climate change policy specifically noted that fundamental scientific questions remain regarding the specifics of regional and local projections (NRC 2001).

Predicting the potential impacts of climate change is compounded by a lack of understanding of the sensitivity of many environmental systems and resources—both

managed and unmanaged—to climate change.

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question, if you

do not mind.

Senator VOINOVICH. Go ahead.

Senator CARPER. I read your biographical information. Do you

grow corn on your farm? What do you grow on your farm?

Mr. KNIGHT. I have corn, wheat, sunflowers some years, soybeans, alfalfa, and a cow-calf operation.

Senator CARPER. I am a proponent of bio-diesels. In Delaware we

use a mixture of 20 percent soy oil and 80 percent diesel. As I understand from the perspective of corn growers and their position on

ethanol, and that of bio-diesel proponents, these non-petroleum

products have several beneficial effects, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

What is the Department, to your knowledge, to treat greenhouse

gas emissions in its own operations and reducing its petroleum consumption? I think there are two goals identified in an Executive

Order. One of them deals with greenhouse gas reduction goals and

the other relates to petroleum.

Please comment on what the Department itself is doing.

Mr. KNIGHT. I will make mention of a couple of things. I will

have staff follow up with you and provide you that for the record.

Senator CARPER. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

USDA’s Energy and Environment program strives to improve the ‘‘greening’’ of

USDA’s facilities, fleets, and operations nationwide by implementing pertinent energy legislation and ‘‘Greening the Government’’ Executive Orders. The program focuses on increasing energy efficiency and use of renewable energy sources at USDA

facilities; use of alternative fuels in Agency fleets; acquisition of environmentally

preferable, biobased, and recycled content products; and recycling and waste prevention activities.

The Department has developed an Energy Implementation Plan focused on specific action areas targeted to achieve the 30 percent energy consumption goal for fiscal year 2005. The Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, and Office of Operations each developed agency specific plans that are part of the overall plan. More

information is available at: http://www.usda.gov/energyandenvironment/index.html

Mr. KNIGHT. There is a good study recently completed that talks

about the net energy balance of bio-fuels—ethanol and bio-diesel—

as it pertains to greenhouse gas emissions. It shows there is a very

positive balance there. That supplements work a couple of years old

that Argonne National Laboratories had conducted that was very

positive.

We are continuing to move forward in the implementation of the

farm bill on each of those sections including the acquisition of renewable products and the acquisition there. That has turned to be

a fairly problematic provision to implement because of the way that

it was constructed. We are continuing to move forward very quickly

on that. I will include in that follow up work the time line we are

on there.

There is, however, the continued efforts that each of the Agencies

do as it pertains to new vehicle acquisitions and those sorts of

things. I believe last year, in the case of the Natural Resources
14

Conservation Service, nearly 90 percent of our vehicle acquisitions

last year fell into the flexible fuel category, which meant that they,

in turn, could operate on a traditional blend of gasoline, a 10 percent ethanol blend, or even as high as an 85 percent ethanol blend.

Each of the Agencies have tried to meet those objectives in a variety of ways. Certainly the vehicle acquisitions have been an important component of that endeavor.

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Knight, thank you for being here

today. I look forward to some follow from you. We appreciate your

presence, your testimony, and your stewardship.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. It was very good testimony. It was very good hands-on. You really understand it.

Thanks for being here today. We look forward to working with you.

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. We are very fortunate to have our next

panel, which includes Robert Stallman, President, American Farm

Bureau Federation; Dr. Rattan Lal, Director, Carbon Management

and Sequestration Center, the Ohio State University. Dr. Lal has

testified before this Committee a couple of times during the last

several years. I was fortunate to have a presentation made by Dr.

Lal when I was there at the Ohio State University a couple of

weeks ago. We were talking about sequestration and what they are

doing on that in conjunction with the Battelle Institute.

We also have Joseph Bast, President, the Heartland Institute.

Mr. Bast, I am sure you will tell us a little bit about the Heartland

Institute. It sounds healthy.

We have Debbie Reed, Legislative Director, National Environmental Trust; and Dr. Cynthia Rosenzweig, Research Scientist,

Goddard Institute for Space Studies. We will get that perspective

on things.

Without further words, we will call on Mr. Stallman from the

American Farm Bureau. I would like to say, Mr. Stallman, that I

have an excellent relationship with the Farm Bureau in the State

of Ohio. They have been my good friends. We have worked together

since the days when I was Governor. They provide me with an

enormous amount of input whenever I need it, and sometimes

when I do not need it. They are doing a good job. We are glad to

have you here.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT STALLMAN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Mr. STALLMAN. I am glad to hear that they are doing a good job,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob

Stallman, President, of the American Farm Bureau Federation,

and a rice and cattle producer from Columbus, Texas. On behalf of

the 5.3 million members of the American Farm Bureau, I am

pleased to be speaking to you today on agriculture’s role in sequestering carbon in our Nation’s soil.

Carbon is the key building block for all things living. For those

of us in agriculture, we have learned through years of research and

practical experience that soil carbon is essential for optimizing the
15

production of food and fiber, as well as improving the profitability

of farming and ranching.

The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service estimates that 20 million metric tons of carbon are currently sequestered each year in

U.S. farm and grazing land soils. Many producers have made a decision on an economic basis to employ conservation tillage practices

such as minimum till, no-till, and cover crop regimens in their operations. With more producers changing farm management practices, USDA and State Department personnel estimate that an additional 180 million metric tons annually could be stored in farm

and range land acres.

Carbon and its role in the climate change issue has been the subject of recent debate and will continue to be. We are not here today

to discuss the merits or demerits of the theory of the climate

change issue. With regard to carbon sequestration, our message is

that agriculture can play a vital role.

In 2001, President Bush announced the development of a comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the

United States by 18 percent by 2012. A vital component of the

strategy is to encourage increased sequestration of carbon in forest

and range lands.

In February of this year, the President announced the Climate

VISION Program. A voluntary public-private partnership, the primary goal of the program is to pursue cost-effective initiatives that

will reduce the projected growth in American’s greenhouse gas

emissions. AFBF has begun discussions with the Administration to

see what role the agricultural sector can play in the President’s Climate VISION Program.

Chief Knight did a good job of describing the new rules with respect to considering a greenhouse gas management practices in

evaluating conservation programs. We view that as a very positive

development. I will not repeat those comments.

America’s farm and ranch community has long supported and responded to voluntary incentive based programs, as evidenced by

the waiting list to participate in the many conservation programs.

Time and time again, when an environmental challenge has presented itself, American agriculture has answered the call.

I would be remiss if I did not reiterate our opposition to any

mandatory measures pertaining to climate change and carbon sequestration, but rather the need to maintain a voluntary approach

to agricultural sequestration.

While a mandatory cap and trade may increase the value of the

carbon being sequestered, an analysis by Sparks Companies re-released last month, concludes that the increased energy cost to the

agricultural sector associated with any Kyoto-like mandatory program would more than offset any cash value in the sequestration

of carbon by farmers and ranchers on a per-acre basis.

Agriculture has in the past, and will in the future, respond if the

appropriate voluntary incentive-based tools are employed. Some of

the needed tools like EQIP and CRP already exist. Private entities

are also developing and piloting other tools such as voluntary carbon trading systems.

In one case the Iowa Farm Bureau and Kansas Farm Bureau are

involved. They are disseminating information to farmers and
16

ranchers and helping to put land owners together with the carbon

trading exchanges in an effort to trade carbon under free market

rules. AFBF supports the development of a practical, voluntary carbon trading system and the development of trading criteria standards and guidelines.

While the potential for agricultural carbon sequestration exists,

many challenges do remain. One area that must be addressed is

the development of methods and procedures to credit farmers and

ranchers who have already employed conservation tillage practices

and their operations.

Other challenges include the refinement of carbon trading guidelines, the establishment of accurate crediting and values for sequestered carbon, and the development of other cost-effective incentives to further advance carbon sequestration in agricultural soils.

None of these challenges is insurmountable. AFBF looks forward

to working with the USDA, the Department of Energy, the EPA,

Congress, and many others within the private sector to find solutions and move forward with this endeavor.

There is no doubt that agriculture can and will play an expanded

role in sequestering carbon American’s farmlands. We strongly support President’s Bush voluntary approach to climate change issues

and his call for the public and private sectors to work together to

increase the sequestration of carbon on America’s farm and range

land.

The American Farm Bureau appreciates this opportunity to come

before you today to share our view on agriculture’s role in sequestering carbon. I look forward to answering any questions you may

have later. I would ask that my written statement be placed in the

record in its entirety. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you

very much, Mr. Stallman.

Dr. Lal?

STATEMENT OF RATTAN LAL, DIRECTOR, CARBON MANAGEMENT AND SEQUESTRATION CENTER, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. LAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to address this Committee

today. I am Rattan Lal, Professor of Soil Science and Director of

the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at the Ohio

State University.

At the very outset, I acknowledge the very strong cooperation.

We have a seed from the USDA, especially the NRCS. I would also

like to point out that OSU is a member of the CASMGS initiative,

which is indeed a very important undertaking to enhance carbon

soil sequestration.

The question of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of

CO2 since the 1850’s can partly be addressed by: (a) reducing emissions, and (b) sequestering emissions. Strategies for emission reductions include enhancing energy production and user efficiency,

and using renewable bio-fuels.

Emission sequestration, on the other hand, involves natural and

engineering options. Important natural options include carbon se-
17

questration in soils, vegetation, and wetlands. Some bio-fuel options are to switch grass, fast growing trees, and enhanced carbon

sequestration.

The weather carbon sequestration in soil and vegetation is called

terrestrial sequestration, which I am going to address today.

Aside from reducing the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, the terrestrial carbon sequestration has numerous benefits. Some of them were pointed out by Chief Knight, including for

example, erosion and sedimentation control, water quality improvement, and increase in soil diversity. Over and above these environmental benefits, there is also a definite improvement in soil quality

and crop productivity.

In contrast to geologic and oceanic sequestration which may be

expensive and perhaps have some unknown ecological impacts, the

terrestrial carbon sequestration is the most cost effective option to

date.

An ecosystem with the capacity to absorb carbon dioxide from the

atmosphere are called carbon sinks. Ocean and land are the two

natural carbon sinks, which are presently absorbing about 4.7 billion tons of the total human-induced emissions of 8 billion tons,

which is about 60 percent of the total global emissions.

Therefore, it is prudent to identify and enhance the carbon storage capacity of the natural sinks, such as soil and vegetation. It is

in this context that agriculture, as Mr. Stallman has already pointed out, indeed has a very important and positive role to play in enhancing the capacity of the natural sinks.

I might state that all the potential for the carbon sequestration

in soil is about one million tons per day which is about 360 million

metric tons of carbon equivalent per year. In addition to that, the

forest biomass carbon capacity is 250 million tons. Therefore, the

total terrestrial sink capacity of forest and vegetation soils is 610

million tons, of which 220 million tons are being absorbed today.

Out of the 220 million tons, only 20 million tons are being absorbed

in the soil sinks.

This 610 million ton capacity contrasts with the 1,890 million

tons of carbon equivalent emitted by the Nation ever year. Out of

that, 140 million tons is from agriculture. Therefore, the terrestrial

sink capacity of 600 million tons potential is about one-third of the

total national emissions, which is a very large amount indeed.

Let us now look at the global picture comparing what was just

pointed out. The soil carbon sink capacity on the world scale is

about one billion tons a year, of which control has the capacity of

about a half-billion tons. Now, one billion tons contrasts with about

a three billion ton increase in the atmospheric CO2 every year.

That is one-third of the total annual increase.

This potential, which is very large indeed, is possible through the

Conservation Reserve Program. We indeed have one million hectares, 2.5 million acres, of unrestored strip mine land, which has

a tremendous potential. The rate of carbon sequestration in soil in

the United States ranges from a low of about 100 pounds per acre

per year in a very dry climate, to perhaps as much as 1,000 pounds

per acre per year in humid and cold climates. There is tremendous

potential.
18

I would like to make four points here which I think are very important. No. 1, the Conservation Reserve Program that Chief

Knight has pointed out already, has been extremely successful. We

have almost 14 million acres of land which is in a set-aside Conservation Research Program. The sediment load in the U.S. rivers,

because of this conservation activity and other activities, has been

reduced by 50 percent. It is a global success story which the farm

ranches and the farm lands can also duplicate with carbon sequestration.

The second point is promoting natural soil carbon sequestration

and biomass carbon sequestration buys us time and relieves pressure in the industry to put a cap on the emissions.

No. 3, the world soil has the potential of one billion tons over a

50 to 60 year period of the soil carbon sequestration. This potential

has a very important implication in developing countries, especially

the tropics. The Amazon Forest, which will have a pressure of reducing deforestation at a rate of nine to ten million hectares a

year, that pressure can be relieved because we can produce more

from the existing land to an adoption of conservation programs. Indeed, soil carbon sequestration is a land-saving option. We save the

forestation to that.

No. 4, the world soil has lost 60 to 80 billion tons of carbon. The

U.S. soils have lost three to five billion tons of carbon. While we

sequester that carbon, with or without climate change, the important thing is that we ensure global security by doing that. Therefore, climate change is not the only reason for soil carbon sequestration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity given to me in

offering this testimony. I would be very glad to answer any questions that you may have. I would ask that my written statement

be placed in the record in its entirety. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you

very much, Dr. Lal.

Mr. Bast?

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH BAST, PRESIDENT, THE HEARTLAND

INSTITUTE

Mr. BAST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to be here.

Senator Carper, thank you for attending.

The Heartland Institute, my organization, is a 19-year-old nonprofit research organization based in Chicago. The ‘‘heart’’ in

Heartland is a geographical reference and not to the body’s organ.

It is a mistake often made.

Senator VOINOVICH. Our State motto is, ‘‘Ohio is the heart of it

all.’’

[Laughter.]

Mr. BAST. I think Kansas would disagree.

[Laughter.}

Mr. BAST. This is a joint research project by economists at the

Heartland Institute, the Hudson Institute, and the American Farm

Bureau Federation. The opinions I am about to express are my own

and those of my coauthors.

Carbon sequestration certainly appears at a distance to be an attractive alternative to mandating reductions in greenhouse gas
19

emissions, especially since many experts believe that forcing utilities and other significant emitters to reduce their emissions would

be very costly and would produce very few offsetting benefits.

Upon closer inspection, carbon sequestration in agriculture faces

some daunting problems of its own. I would like to comment on

four such problems.

First, paying farmers and livestock producers to sequester carbon

would lead to heavy-handed and potentially ruinous regulation of

farms and ranches. Farmers can indeed help store carbon in their

crops and in their soil, but farming, especially dairy farming and

cattle ranches, are also a significant source of greenhouse gases.

According to the EPA in 2001, agricultural soil sequestered on

net only 15.2 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, whereas agriculture as an industry released 526 million metric tons of carbon

dioxide equivalent, 35 times as much. If you want to be paid to

store carbon, you had better expect to be charged for admitting carbon as well. Farmers are going to be very vulnerable to any proposal to regulate their emissions.

Second, endorsing sequestration may mean endorsing cap-andtrade programs which, in turn, mean higher energy costs. Without

a Government-imposed cap on greenhouse gas emissions, few

emitters would need to buy the emission permits that farmers

would earn by sequestering more carbon. But a cap-and-trade program would have the same effect as higher energy taxes. Such a

tax would have to be the equivalent of at least 50 cents a gallon

of gasoline or more in order to reduce emissions enough to make

a difference.

Higher energy prices, in turn, would dramatically reduce profits

in the U.S. agricultural sector. Research that I conducted in 1998

with the American Farm Bureau estimated that a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline would reduce net profits for dairy farmers as

much as 84 percent, and typically 50 percent if gasoline taxes are

raised by 50 cents per gallon.

Total annual U.S. farm production expenses would increase by

$20 billion. Since it is difficult for farmers to pass cost increases

along to consumers, a cap-and-trade greenhouse gas program would

cause a 48 percent decrease in net farm income. Following what

Mr. Stallman said, the net impact on farmers of higher energy

costs, which is part-and-parcel of proposals to reward farmers for

sequestrating carbon, would be extremely negative.

Third, environmentalists would be disappointed as well. Even if

a carbon sequestration program benefited farmers, it would do very

little to moderate greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural soils in

the U.S. today capture only 1/20th of 1 percent of the total annual

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This is according to EPA’s latest

assessment of greenhouse emissions and sinks for 1990–2001.

Once saturation levels are reached, there would be no more gains

on cropland with known farming systems, which means sequestration is not a long-term tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, my fourth point is that emissions trading is more problematic than its advocates admit. In thirty seconds I cannot describe all of those problems, but I should say that current programs

for trading sulfur dioxide, for example, are not as robust and not

as successful as many of their advocates would claim. They are
20

characterized by very thin markets. Over 80 percent of trades in

sulfur dioxide, for example, are trades within companies, not between companies. Government overregulation kills innovation.

There are examples in California where innovative programs to

remove carbon have been killed by the emissions trading program

under RECLAIM. Changing rules leave investors high-and-dry,

making a very risky sort of endeavor. There are verification problems and problems with Government changing the rules halfway

through. As a result, farmers, especially, should be very wary about

making investments in emissions trading.

I conclude that carbon sequestration by farmers and ranchers in

the United States may be a good thing for the farmers, and may

be a good thing for the soil. Ultimately, though, it is a false hope

for those seeking to be paid to do what they would do anyway. It

is a false dream for environmentalists who see it as a major part

of the solution to global warming. It is a poor strategy for an industry that should know better than to join a movement composed of

groups and individuals who have been among its most strident critics.

Thank you very much for allowing me to testify today. I would

ask that my written statement be placed in the record in its entirety. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you

very much, Mr. Bast.

Ms. Reed?

STATEMENT OF DEBBIE REED, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST

Ms. REED. Chairman Voinovich and Senator Carper, I am Debbie

Reed. I am the Global Warming Campaign Director and Legislative

Director at the national Environmental Trust. We are a nonprofit

organization located in Washington, DC.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk with you today

about what I think is perhaps the greatest environmental issue

confronting the world today, and that is global climate change.

U.S. agriculture can make important cost-effective contributions

to offset a portion of U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases in the near

and medium-term. But it is not a panacea, nor is it a solution. Agriculture can provide a bridge to a less fossil-carbon intensive future while improving the sustainability, environmental quality, and

profitability of a vital U.S. economic sector.

Global warming is occurring. Evidence continues to accumulate

that human activities and man-made greenhouse gases contribute

to global climate change. Just last week the World Meteorological

Organization issued an unprecedented alert indicating that record

extremes in weather and climate events were continuing to occur

around the world.

The organization documented recent extreme weather events in

several countries, including the United States. To prevent dangerous consequences from climate change, we must reduce our reliance on the burning of fossil energy sources. Mandatory credible

policies to reduce greenhouse gases and emissions are needed, but

will take time to implement.
21

We should pursue with vigorous strategies, such as agricultural

sequestration, to help offset greenhouse gas emissions in the interim. Global warming is a threat to agriculture. U.S. agriculture

is a major industry. Farming contributed $80.6 billion, or .8 percent to the national gross domestic product in 2001. However, the

threat of global warming and potentially severe weather events

jeopardize the very livelihood of farmers in rural communities, as

well as the ability of agriculture to continue to fuel U.S. prosperity.

Catastrophic storm events, flooding, or drought can overwhelm

not just individual farmers, but entire communities and regions.

Agriculture and forestry do represent a net sink in the U.S., and

helped to offset just over 7 percent of U.S. emissions in 1999. Policies to promote more widespread adoption of proven management

practices to enhance this sink effect can boost this potential above

current business-as-usual levels.

Agricultural soils alone were about .6 percent of the total net

sink in 1999 but scientists estimate that soils have the capacity to

offset an additional 10 percent of U.S. emissions. Changes in tillage

practices can result in net sequestration of CO2, reduce fossil fuel

use, reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soils and fertilizers, improve water quality, and increase wildlife habitat.

Simply put, soil carbon enhances agricultural sustainability. Fortunately, soil carbon is a component of soil that can be changed by

management practices. Soil scientists estimate the potential for

U.S. agricultural soils to sequester additional carbon at 187 million

metric tons of carbon per year, or fully 10 percent of U.S. annual

emissions.

This capacity represents the upper potential for soils and will

only occur if all croplands were immediately managed to maximize

carbon intake. Carbon uptake could go on for a period of decades,

but a saturation level would be reached. Agriculture can act as a

Band–Aid, but it will not prevent climate change.

Farmers experiences with no-till have confirmed the research.

Some compelling stories from farmers who have converted to conservation tillage and no-till farming perhaps best provide a picture

of the many benefits to society and farmers of this management

practice. At a recent briefing on global warming and soil carbon sequestration, Elmon Richards of the Richards Farms in Circleville,

Ohio, shared his experiences.

Beginning in the 1970’s, the Richards Farms began planting

their 3,500 acres of corn and soybeans without tilling the soil.

Among the benefits of no-till farming documented by the Richards

Farms, are the need for fewer, smaller tractors, the need for fewer

passes over their fields, reduced fuel use, reduced labor costs, and

more free time.

Specifically, the tractors the Richards use for conventional tillage

consumed an average of three to four gallons of fuel per acre. Notill, with its reduced passes, consumes an average of .3 or .4 gallons

of fuel per acre, or one-tenth the fuel use per acre.

If we were to apply the Richards’ figures on a national scale, we

could begin to appreciate the potential impacts of just one aspect

of this agricultural management change. If all farmers in the U.S.

were to convert to no-till, the savings in fuel use could be as much

as 744 million gallons of fuel annually. Since each gallon of fuel
22

burn represents 6.1 pounds of carbon released to the atmosphere,

this would reduce carbon emissions by approximately 2.1 million

metric tons of carbon annually, which does not even account for the

carbon which is also sequestered in the soil.

Evidence from other farmers who have converted to no-till is just

as compelling, showing, for instance, higher yields and thus, higher

profits during drought years compared with their neighbors who

are conventionally tilling, increased soil carbon content, significantly improved water infiltration and water holding capacity of

the soils, reduced nitrogen fertilizer applications by up to 50 percent, which reduces the leaching of nitrogen in runoff, and reduced

phosphorus runoff.

In conclusion, credible policies to reduce net U.S. greenhouse gas

emissions are needed to prevent the potential economic, social, and

environmental consequences of unmitigated climate change. The

agricultural sector is particularly vulnerable to global climate

change and severe weather events, but with the right mix of policies and incentives to enhance its sink effect, agriculture can also

help to mitigate the greenhouse effect by reducing U.S. greenhouse

gas emissions.

The enhanced sink effect of agriculture can be a win-win solution

for this sector, for farmers, for society, and the environment, but

it is not a panacea for greater action. Rather, it can be a useful and

cost-effective bridge as we transition to a less fossil carbon intensive future.

Thank you. I can answer any questions you might have. I would

ask that my written statement be placed in the record in its entirety. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you

very much, Ms. Reed.

Dr. Rosenzweig?

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA ROSENZWEIG, RESEARCH SCIENTIST, GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Ms. ROSENZWEIG. Mr. Chairman and Senator Carper, I am Cynthia Rosenzweig, a research scientist from the Goddard Institute

for Space Studies at Columbia University.

After nearly two decades of research on potential impacts of climate change on agriculture, attention is now turning to mitigation

and adaptation responses. Mitigation actions, such as carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, are aimed at reducing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, thereby

countering climatic change.

Adaptation actions, such as changes in crop types and management practices, are responses that optimize production under

changing climate conditions. Here, I analyzed these response actions and suggest that it is both useful and necessary for them to

be considered jointly.

A review of a combination of approaches, including field experiments, regression analyses, and modeling studies leads to the following conclusions regarding how a changing climate may influence

agriculture, and how mitigation and adaptation responses may

interact.
23

First, agricultural regions will experience change over time

under a changing climate. Some regions will experience increases

in production and some declines due to the presence of minimum

and maximum thresholds for crop growth. Adaptation, such as adjustments in planting dates, crop types, and irrigation regimes will

likely be required. Geographic shifts in crop growing areas are likely to occur with associated changes in production systems.

Although climate influence changes in agriculture are likely in

the coming decades, the magnitudes and rates of these changes are

uncertain at the regional scale.

Despite these general uncertainties, agricultural production in

developing countries is more vulnerable. Studies have consistently

shown that overall production in mid and high latitudes is likely

to benefit in the near term, approximately to mid-century, with increasing CO2 and warming, while production systems in the low

latitudes are likely to decline. This finding has implications for

world food security since most developing countries are located in

lower latitude regions.

Third, long-term effects on all agricultural regions are negative.

If climate change effects are not abated, agricultural production in

the mid and high latitudes, even here in the United States, is likely to decline in the long term. This is a long-term problem for the

end of this century. These results are due primarily to the detrimental effects of heat and water stress on crop growth as temperatures rise. Increased climate variability, such as droughts and

floods, under climate change, is also likely to negatively affect agriculture.

I turn now to solutions and responses to climate change. A

changing climate will affect mitigation potential. Responses to a

changing climate will contribute to determining which mitigation

techniques are successful and at what levels over the coming decades. Because some carbon sequestration projects have long durations on the order of 40 to 50 years in temperate regions—farmers

may need to consider which sequestration techniques have the better chance to succeed under changing climate regimens.

If changing climate is not taken into consideration, calculations

of carbon, in terms of how much carbon can be sequestered, may

be in error.

It is important to know that mitigation and adaptation responses

are synergistic. Mitigation practices can also enhance the adaptation of agricultural systems. For example, carbon sequestration in

agricultural soils lead to more stable soil-water dynamics, enhancing the ability of crops to withstand droughts and flood, both of

which may increase under changing climate conditions.

Finally, a new way to look at the issue of mitigation and carbon

sequestration in agriculture is to consider that mitigation practices

may help to make the U.S. sector carbon neutral. The combination

of management techniques, reduced no-till, modified irrigation and

fertilization application has the potential to sequester, by our calculations, about 50 million tons of carbon yearly. These approximately match greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. agricultural

sector.

However, we need to recall the caveat that the capacity for agricultural soil carbon sequestration is constrained by the amount of
24

carbon previously lost during conversion for agriculture so that its

effectiveness as a mitigating activity for climate change is not unlimited. In this way, the U.S. agricultural sector could take the

lead as a key sector in our Nation to address the significant issue

of climate change.

In conclusion, our research suggests that planning and implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures in response to

the global climate change issue should be coordinated, and proceed

hand-in-hand. Investments in programs and research will be needed to assure effectiveness in both adaptation and mitigation activities for U.S. agriculture.

Thank you. I would ask that my written statement be placed in

the record in its entirety. Thank you.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you

very much, Dr. Rosenzweig.

This has been very interesting testimony. Obviously there have

been different perspectives presented on carbon sequestration in

terms of its effectiveness and maybe it is not as effective as we

think it would be.

What I would like to do with my portion of the questioning is to

allow each one of you to have an opportunity to comment for the

record on what someone else has said.

Dr. Lal?

Mr. LAL. Maybe I can begin with my colleague, Mr. Bast. He

gave some numbers which obviously are different than my numbers. As a professor, I have a habit of finding out where the mistake is when two students give different numbers.

He is giving carbon emission numbers as carbon dioxide gas

equivalent, CO2, and he is giving carbon sequestration numbers as

carbon equivalent. For example, the EPA report which he quoted,

talks about 6,952 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

as total emissions annually.

If you can work that to carbon equivalent where all the sequestration data is, that is approximately one-fourth of the total number. So, 6,952 million metric tons of carbon dioxide converts to

1,892 million metric tons of carbon.

His quotation on carbon sequestration in soil of 15 million metric

tons is almost right. It is about 20. But his conversion that it was

one-fiftieth of that, he was taking CO2. That is the discrepancy and

I would like to correct that.

Mr. BAST. May I respond to that?

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Bast?

Mr. BAST. I thought this might become an issue of some contention so I brought with me EPA’s report on greenhouse gas emissions and sinks. The table here in carbon dioxide equivalents—not

carbon, but carbon dioxide equivalents—is net sequestration from

agriculture of 15.2 million metric tons, only 15.2.

Total emissions from agriculture, according to the same report,

was 526 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent. This is an

apples-to-apples comparison, and not apples-to-oranges. The total

emissions from agriculture, including methane, are 35 times what

is currently net being sequestered on agricultural soil.

Where I do not disagree with my distinguished colleague here is

in the area of forestry and perhaps overall sequestration. I think
25

there are tremendous opportunities in forestry to sequester more

carbon, but I would worry if we subsidize tree planting that what

we do is reduce U.S. agricultural production, and encourage Third

World countries to clear forests in order to create more food. So you

get what economists call a leakage effect, where for every acre you

reforest cropland or grazing land in the United States, you might

end up with two acres, or even five acres, being cleared for low productivity agricultural growth in a Third World country. I do not

know that that would be an effective alternative, either.

Senator VOINOVICH. Any other comments?

Mr. Stallman?

Mr. STALLMAN. I would just have a little clarification. This is not

‘‘Pick on Joe Bast Day.’’ But the Heartland study that he referenced, we did participate in. I think many of the comments that

Mr. Bast made with respect to mandatory cap-and-trade systems,

we would agree with. We do not think that is a good route to go.

However, we do support the voluntary system and the incentives

as proposed under the President’s plan for agriculture to play a

greater role in carbon sequestration. I think we can do that.

The larger questions of how long can that role last before you are

saturated, and what net benefit that would be long term, that goes

beyond the scope of where we are right now. We are looking at

what can we do in the short-term, in terms of a voluntary incentive-based plan to help with the issue of carbon sequestration.

Senator VOINOVICH. Any other comments?

I thought that would be a little more lively.

[Laughter.]

Senator VOINOVICH. The thing that strikes me is that whatever

we do here, we have to take into consideration what is happening

over there. In other words, this is a world problem that we have.

We are really focusing in on just what contribution we are making

here in the United States to the solution to it.

Would anyone like to comment on that?

Mr. Bast?

Mr. BAST. I perhaps already have, but I absolutely agree with

you. I think we need to be looking at this as a world problem and

at net and life cycle emissions rather than short-term sorts of

projects. It is very easy for an utility, or for a manufacturer, or for

a farmer to be able to point to a project that reduces greenhouse

gas emissions. You simply stop producing something, or you

outsource the production of it. Instead of producing electricity at

your plant, you simply start buying electricity.

On paper it looks like there is a reduction in emissions. In fact,

all you have done is shifted the emission to some other source, either in another business nearby, in another State, or in another

country.

Because the United States has the most productive agriculture

in the word, anytime we discourage farming in the United States,

we end up encouraging deforestation in other parts of the country.

I do not think that that is a healthy prospect. So, even a voluntary

program, as much as I respect the American Farm Bureau’s distinction between voluntary and mandatory programs, I would

worry that a voluntary program sets the stage for a mandatory program.
26

In order for those emission permits to be worth anything, there

has to be a mandatory cap on emissions. That takes us down the

path to imposing restrictions on agriculture and industry in the

United States, with the consequence that a lot of this moves to

other countries where the environmental impact is many times

worse.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would just to comment on that. One of the

things that is really boiling in my State is the importation of products from China and how they are displacing our manufacturing

sector. Two millions jobs have been lost in the last 2 years.

All of a sudden it struck me that what tradeoffs are we having

in regard to the environment. They are impacting on our manufacturing sector, but the question is how much are they contributing

to the climate change and some of the other pollution problems

that we have. I do not think we have even thought about that or

have investigated it.

There are so many parts to this. You keep turning it, and you

see something else that is there that needs to be taken into consideration. At the same time I think all of us feel that regardless of

what the facts are, we ought to be doing everything that we possibly can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Senator Carper?

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To all of our witnesses, thank you for coming here and for casting some light on

what we all agree is an important subject.

Mr. Stallman from Columbus, Texas, Dr. Lal from Columbus,

Ohio. I am an old Buckeye myself. The two of us are both Buckeyes, Ohio State graduates. We are really pleased to welcome you.

I used to live in Texas myself when I was a Naval flight officer,

down near Flower Bluff, which most people have never heard of.

It is nice to have a Texan here at the table. We welcome all of you

for coming.

Rob Baker is our Farm Bureau president in Delaware. His predecessor is Joe Calhoun. Before that was Jack Tarnburn. Jack

Tarnburn was my Secretary of Agriculture for the 8 years I was

privileged to be Governor of Delaware.

We have worked on a commodity problem in Delaware. It is also

a pollution problem. We raise a lot of chickens in Delaware. Most

people do not think of Delaware as much of an agricultural State.

I think we raise more chickens in Sussex County, Delaware,

which is where we have a lot of beach resorts—Fenwick Island,

Bethany Beach, Rehoboth Beach, Dewey Beach, Cape Henlopen.

Most people probably think of Sussex County as a place to go on

vacation. It is a great place for that. But we also raise more chickens in Sussex County, Delaware, than in any county in America.

I think we raise more soybeans in Sussex County, Delaware than

any county in America.

All those chickens create a fair amount of waste. In our State

what we have historically done is that we have taken the chicken

waste and after it has been cleaned out of the chicken houses, we

use it to fertilize our fields. Over the years we have had more and

more chickens to come along, and more and more waste, and fewer

acres over which they are spread. As a result, there is a lot of phos-
27

phorous and nitrogen in our waterways that eventually gets into

our inland bays and even to the Chesapeake and Delaware Bay.

One of the things that we have done is that we have a real interesting partnership between the State of Delaware and Perdue

which raises a lot of broilers. We have created, with their good

work, a technology that enables us to take chicken litter through

a treatment process. We create a product high in nitrogen and high

in phosphorous that can be used as a fertilizer. It is shipped all

over the world. It can be shipped to the Midwest. The size of the

pellets can be used and used for lawns. It can be used for golf

courses and so forth.

The idea there is to take what had been a problem polluting our

waterways and to try to transform it into a marketable commodity

for our farmers. We have only been doing this now for about 2

years, but I am encouraged that we are getting our sea legs and

that it is going to be a successful proposition for Perdue and for

poultry growers, and for our farmers as well.

I am always looking at ways to help raise commodity prices for

farmers and to reduce the amount of subsidies that are paid to

farmers. I want to find a way to provide another source of cash for

our farmers, whether they are in Delaware, Texas, or any other

State.

Talk with me a little bit about the potential for us helping increase commodity prices and provide another commodity source of

cash for our farmers through a system that enables the emitter of

CO2 to enter into a contract with farmers or those who aggregate

on behalf of farmers. Talk with me about the potential of what they

can mean for our farmers?

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, the potential would obviously vary across

the country, depending on the type of land, the type of crops, and

those kinds of things. We are encouraged by some of the private

efforts that I mentioned in my testimony to put farmers in touch

with entities that need to do this. TVA, I think, was doing some

reforestation. There were some farmers involved in that at one

point.

Throughout all this discussion about the long-term effects of carbon on the atmosphere and some of the projections, I think what

is missing—and you cannot quantify it—is what will technology do.

The example you have laid out as to what Perdue and some of the

poultry farmers are doing in Delaware, is one example of many.

But I truly believe that technology, through additional research,

will allow us ways of handling a lot of these problems, whether it

is waste, better incorporation practices, and sequestration of carbon. As long as the systems that are in place, in terms of providing

farmers some additional dollars—and all of us are in favor of that

happening—are voluntary incentive-based and done through a

market approach, we would support that.

It will take awhile before the research and the technology, to

quantify what ‘‘x’’ practice will mean in terms of ‘‘y’’ benefit that

you can actually get paid for. Those are some of the hurdles that

we have to overcome if we are going to put forth a successful system.

But I think the potential is there to do that. The question is: Can

we get the extra research and the dollars associated there to quan-
28

tify those things better? Can we have private entities, aggregators,

like some of our State farm bureaus, in terms of getting groups of

farmers together, and selling those credits to some industry?

I think all that potential is there. But it is going to take some

work to get there.

Senator CARPER. Ms. Reed, would you mind responding to the

same question? Let me know what that potential might be.

Ms. REED. I think there is a great potential. I would like to give

you one example of a situation in the Pacific Northwest where an

energy company called Entergy, has entered into a 3-year contract

with a group of farms to purchase carbon from them. Entergy feels

that climate change is a risk that we need to deal with. They want

to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gas.

They have purchased, over a 3-year period, carbon from a group

called the Pacific Northwest Direct Seed Association. They are a

no-till and conservation tillage group. As Carl Cooper, of the Pacific

Northwest Direct Seed Association would tell you, the check is not

in the mail. It is in the bank. They have been paid for the carbon

that they have sequestered. There are, in fact, emerging carbon

markets that are operating in this country. Agriculture has often

been looked at as a source of low cost offsets. Energy companies

are, in fact, talking with groups like the Pacific Northwest Direct

Seed Association about doing that. So I think it is not only a possibility, it is a reality.

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you.

Dr. Lal, let me go back. I think you are the member of the panel

who talked about the amount of carbon that is being emitted and

how much could reasonably be sequestered or drawn into, whether

it is forest or agriculture or the oceans.

Could you just go back and review some of those numbers for me,

please?

Mr. LAL. We have the potentials. That is not what is actually

happening. The potential for the U.S. cropland—and Ms. Reed gave

that number also—is 142 million tons a year. The potential of our

U.S. grazing lands is 70 million tons a year. The potential for forest

lands is 118 million tons a year. For all three categories of land,

you have the potential for U.S. soils of 360 million tons, which I

calculate at about one million tons per day. That is in the soil only.

In addition to that, the potential forest biomass carbon is 250

million tons. The total comes to about 600 million tons, which is

about one-third of the total emissions, which is about 1,900 million

tons.

Senator CARPER. The best case, if we were to use all of the avenues you have just described, we might be able to address about

a third of our current CO2 emissions?

Mr. LAL. That is correct, sir.

Senator CARPER. Mr. Chairman, that is pretty encouraging. I do

not pretend to believe that we could maximize the potential in all

those areas, but that is a pretty good potential.

Mr. LAL. I would also mention that on a global scale, as Senator

Voinovich mentioned, the potential is about one billion tons a year

in soils. That is more difficult because of the developing countries

in Africa and Asia may not be able to do what we can do in the
29

United States. The potential is tremendous, especially because the

full security in Africa is linked to that carbon sequestration.

Senator CARPER. Dr. Rosenzweig, I want to ask a question of you.

I like the question that our Chairman asked of the panel. He asked

if you wanted to comment on any of the testimony of any other witnesses. One of the great things about having a panel like this is

that we have really diverse perspectives. I always look for a common ground. What we have to do is to try to figure out what the

consensus is, what the middle ground is, and to propose that to our

colleagues.

As you listened to the testimony here today of each of our other

witnesses, what were some of the elements of commonality that

you heard that you think might help us in producing consensus legislation, that addresses CO2, greenhouse gases, and global warming?

Ms. ROSENZWEIG. I do not think I can say that there is complete

common ground. But there is a strong opinion across the panel that

encouraging carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector is a

beneficial thing to do for a number of reasons.

The idea of the win-win situation, I think, is very powerful. It

will benefit crop productivity and soil-water runoff erosion by increasing carbon in our soils. And, at the same time, it will work

on the larger uncertain, but still looming issue of global warming.

When I look across the testimony, that is what I see. I think

clearly we need more research on carbon sequestration potential,

because we have heard various estimates presented here. The estimates are dependent on changing climate conditions—dynamic climate conditions. Most of the calculations that have been presented

here do not take the potential for a changing climate into account.

I believe that they should.

We should also look to the warming that has already occurred

over the past 100 years. The global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees Centigrade, about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Because of the greenhouse gases that we have put into the atmosphere already, there

is likely to be a continuing potential for a change. I think those are

important things that we need to take into account as we go forward.

Senator CARPER. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that three items

be included in the record. One was actually alluded to, I think, by

Ms. Reed.

It says, ‘‘Statement from the World Meteorological Organization.’’

They forecast weather around our planet. They apparently met last

week and said, as Ms. Reed mentioned in her testimony, that the

number of severe weather events are likely to increase due to climate change. That would be one request.

The National Farmers Union is not present with us today. They

have a statement that I would ask be submitted. They encourage

efforts to establish a strong CO2 reduction strategy, and to include

agriculture in that strategy.

There is a statement of a group of leading climate scientists who

have researched weather data. They determined that the warmth

experienced in the late 20th century was an anomaly, and that
30

human activity likely played an important role in causing that

warming.

Those would be the three that I would ask unanimous consent

to place in the record.

Senator VOINOVICH. Without objection, so ordered.

[The statement appears at the end of the following the hearing

record:]

Senator VOINOVICH. I am getting a little bit confused here with

these numbers. The estimate of the incentives just announced by

the USDA show that if widely used, they will sequester 12 million

metric tons of carbon in 2012. Did we just say that right now we

are sequestering 15 million tons currently; is that right?

Dr. Lal?

Mr. LAL. My guess is that that is not 12 million. That is 12 percent of the emissions. I think that was probably 12 percent and not

12 million. That is my interpretation on that. We are already sequestering 20 million tons, not 15. That is in soils alone. So 12 million tons sequestered by 2012 is grossly inaccurate. I think it is 12

percent of the emissions.

Senator VOINOVICH. Mr. Bast?

Mr. BAST. I believe he was referring to the sequestration of specific programs that the Department of Agriculture was planning to

fund rather than making a forecast of how much could be sequestered. That is why it is a seemingly small amount.

Concerning this confusion between tons of carbon and carbon dioxide, carbon is 12/44 of the weight of carbon dioxide. So you can

convert one into the other by multiplying it by either 12/44ths or

44 12ths, which is 3.66666.

We can take the estimates that Dr. Lal has been giving us, multiply it by 3.66, and you will get what the United Nations and the

EPA both now use as the standard method of measuring. EPA,

when it uses tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, comes up with 15

million metric tons. That is not carbon. That is actually the higher

of the two numbers. If you express it only as tons of carbon, it

would be even less than that.

The 20 million tons that other people have used here is the Department of Agriculture’s estimate. That is just tons of carbon. If

you convert that into carbon dioxide, it is about 73 million metric

tons.

EPA says 15 million metric tons. The Department of Agriculture

says 73 million metric tons. If EPA is right, it is about 1/20th of

1 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions every year, just

1/20th of 1 percent. If the Department of Agriculture is right, it is

still just about 1 percent—73 million metric tons is about 1 percent

of 6.9 billion metric tons, which is what EPA estimates total U.S.

emissions to be.

Total sequestration, regardless of whose number we are using,

currently is very small—one percent at best, 1/20th of 1 percent if

EPA is correct—of current U.S. emissions. How much and how rapidly that could be increased has been the subject of speculation on

this panel. I am certainly not a soil specialist, but EPA notes that

total sequestration has only increased 14 percent over the last 11

years. From 1990 to 2001, the amount of carbon stored in soil has

only increased 14 percent.
31

Now we are proposing perhaps to very rapidly increase it by 100

percent or 1,000 percent in order to get up to some of the numbers

that other speakers are talking about. I would doubt that that is

feasible.

Senator VOINOVICH. I will check this out. I thought they said

they were talking about 12 million metric tons of carbon in 2012.

Ms. Rosenzweig?

Ms. ROSENZWEIG. I just have a comment further to the point that

I was making about thinking about agriculture as a carbon neutral

sector, and thinking about other sectors as well.

From sitting on many panels over about the 20 years that I have

been doing research on climate change and agriculture, one thing

that I have come to learn is that there are no silver bullets for the

global warming issue. Really, there is only silver buckshot. When

you look at the sector, compared to the whole problem, yes, it could

be small. But it can play a very important role by beginning the

address the issue and doing what it can, vis-a-vis its own sector

and also helping out the other sectors.

Senator VOINOVICH. Dr. Lal?

Mr. LAL. Senator, your point about the numbers being confusing,

like the estimates by UDSA on soil carbon sequestration of 20 million tons, are based on sensory model use. We really do not have

actual measurements on farm conditions. Most of the data that we

have presented is based on the research.

What really is needed is validation of which farmers have adopted practices in different regions in the United States, actually

going out there and monitoring how the carbon is changing. That

data is just being collected. That is the kind of information that is

really needed to verify what is actually happening.

Senator VOINOVICH. You are saying that we still are not there to

really get the real numbers of what is really being captured and

that there is speculation on these numbers?

Mr. LAL. Yes, Senator.

Senator VOINOVICH. I know we throw numbers around here and

I always ask: Where do they come from: You peel it back. A lot of

it is speculation. We are still in a speculative arena in terms of

what this is really going to do?

Mr. LAL. That is very correct. The actual on-farm assessment of

soil carbon sequestration numbers and the on-farm conditions are

few. Some are being collected. I think Jack is collecting some. We

are collecting some. But it is very few. We have only a few farms.

The other point that I want to mention is the 20 million tons

that the USDA uses is net sequestration by soil. When I say ‘‘net,’’

there is a lot of emission by cultivation by organic soils. These are

cultivated organic soils, like sugar cane plantations in Hawaii, and

some vegetable production in some parts of Ohio. We have very serious emissions from those soils which is really quite a large number. When you calculate the net part of the soil carbon sequestration happening, we deduct that the emissions from the organic

soils. So the net number given is not really the net number. The

soil carbon sequestration number is much bigger.

The other point which I think is important to mention is that soil

carbon sequestration, carbon offsetting is only one of the benefits.
32

Improving the quality of our soil resources is a very important factor.

Senator VOINOVICH. I think that Mr. Stallman would agree with

this, that going forward with this program has other benefits to the

agriculture community, correct?

Mr. LAL. Yes, sir, to the environmental community as well—sedimentation control, the water quality benefits, the bio-diversity benefits, and the pollutants use of land. There are numerous other

things.

Soil organic matter is what makes the soil a living entity. We

have lost three to five billion tons of carbon from the soil in the

U.S. We need to put it back, regardless of the debate of climate

change. We have lost 60 to 80 billion tons of carbon from the

world’s soils. Why the full security situation perpetuates in Africa?

We are talking about a 30 percent loss in the U.S. They are talking

about a 90 percent loss in the soil in Africa. We need to put it back

before even those soils can respond to fertilizer use. We cannot possibly achieve the full security without restoring the soil carbon. The

benefits are tremendous.

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you.

Mr. Stallman, Mr. Bast testified that mandatory carbon controls

could increase gasoline costs by 50 percent, driving up agri-production costs. There is a big issue around here about cap-and-trade. I

am opposed to cap-and-trade. I think we should go ahead and move

forward and do what we can without cap-and-trade. There are others that say that if you do not have cap-and-trade, then you are

not going to get people to do some of these things that we are talking about here today. It is a dilemma.

Frankly, it is standing in the way of moving forward with reducing NOx, SOx, and mercury. There are certain groups in this country who say unless you do four of them, we are not going to do anything about the other three. We have been coasting around here in

the last 2 or 3 years.

Would you like to comment on the cap-and-trade thing? Do you

agree with that in terms of the impact that it will have on agriculture? You are going to get involved in sequestration, but you are

saying if you get into this cap-and-trade, the cap-and-trade will impact negatively on farmers in this country and drive up their costs;

is that correct?

Mr. STALLMAN. Yes, we strongly believe that any kind of mandatory cap-and-trade system would be a net detriment in terms of the

economic impact to agriculture.

Senator VOINOVICH. Let me ask you another thing. In your opinion, would it put us in a noncompetitive position in the global market place?

Mr. STALLMAN. Certainly less competitive, and probably noncompetitive in many instances. If we implemented some Kyoto-like

mandatory greenhouse gas regulations, the Sparks study indicates

that it would lower net farm income by over $21 billion a year. Production costs would increase about $16 billion, due to the higher

energy and fertilizer costs. Agriculture is a very intensive energy

user.

Senator VOINOVICH. Part of that comes from that if you do capand-trade, the concept is that the energy companies would stop
33

burning coal. They use more natural gas. More natural gas equals

higher costs for fertilizer. That is the scenario.

Mr. STALLMAN. A lot of that is in the Sparks study that I referenced. We will be glad to get a copy of it to you.

Senator VOINOVICH. OK. I would like to get that Sparks study.

Mr. STALLMAN. We will provide it, Mr. Chairman.

Without objection, so ordered.

Senator VOINOVICH. Senator Carper?

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have two last questions.

Ms. Reed, I think in an earlier life you worked for Senator Bob

Kerry; is that true?

Ms. REED. Yes, I did.

Senator CARPER. Subsequent to that, I think maybe you had a

stint at EPA. You had to think, by virtue of some of your former

jobs, about what we and our staffs go through in crafting legislation and looking for some compromises.

Let me just ask this, if I could. What should the Administration,

and what should Senator Voinovich and I and our colleagues do to

more effectively address climate change, including promoting carbon sequestration. What should we do?

Ms. REED. I do not think, first of all, that we should discount the

idea of a cap-and-trade program. Senators McCain and Lieberman

have a bill called the ‘‘Climate Stewardship Act,’’ which is a capand-trade program. It would impact just the major and most intensive emitting sectors of the economy.

MIT recently completed an analysis of that bill that showed, for

instance, the two phases to the bill. The first phase of the bill

would decrease U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels by

2010. It would have no net impact and no cost to the economy. It

might even be beneficial to the economy.

The reason is that it is set up as a cap-and-trade program that

allows market flexibility to take over. It would allow, for instance,

agricultural sequestration to be a low cost source of offsets, and

other sources of sequestration. So I think you need to think about

using the market to actually help us get the lowest price reductions

where we can. Your bill, as a matter of fact, does the same thing.

So I think that there are ways to do this. We need to overcome

the obstacles that people throw up that have not been proven. Certainly, there is a sulfur dioxide trading program, for instance. It

has shown that we can, in fact, reduce emissions of pollutants

using the market.

Senator CARPER. All right.

Does anyone have a closing thought that you would have for us

coming out of the hearing of hearing your colleagues on the panel?

Do you have a closing thought for us that you might have?

Mr. Stallman, are there any parting thoughts you might want to

leave with us?

Mr. STALLMAN. Well, in terms of the silver buckshot, agriculture

is willing to be one of the BBs.

Senator CARPER. Good. Thank you. Hopefully we will find some

more.

Dr. Lal, I might just say that this issue of global warming and

greenhouse gases first came to my attention thanks to a research
34

couple from Ohio State University, Drs. Thompson, who have done

a lot of work around the globe. Maybe sometime we could actually

have them come and testify and talk about the work that they have

done on examining the melting of the ice caps around some of the

tallest mountains in the world.

Mr. LAL. He predicts that some of the tropical glaciers, like Kilimanjaro, might disappear within the next 15 to 20 years because

of the climate.

Senator CARPER. It is sobering stuff.

Mr. LAL. I would like to mention that agriculture has been considered as an environmental pollutant. I think agriculture, in addition to providing full security, can really be a solution, if done properly.

Senator CARPER. That is a great thought to close with. Thank

you.

Mr. Bast?

Mr. BAST. Mr. Stallman at the outset said that we are not here

to debate the science, but I note now that it has come up on several

occasions. I cannot hardly leave this hearing without mentioning

that the satellite data show no warming over the last 29 years, and

that there is indeed a fierce debate taking place among scientists

as to whether or not there is any human role in the temperature

trends that we have observed.

Finally, there is a lot of debate over whether or not some global

warming would have a negative effect either on the United States

or the rest of the world. The most authoritative research on that

by Robert Mendelson at Yale University, recently published by Oxford Press, suggests that a 2.5 degree Celsius warming would actually benefit agriculture in the United States to the tune of $41 billion a year through its fertilizing effect and through more rain and

other things like that.

We should not assume that we have a problem here in need of

solving. I think that would be the first step. Secondarily, if we try

to solve this nonexistent problem, let us make sure the unintended

consequences do not make it even worse by leading to deforestation

and other problems in Third World countries.

Senator CARPER. Thank you. A friend of mine likes to say, in response to those kind of arguments, if we can get the temperature

up high enough, we can eliminate all the agricultural subsidies for

the farm community. But that is his sense of humor.

Ms. Reed?

Ms. REED. I commend you for dealing with the issue of climate

change. I do think it is time for us to start taking action. I think

we can do so in a way that is not prohibitive, either to the economy

or to the agricultural sector. Most farmers operate on a three-tofour percent profit margin. Agriculture can clearly benefit from

starting to help mitigate our greenhouse gas emissions.

Senator CARPER. Thank you.

Ms. Rosenzweig?

Ms. ROSENZWEIG. I am actually a coauthor on a chapter in the

book that Mr. Bast mentioned. I think it is important to remember

that unabated temperatures are likely to continue to rise even

above 2.5 degrees Centigrade. That is why it is so important that
35

we address both mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate, a dynamic climate, jointly.

Senator CARPER. Thank you all.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator VOINOVICH. I would just like to make one point. I am anticipating the McCain–Lieberman bill. According to the energy information from the Administration, it will increase electricity costs,

natural gas costs, and have a major impact on all aspects of the

economy.

So there is a difference of opinion, Ms. Reed, about what that bill

will do or not do. I just wanted to get that on the record.

Thank you very much.

We are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

STATEMENT OF BRUCE I. KNIGHT, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to discuss the Department of Agriculture’s carbon sequestration programs and outline the steps being taken within USDA to address the long-term challenge of global

climate change. The issue of climate change cuts broadly across the Department, involving several agencies and mission areas. To provide policy guidance, the Secretary created a climate change working group that is chaired by the Deputy Secretary and includes the Under Secretaries for all of the relevant mission areas:

Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service; Natural Resources and the Environment;

Research, Education, and Economics; and Rural Development, as well as the General Counsel and Chief Economist. The Department plays an active role in the government’s activities to address climate change, including: Scientific research, technology development, international bilateral and multilateral cooperation, efforts to

encourage actions in the private sector, and policy development and implementation.

Last month, Secretary Veneman announced a series of actions that the Department will take to increase carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from forests and agriculture. The actions represent a major step for the Department. For the first time, USDA will consider the reduction of greenhouse gases

in setting priorities and in allocating resources within the portfolio of conservation

programs we administer. The actions build on a foundation of ongoing research and

technology development. USDA researchers and our cooperators are improving our

understanding of climate change and its implications for managed and unmanaged

natural systems, the potential risks to agriculture and forests, and effective ways

to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and forests.

The actions announced by USDA include financial incentives, technical assistance,

demonstrations, pilot programs, education, and capacity building. We are also setting out to improve our ability to measure and monitor changes in carbon storage

and greenhouse gas emissions so that we can accurately track our progress in implementing these actions.

Coupled with the increases in overall conservation spending, these actions are expected to increase the carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions reductions from the conservation programs by over 12 million tons of carbon equivalent

in 2012, which represents approximately 12 percent of President Bush’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas intensity of the American economy by 18 percent in the next

decade.

USDA’s conservation programs were designed to offer assistance and incentives

to farmers and other landowners in addressing multiple conservation and environmental challenges. Historically, programs have focused on reducing soil erosion, improving water quality, creating wildlife habitat, reducing air pollution, and protecting sensitive areas. While maintaining these priorities, the programs will now

also include explicit consideration of greenhouse gas reductions and carbon sequestration. We can accomplish this without compromising our other objectives because,

in many cases, the technologies and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions

and increase carbon sequestration also address other conservation priorities. Plant-
36

ing trees and other natural covers can increase above and below-ground carbon.

However, cropland doest not need to be taken out of production to sequester carbon.

For example, conservation tillage (reduced, minimum, or no-till) reduces the extent

of soil organic matter oxidation and decomposition by soil microorganisms that occur

with plowing and tillage. Thus, more of the organic matter added to the soil remains, leading to increases in soil carbon.

There are many opportunities to apply these practices in the U.S. Most U.S. cropland soils have lost at least a third and some up to 60 percent of their carbon since

they were first converted to crop production beginning about 200 years ago. This diminished carbon pool can be replenished by improvements in land management.

Under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), NRCS provided

guidance to States to reward actions that sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse

gases within the EQIP ranking system. These practices can include the soil conservation practices already mentioned and technologies to reduce methane emissions

from livestock waste. Last month, we hosted a Summit on one of these promising

technologies anaerobic digesters. Anaerobic digesters can reduce odors and pathogens and methane (a powerful greenhouse gas) from manure. The methane from digesters can be captured and used as fuel for power generation or direct heating. The

Summit, held in Raleigh, North Carolina brought together farmers, Federal and

State conservation officials, representatives from the power industry, inventors and

technology developers, and the conservation and environmental organization representatives.

At the summit, we unveiled three new conservation practice standards specifically

for digesters. The performance standards lay out standard expectations for the technology but do not prescribe or endorse a particular vendor’s product. One of the

standards is for covers for new and existing lagoons; the second standard is for new

ambient temperature digesters; and the third standard is for new controlled temperature digesters. These new standards will have two major benefits. They will

make it easier for producers to fit anaerobic digesters into their EQIP contracts as

part of a comprehensive nutrient management plan. They will also make it easier

for producers to use technical service providers to plan and construct digesters.

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)

can provide significant amounts of carbon sequestration. Conversion of cultivated

lands back into forests, grasslands or wetlands, which occurs on CRP and WRP

lands, fosters the accumulation of carbon in soils and vegetation. On Earth Day,

Secretary Veneman announced that the Farm Services Agency (FSA) will target

500,000 acres of continuous signup enrollment toward bottomland hardwood trees,

an action that will increase the amount of carbon stored by the CRP. Bottomland

hardwoods are among the most productive ecosystems for carbon sequestration in

the United States. In another step to provide incentives for carbon sequestration,

FSA modified the environmental benefits index (EBI) used to score and rank bids

into the program. The revised EBI will give points specifically for practices that sequester carbon, giving these practices a higher priority under the program than they

otherwise would have.

The Forest Service also has responsibilities for implementing actions announced

by the Secretary. Using new authority established under the Farm Security and

Rural Investment Act of 2002, carbon sequestration will be one of the formal objectives of the Forest Land Enhancement Program (also known as FLEP). Through

FLEP, the Forest Service, working with States, can promote carbon sequestration

with tree planting, forest stand improvements, and agroforestry practices.

Forests and agriculture can also be the source of domestic, renewable energy.

USDA recently announced the availability of $44 million in grants for energy efficiency, biomass energy, and biomass products development. Twenty-three million

dollars of this will be available from USDA’s Rural Development for the Renewable

Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements program to assist farmers,

ranchers, and rural small businesses to develop renewable energy systems and

make energy efficiency improvements to their operations. Farmers and ranchers are

eligible for loan guarantees for renewable energy systems, including anaerobic digesters under the Rural Business and Industry Programs administered by Rural Development.

Through the Biomass Research and Development Initiative, in cooperation with

the Department of Energy, $21 million in grants are available to carry out research,

development and demonstration of biomass energy, biobased products, biofuels and

biopower processes. USDA also recently announced key revisions to the Commodity

Credit Corporation Bioenergy Program to expand industrial consumption of agricultural commodities by promoting their use in the production of ethanol and biodiesel.

USDA is also working with partners in the private sector. This February, Secretary Veneman announced commitments from two industry groups with strong nat-
37

ural resource ties. The members of the American Forest and Paper Association have

committed to actions that they expect will improve their greenhouse gas intensity

by 12 percent by 2012. The members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association agreed to work with USDA to break down the barriers that farmers and

ranchers face in generating renewable power. America’s rural landowners can be a

source of solar, wind, and biomass power. These opportunities can be win-win partnerships for the rural utilities and farmers.

Companies and industrial sectors are making commitments under the Administration’s Climate VISION program. Companies with an interest in forest and agricultural carbon sequestration are looking to USDA to give them the tools they need

to measure and report on their actions.

Last year, USDA was directed to develop new accounting rules and guidelines for

reporting greenhouse gas activities on forests and agricultural lands. The new accounting rules and guidelines will be used by companies and individuals to report

their activities to the Department of Energy under their voluntary greenhouse gas

reporting system. The DOE reporting program is undergoing revisions that are expected to be completed by January 2004. The Forest Service and NRCS have taken

the respective leads for the forest and agriculture components of the guidelines.

USDA has undertaken an extensive public comment process including two well-attended workshops in January 2003. We solicited written comments from the public

on our process and will provide additional opportunities for public input before the

accounting rules and guidelines are finalized.

USDA’s research program plays an important role in the government’s efforts to

understand climate change. The budget for USDA’s participation in the US Global

Change Research Program (USGCRP) and Climate Change Research Initiative

(CCRI) has increased in each of the last 2 years. The USDA fiscal year 2003 budget

for CCRI and USGCRP combined is $63 million, up from $57 million in fiscal year

2002. In fiscal year 2004, USDA is requesting an additional $7.1 million for the

President’s CCRI priorities. The increases requested for fiscal year 2004 fall primarily in the following areas: Improving the methods for measuring and estimating

above and below-ground carbon storage on forest and agriculture systems; Collecting

carbon flux measurement data at specific locations that can be scaled to regional

and national statistics; Developing management practices and techniques for increasing carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; Demonstration projects to facilitate the incorporation of carbon sequestration into USDA programs; Finalizing the new accounting rules and guidelines for estimating and reporting carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions from forest and agricultural activities. Finally, USDA continues to invest in research to improve our understanding of how crops, livestock, trees, pests, and other facets of ecosystems will respond, either positively or negatively, to higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We are seeking cost-effective ways to make agriculture and forests more

adaptable to any changes in climate and weather, should they occur. We are pursuing an improved understanding of the role of natural and managed ecosystems

in the global carbon cycle. We are developing technologies and practices to reduce

emissions of greenhouse gases and increase carbon sequestration. We are now harnessing the portfolio of conservation programs to build carbon back into the soil and

vegetation, integrating greenhouse gas considerations in our conservation efforts.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address this Subcommittee. I am now

available to answer your questions.

STATEMENT OF BOB STALLMAN PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

Chairman Voinovich, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bob Stallman.

I am President of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and a rice and

cattle producer from Columbus, TX. On behalf of the 5.3 million members of the

American Farm Bureau I am pleased to be speaking to you today on agriculture’s

role in sequestering carbon in our nation’s soil. Carbon is the key building block and

cornerstone element for all things living. For those of us in agriculture, we have

learned through years of research and practical experience that soil carbon is essential for optimizing the production of food and fiber in addition to the profitability

of farming and ranching. Carbon used in crop production is replenished in the soil

by crop and root residues, with less soil carbon being lost when minimum or notill regiments are implemented.

The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service estimates that 20 million metric tons

of carbon is currently sequestered each year in U.S. farm and grazing land soils.

This estimate indicates that U.S. farms and ranches are indeed a net ‘‘carbon bank’’

or sink, sequestering carbon in the soil and keeping it out of the atmosphere. Many
38

producers have made a decision on an economic basis to employ conservation tillage

practices such as minimum/no till and cover crop regimens in their farm and ranch

operations. With more producers changing individual farm management practices,

USDA and State Department personnel estimate that an additional 180 million

metric tons annually could be stored in farm and range land acres. This would account for 12 to 14 percent of the total U.S. emissions of carbon according to the

State Department.

Carbon and its role in the climate change issue has been the subject of recent debate, and will continue to be as attempts are made to attach climate change legislation to the energy bill or other legislative vehicles. We are not here today to discuss

the merits or demerits of the theory of the climate change issue. With regard to carbon sequestration, it is undeniable that agriculture can play a vital role.

In 2001, President Bush announced the development of a comprehensive strategy

to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in the United States by 18 percent by 2012. A

vital component of the strategy is to encourage increased sequestration of carbon in

forests and rangelands. In February of this year, the President announced the Climate Voluntary Innovative Sector Initiatives: Opportunities Now, or Climate VISION program. A voluntary, public-private partnership, the primary goal of the program is to pursue cost-effective initiatives that will reduce the projected growth in

America’s greenhouse gas emissions. AFBF has begun discussions with the Administration to see what role the agricultural sector could play in the Climate VISION

program.

Last month, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman announced that the USDA

would consider greenhouse gas management practices when evaluating applications

for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). America’s farm and ranch community has long supported and responded to voluntary, incentive based programs, as is evident by the waiting lists to participate in many

conservation programs such as EQIP and CRP. Time and time again, when an environmental challenge has presented itself, American agriculture has answered the

call.

I would be remiss if I did not reiterate our opposition to any mandatory measures

pertaining to climate change and carbon sequestration but rather the need to maintain a voluntary approach to agricultural sequestration. Some involved in the climate change issue have advocated a mandatory cap and trade approach for carbon

as a way to ‘‘establish’’ a carbon market and increase sequestrations and trading

participation. We strongly disagree with that approach. While a mandatory cap and

trade may increase the value of the carbon being sequestered, an analysis by Sparks

Companies, Inc., re-released, last month concludes that the increased energy costs

to the agricultural sector associated with any Kyoto-like mandatory program would

more than offset any cash value in the sequestration of carbon by farmers and

ranchers on a per-acre basis.

Like many other industries, agriculture has in the past, and will in the future,

respond if the appropriate incentive-based tools are employed. Some of the needed

tools like EQIP and CRP already exist. Other tools, like voluntary carbon trading,

are just now being developed. Private entities are currently developing and implementing voluntary pilot carbon trading systems. In one case, the Iowa Farm Bureau

and Kansas Farm Bureau are already involved with private trading entities, disseminating information to farmers and ranchers and helping to put landowners together with carbon-trading exchanges in an effort to trade carbon under free market

rules. The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the development of a practical, voluntary carbon trading system and the development of trading criteria,

standards and guidelines.

While potential for agricultural carbon sequestration in the United States exists,

many challenges remain. One area that must be addressed before increased sequestration can be realized is the development of methods and procedures to credit farmers and ranchers who have employed in the past, and continue to employ, conservation tillage practices in their operations. Other challenges include the continued development of carbon trading guidelines, the establishment of accurate crediting and

values for sequestered carbon on farm and ranch lands, and the development of

other cost effective incentives to further advance carbon sequestration in agricultural soils. None of these challenges is insurmountable and AFBF looks forward to

working with the USDA, Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection

Agency, Congress and many others within the private sector to find solutions and

move forward with this endeavor.

There is no doubt that agriculture can and will play an expanded role in sequestering carbon on America’s farmland. We strongly support President Bush’s voluntary approach to climate change issues and his call for the public and private sec-
39

tors to work together to increase the sequestration of carbon on America’s farm and

rangeland. The American Farm Bureau appreciates this opportunity to share our

views on agriculture’s role in helping solve the carbon sequestration puzzle. We look

forward to working with you.

STATEMENT OF RATTAN LAL, DIRECTOR CARBON MANAGEMENT AND SEQUESTRATION

CENTER/FAES, OARDC THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public

Works. I am Rattan Lal, Professor of Soil Science and Director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at The Ohio State University. I am especially

thankful to Senator Voinovich for the opportunity to offer testimony on ‘‘Soil Carbon

Sequestration by Agriculture and Forestry Land Uses for Mitigating Climate

Change.’’

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation of strong cooperation with several institutions and organizations across the country. During the past decade, the program at The Ohio State University (OSU) has been supported by USDA–Natural

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). We have also worked with scientists from

USDA–Agricultural Research Service (ARS). The multi-institutional team comprised

of OSU/NRCS/ARS has published 15 books, which constitute a major literature on

this topic. In addition, OSU also has on-going activities under the C-site program

with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Being a founding member of the ‘‘Consortium for Agricultural Soils Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases (CASMGS),’’ the OSU team is collaborating with faculty

from ten universities in assessing soil carbon (C) sequestration in the U.S. cropland.

The OSU/NRCS/ARS team has completed assessment of the potential of U.S. cropland, grazing lands and forestlands to sequester C. In cooperation with the Ohio

Coal Development Office, American Electric Power, and the Los Alamos National

Laboratory, we are assessing the rate of soil carbon sequestration and soil quality

improvement by reclamation of mineland sites in Ohio and New Mexico. We have

collaborated with USDA–Economic Research Service (ERS) on the topic of soil degradation and its effects on productivity and soil carbon dynamics. We are now developing a National Soil Carbon Assessment Program (NSCAP) with NRCS. The objective of NSCAP is to assess soil carbon sequestration under on-farm conditions for

principal ecoregions, major soils and dominant land uses of the U.S. It is our hope

to continue receiving funding for this important undertaking. We are working with

these partners because we share the same values and goals of ‘‘sustainable management of soil and water resources, reducing net emissions, and creating a clean environment.’’

The basis of our shared commitment is the mutual concern about the quality of

the nation’s soil and water resources and the environment. We realize how important and critical the quality of soil resources is for maintaining high economic agricultural production while moderating the quality of air and water. Soils constitute

the third largest carbon pool (2,300 Gt or billion tons), after oceanic (38,000 Gt) and

geologic (5,000 Gt) pools. The soil carbon pool is directly linked with the biotic (600

Gt) and atmospheric (770 Gt) pools. Change in soil carbon pool by 1 Gt is equivalent

to change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 0.47 ppm. Therefore, increase in

soil carbon pool by 1 Gt will reduce the rate of atmospheric enrichment of CO2 by

0.47 ppm.

The atmosphere carbon pool has progressively increased since the industrial revolution. With industrialization and expansion of agriculture, through deforestation

and plowing, came soil degradation and emission of gases into the atmosphere. Indeed, the atmospheric concentration of three important greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) has been increasing due to anthropogenic perturbations of the global carbon and nitrogen cycles. For example, the pre-industrial

concentration of CO2 at 280 parts per million (0.028 percent or 600 Gt) increased

to almost 365 ppm (0.037 percent or 770 Gt) in 1998 and is increasing at the rate

of 0.43 percent/yr or 3.2 Gt/y. The historic gaseous increase between 1850 and 1998

has occurred due to two activities: (1) fossil fuel burning and cement production

which has contributed 270 (+30) Gt of carbon as CO2, and (2) deforestation and soil

cultivation which has emitted 136 (+55) Gt. Of this, the contribution from world

soils may have been 78 (+12) Gt of which 26 (+9) Gt may be due to erosion and

related soil-degradative processes. In comparison with the global emissions, cropland soils of the United States have lost 3 to 5 Gt of carbon since conversion from

natural to agricultural ecosystems.

The projected climate change caused by increase in atmospheric concentration of

CO2 and other trace gases can be mitigated by reducing emissions and sequestering
40

emissions. Strategies for emission reductions include enhancing energy production

and use efficiency, and using biofuels. Emission sequestrations involve biotic and

abiotic options. Important biotic options include carbon sequestration in soils, vegetation and wetlands. Together, biotic sequestration in soil and vegetation is called

‘‘terrestrial sequestration.’’

Terrestrial carbon sequestration is a natural process with numerous ancillary environmental benefits. In contrast to geologic and oceanic sequestration, which may

be expensive and have unknown ecological impacts, terrestrial sequestration is the

most cost effective option. Natural carbon sinks (terrestrial and oceanic) are presently absorbing 4.7 Gt out of the total anthropogenic emissions of 8.0 Gt or about

60 percent of the total emission. It is prudent, therefore, to enhance the carbon storage capacity of natural sinks (such as soils and vegetation) through conversion to

a judicious land use and adoption of recommended management practices for soil,

water, and crop/vegetation. Agriculture has an important and positive role to play

in enhancing the capacity of natural terrestrial sinks.

Greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere when trees are cut down and

burnt, soils plowed, and wetlands are drained and cultivated. In addition, excessive

soil cultivation and inappropriate or inefficient use of nitrogenous fertilizers can result in emission of greenhouse gases from soil to the atmosphere. Finally, accelerated soil erosion can lead to a drastic reduction in soil organic carbon (SOC) content.

Although the fate of the carbon that is transported by wind and water is not well

understood, it is believed that a considerable portion of the eroded carbon may be

mineralized and emitted into the atmosphere. It is estimated that soil erosion annually emits 1 Gt of carbon globally and 0.15 Gt from soils of the United States. Although agricultural processes are presently not the main source of gaseous emissions, they have clearly been a significant source. Yet, the emissions of carbon from

soils are reversible through conversion to a restorative land use and adoption of recommended agricultural practices. These estimates of the amount of lost C, crude as

these may be, provide a reference point about the sink capacity through land use

conversion and adoption of recommended practices.

Soil organic matter (SOM), of which 58 percent is carbon, is one of our most important national resources. It consists of a mixture of plant and animal residues at

various stages of decomposition and by-products of microbial activity. The SOM is

a minor component of the soil (1–3 percent), but plays a very important role in biological productivity and ecosystem functions. Enhancing SOM concentration is important to improving soil quality, reducing risks of pollution and contamination of

natural waters, and decreasing net gaseous emissions to the atmosphere. The SOM

pool can be enhanced through: (1) restoration of degraded soils and ecosystems, and

(2) intensification of agriculture on prime soils.

Enhancing the SOM pool is an important aspect of restoration of soils degraded

by severe erosion, salinization, compaction, and mineland disturbance. Degraded

soils have been stripped of a large fraction of their original SOM pool. Globally,

there are 1216 million hectares (Mha) (3 billion acres) of degraded lands of which

305 Mha (753 million acres) are strongly and extremely degraded soils. U.S. cropland prone to moderate and severe erosion is estimated at 19.4 Mha (48 million

acres) by wind erosion and 26.2 Mha (65 million acres) by water erosion. An additional 0.3 Mha (0.7 million acres) are affected by salinization, 2.1 Mha (5.2 million

acres) of land affected by all mining, and 0.6 Mha (1.5 million acres) of land stripmined for coal is in need of restoration. Land conversion and restoration transforms

degraded lands into ecologically compatible land use systems. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is designed to convert highly erodible land from active crop

production to permanent vegetative cover for a 10-year period. In addition to erosion

control, land under CRP can sequester carbon in soil at the rate of 0.5 to 1.0 t/ha/

y (450 to 900 lbs C/acre/y). Erosion control also involves establishing conservation

buffers and filter strips. These vegetated strips, ranging from 5 to 50 m wide (16.5

to 165 ft. wide) are installed along streams as riparian buffers and on agricultural

lands to minimize soil erosion and risks of transport of non-point source pollutants

into streams. The rate of carbon accumulation in soil under conservation buffers is

similar to that of the land under CRP. The USDA has a voluntary program to develop 3.2 million km (2 million miles) of conservation buffers.

Wetlands are also an important component of the overall environment. Approximately 15 percent of the world’s wetlands occur in the United States (40 Mha or

100 million acres) of which 2 Mha (5 million acres) are in need of restoration. Natural wetlands have a potential to accumulate carbon (net of methane) at the rate

of 0.2 to 0.3 t/ha/y (180 to 270 lbs/acre/y).

Surface mining of coal in the U.S. affected 2 Mha (5 million acres) between 1978

and 2002, of which 1 Mha (2.5 million acres) have been reclaimed. The land area

affected by surface mining of coal was about 40,283 ha (100,000 acres) during 2002.
41

Restoring minelands, through leveling and using amendments for establishment of

pastures and trees, has a potential to sequester 0.5 to 1 t C/ha/y (450 to 900 lbs

C/acre/y) for 50 years. Similar potential exists in restoring salt-affected soils.

The overall potential of restoration of degraded soils in the United States is 17

to 39 million metric tons (MMT) per year for the next 50 years or until the sink

capacity is filled. Intensification of agriculture involves cultivating the best soils

using the best management practices to produce the optimum sustainable yield.

Some recommended agricultural practices, along with the potential of SOC sequestration are listed in Table 1. Conversion from plowing to no till or any other form

of a permanent conservation till has a large potential to sequester carbon and improve soil quality. There is a strong need to encourage the farming community to

adopt conservation tillage systems.

Adoption of recommended practices on 155 Mha (380 million acres) of U.S. cropland has a potential to sequester 75 to 208 MMTC/y. Grazing lands, rangeland and

pastures together, occupy 212 Mha (524 million acres) of privately owned land and

124 Mha (300 million acres) of publicly owned land.

Total soil carbon sequestration potential of U.S. grazing land is 30 to 110 MMTC/

y.

The potential of U.S. forest soils on 302 Mha (746 million acres) to sequester carbon is 49 to 186 MMTC/y.

Thus, the total potential of U.S. agricultural and forest soils (Table 2) is 171 to

546 MMTC/y or an average of 360 MMTC/y. In addition to crop residue, there are

other biosolids produced that can be composted and used on agricultural lands. The

potential of using manure and compost on agricultural lands need to be assessed.

Of the total national emission of about 1,892 MMTCE/y for 2001, agricultural practices contribute 143 MMTCE/y. Therefore the potential carbon sequestration in U.S.

soils represents 19 percent of total U.S. emissions, and 2.5 times the emissions from

agricultural activities. Thus, soil carbon sequestration alone can reduce the net U.S.

emissions from 1,892 MMTCE to 1,532 MMTCE/y.

If the full potential of soil carbon sequestration is realized, the total sink capacity

can be 609 MMTC/y (Table 3). These statistics indicate the need for a serious consideration of determining what fraction of the total potential is realizable, at what

cost and by what policy instruments. There is a widespread perception that agricultural practices cause environmental problems, especially those related to water contamination and the greenhouse effect. Our research has shown that scientific agriculture and conversion of degraded soils to a restorative land use can also be a solution to environmental issues in general and to reducing the net gaseous emissions

in particular. Thus, soil carbon sequestration has a potential to reduce the net U.S.

emissions by 360 MMTC/y. This potential is realizable through promotion of CRP,

WRP, erosion control and restoration of degraded soils, conservation tillage, growing

cover crops, improving judicious fertilizer use and precision farming, and

composting. Actions that improve soil and water quality, enhance agronomic productivity and reduce net emissions of greenhouse gases are truly a win-win situation.

It is true that soil carbon sequestration is a short-term solution to the problem of

gaseous emissions. In the long term, reducing emissions from the burning of fossil

fuels by developing alternative energy sources is the only solution. For the next 50

years, however, soil carbon sequestration is a very cost-effective option, a ‘‘bridge to

the future’’ that buys us time in which to develop those alternative energy options.

References

1. Birdsey, R. 2001. Potential carbon storage in forest soils of the U.S. Unpublished,

USDA–FS.

2. Lal, R., J. Kimble, E. Levine and B.A. Stewart (eds). 1995. Soils and Global

Change. Advances in Soil Science, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 440 pp.

3. Lal, R., J. Kimble, E. Levine and B.A. Stewart (eds). 1995. Soil Management and

Greenhouse Effect. Advances in Soil Science, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 385

pp.

4. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and B.A. Stewart (eds). 1998. Soil Processes and

the Carbon Cycle. CRC. Boca Raton, FL, 609 pp.

5. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and B.A. Stewart (eds). 1998. Management of

Carbon Sequestration in Soils. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 457 pp.

6. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett and C.V. Cole. 1998. The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester C and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI, 128 pp.

7. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble and B.A. Stewart (eds). 2000. Global Climate Change and

Pedogenic Carbonates. Lewis/CRC Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 378 pp.

8. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble and B.A. Stewart. 2000. Global Climate Change and Tropical

Ecosystems. Lewis/CRC Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 438 pp.
42

9. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble and B.A. Stewart 2000. Global Climate Change and Cold

Regions Ecosystems. CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

10. Lal, R., J.M. Kimble and R.F. Follett (eds). 2001. Assessment Methods for Soil

Carbon. CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 676 pp.

11. Follett, R.F., J.M. Kimble and R. Lal (eds). 2000. The Potential of U.S. Grazing

Lands to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 442 pp.

12. Lal, R. and J.M. Kimble. 1997. Conservation tillage for carbon sequestration.

Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 49, 243–253.

13. Lal, R., R.F. Follett, J.M. Kimble and C.V. Cole. 1999. Managing U.S. cropland

to sequester carbon in soil. J. Soil Water Conserv. 54: 374–381.

14. Lal, R. (ed) 2001. Soil Carbon Sequestration and the Greenhouse Effect. Special

Publication, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.

15. Kimble, J., R. Lal and R.F. Follett (eds) 2002. Agricultural Policies and Practices

for Carbon Sequestration in Soils. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 512pp.

16. Kimble, J., R. Birdsey, L. Heath and R. Lal (eds) 2002. The Potential of U.S.

Forest Soils to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. CRC Press,

Boca Raton, FL, 429pp.

17. Lal, R. 1999. Soil management and restoration for C sequestration to mitigate

the greenhouse effect. Prog. Env. Sci. 1: 307–326.

18. Lal, R. and J.P. Bruce. 1999. The potential of world cropland to sequester carbon

and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Env. Sci. & Policy 2: 177–185.

19. Lal, R. 2000. Carbon sequestration in drylands. Annals Arid Zone 38: 1–11.

20. Izaurralde, R.C., N.J. Rosenberg and R. Lal. 2001. Mitigation of climate change

by soil carbon sequestration. Adv. Agron. 70: 1–75.

21. Lal, R. 2001. World cropland soils as a source or sink for atmospheric carbon.

Adv. Agron. 71: 145–191.

22. Lal, R. 2000. We can control greenhouse gases and feed the world with proper

soil management. J. Soil Water Conserv. 55: 429–432.

23. Lal, R. 2001. Potential of desertification control to sequester carbon and mitigate

the greenhouse effect. Climate Change 15: 35–72.

24. USEPA 2001. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–

2001 (draft). EPA 23RR–00–001.

25. Akala, V.A. and R. Lal. 2001. Soil organic carbon pools and sequestration rates

in reclaimed minesoils in Ohio. J. Env. Qual. 30: 2098–2104.

26. Starr, G.C., R. Lal, R. Malone, L. Owens, D. Hothem and J.M. Kimble. 2000.

Modeling erosional impacts on soil carbon. Land Degrad. & Dev. 11: 83–91

27. Lal, R. 2002. The potential of soils of the tropics to sequester carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect. Adv. Agron. 74: 155–192.

28. Lal, R. 2002. Soil carbon dynamics in cropland and rangeland. Env. Pollution

116: 353–362.

29. Lal, R. 2002. Carbon sequestration in dryland ecosystems of West Asia and

North Africa. Land Degrad. & Dev. 13: 45–59.

30. Lal, R. 2002. Soil C sequestration in China through agricultural intensification

and restoration of degraded and desertified soils. Land Degrad. & Dev. 13: 469–

478.

31. Lal, R. 2003. Global potential of soil C sequestration to mitigate the greenhouse

effect. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 22: 151–184.

Table 1. Recommended practices for soil C sequestration

Practice

Potential rate

of soil carbon

sequestration

(t/ha/yr)

Conservation tillage & mulch farming .................................................................................................................... 0.1–0.5

Compost and manuring ........................................................................................................................................... 0.05–0.5

Elimination of summer fallow .................................................................................................................................. 0.05–0.4

Growing winter cover crops ...................................................................................................................................... 0.2–0.5

Integrated nutrient management/precision farming ............................................................................................... 0.1–0.4

Improved varieties and cropping systems ............................................................................................................... 0.05–0.4

Water conservation and water table management ................................................................................................. 0.05–0.3

Improved pasture management ............................................................................................................................... 0.05–0.3

Afforestation/reforestation ........................................................................................................................................ 0.08–0.4

Fertilizer use in forest soils ..................................................................................................................................... 0.8–3.0

Restoration of eroded mineland and otherwise degraded soils .............................................................................. 0.3–1

Source: Lal et al. (1998); Follett et al. (2000); Birdsey (2000)
43

Table 2. Total potential of U.S. agricultural soils for carbon sequestration.

Strategy

Potential of

soil carbon

sequestration

(MMT C/yr)

Land conversion and restoration ............................................................................................................................. 17–39

Intensification of cropland ....................................................................................................................................... 75–208

Improved management of grazing land .................................................................................................................. 30–110

Improved management of forest soils ..................................................................................................................... 49–189

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 71–546

(360)

Source: Lal et al. (1998); Follett et al. (2000); Birdsey (2000); Kimble et al. (2002)

Table 3. Potential sink capacity of terrestrial ecosystems.

Activity Sink capacity

(MMTC/yr)

Above-ground forest ................................................................................................................................................. 247

Soils .......................................................................................................................................................................... 360*

Landfill ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 609

*The soil sink potential can be realized through policy intervention, and needs to be adjusted for hidden carbon costs of input used.

Table 4. Potential of soil carbon sequestration.

State/region Potential

(MMTC/y)

Ohio .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8–12

U.S.A. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 147–546

World croplands ........................................................................................................................................................ 600–1200

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BAST, PRESIDENT, THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify here today. My testimony is

based on a joint research project by economists at The Heartland Institute, the Hudson Institute, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. Our opinions are our

own.

Carbon sequestration, the topic of this hearing, certainly appears from a distance

to be an attractive alternative to mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,

especially since many experts believe forcing utilities and other significant emitters

to reduce emissions is very costly and would produce few offsetting benefits. But

upon closer inspection, carbon sequestration faces daunting problems of its own.

I would like to call your attention to four such problems.

1. Paying farmers and livestock producers to sequester carbon would lead to

heavy-handed and potentially ruinous regulation of farms and ranches.

Farmers can indeed help store more carbon in their crops and soil, but farming

especially dairy farms and cattle ranches is also a significant source of greenhouse

gases. It is unrealistic to expect the industry would be for long exempted from the

same emission permit requirements imposed on other emitters. Soon, other regulations would be imposed on farmers in the name of fighting global warming, including limitations on production per acre for some crops, mandatory fallowing of crop

land, limits and restrictions on livestock production, and restrictions on the use of

fertilizer.

2. Endorsing sequestration may mean endorsing ‘‘cap and trade’’ programs, which

in turn means higher energy costs.

Without a government-imposed cap on greenhouse gas emissions, few emitters

would need to buy the emission permits farmers would earn by sequestering more

carbon. But a cap and trade program would have the same effect as an energy tax,

and such a tax would have to be set high the equivalent of $0.50 a gallon of gasoline

or more in order to reduce emissions enough to make a difference.
44

Higher energy prices would dramatically reduce profits in the U.S. agricultural

sector. Farmers stand to see their net profits fall by as much as 84 percent, and

typically 50 percent, if gasoline taxes are raised by 50 cents per gallon. Total annual

U.S. farm production expenses would rise over $20 billion. Since it is difficult for

farmers to pass cost increases along to consumers, a cap and trade greenhouse gas

program could cause a 48 percent decrease in net farm income.

3. Environmentalists will be disappointed, too. Even if a carbon sequestration program benefited farmers, it would do little to moderate global warming. Agricultural

soils in the U.S. today capture only one-twentieth of 1 percent of total annual greenhouse gas emissions, according to EPA, or 1 percent according to USDA. According

to EPA, agricultural greenhouse emissions are 35 times greater than the amount

being sequestered. And once saturation levels were reached, there could be no more

gains on cropland with known farming systems, meaning sequestration is not a

long-term solution.

The biggest gains in carbon storage occur when cropland is returned to forests.

Subsidizing tree planting, however, would reduce U.S. farm exports and prompt

more farm output in countries where there are no artificial constraints on farming.

This would lead to more clearing of forests in Third World countries, where deforestation is already a major problem. On a global scale, more carbon, not less, would

be released into the atmosphere.

4. Emissions trading is more problematic than its advocates admit.

The ubiquitous presence of carbon dioxide in ambient air makes it very difficult

to associate emissions with any specific source. Unlike sulfur dioxide, there are potentially hundreds of thousands or even millions of sources of carbon dioxide and

other greenhouse gases. To avoid participants ‘‘gaming the system,’’ complex and

probably unenforceable rules would be needed to determine that emission reductions

are genuine, entity-wide, and net of any increases in emissions caused by higher energy use or other emission-generating activity in some other division of a plant or

company, either concurrently or at some later time.

Existing emissions trading programs are characterized by thin markets, government over-regulation that kills innovation, changing rules that leave investors high

and dry, verification problems, and government meddling. All this uncertainly will,

and quite rightly should, discourage participation by businessmen and women. The

new Sarbanes–Oxley Act, which criminalizes even minor accounting mistakes, could

hold the chief executive officer liable if a restatement of the value of permits earned

or purchased becomes necessary.

I conclude that carbon sequestration by farmers and ranchers in the U.S. is a

false hope for those seeking to be paid to do what they would do anyway. It is a

false dream for environmentalists who see it as a major part of the solution to global

warming. And it is a poor strategy for an industry that should know better than

to join a movement composed of groups and individuals who have been among its

most strident critics.

Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to be with you today. I am happy

to answer any questions you might have.

STATEMENT OF DEBBIE A. REED, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, GLOBAL WARMING

CAMPAIGN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Debbie Reed, the Global

Warming Campaign Director and Legislative Director at the National Environmental Trust, a nonprofit organization located in Washington, DC, with an organizing presence in 15 States. The National Environmental Trust conducts public

education campaigns on important environmental issues through media education

and field outreach.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to share my expertise and that of the National Environmental Trust on what we feel is perhaps the greatest environmental

issue confronting the world today: global climate change. While climate change is

one of several important campaigns we work on at the National Environmental

Trust, it is an overarching issue which affects virtually all the areas that we are

concerned with as an organization. We commend this Committee and the Senate for

dealing with the issue, and hope that you will continue to grapple with ways to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG).

Global climate change can have a major impact on agriculture, and yet agriculture

can play a positive role in helping to combat climate change. These two areas are

of particular interest to me and my organization. Prior to joining NET in 2000, I

was the Legislative Director and Director of Agricultural Policy at the White House
45

1IPCC, (2001), ‘‘Third Assessment Report Climate Change 2001’’, The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC/WMO/UNEP. Summary for Policymakers 2Ibid.

3Ibid.

4Ibid; U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, Washington, DC, May

2002. Report at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html. 5World Meteorological Organization, WMO–No 695, Geneva, 2 July 2003.

6IPCC, (2001), ‘‘Third Assessment Report Climate Change 2001’’, The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC/WMO/UNEP. Summary for Policymakers http://www.ipcc/ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf.

Climate Change Task Force, and I previously worked for Senator J. Robert Kerrey

of Nebraska, and at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It was while I worked for

Senator Kerrey that I began working on the issue of agriculture and global climate

change. Coming from a largely rural, agricultural State, Senator Kerrey was concerned first with the impact of global climate change on agriculture, which, as a

business conduced largely outdoors, may be hardest hit by increased global temperatures, changes in precipitation, and severe weather events. He was equally concerned with strategies to deal with climate change in order to prevent the potentially devastating consequences of unmitigated global warming. Fortunately, there

is a nexus between agriculture and mitigation strategies to begin dealing with climate change.

U.S. agriculture can make important, cost-effective contributions to offset a portion of U.S. emissions of GHG in the near-and medium-term. But it is no panacea,

nor is it a solution. With the proper mix of policies and incentives, agriculture can

provide a bridge to a less fossil carbon-intensive future, while improving the sustainability and perhaps profitability of a beleaguered but nonetheless vital U.S. economic sector. Agriculture and climate change policy, approached correctly, offer

truly ‘‘win-win’’ opportunities for society and the environment.

I will limit my remarks today to the U.S. situation and domestic agricultural policies and practices, but the impacts of these policies and practices are universal. The

same process by which agricultural soils absorb carbon, leading to improved agricultural sustainability and soil fertility and reduced erosion, also helps to reverse

desertification and soil degradation in lands the world over.

Forests and forest soils are also important carbon reservoirs in the U.S. and

worldwide. Currently, deforestation, or the cutting and clearing of forests, accounts

for approximately 25 percent of global GHG emissions, and is responsible for significant environmental degradation.1 Policies to protect forest ecosystems and manage

forests for climate change benefits are extremely important, but are not the focus

of my testimony.

http://www.ipcc/ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf.

Global Warming is Occurring As the overwhelming majority of scientists internationally and in this country have concluded, global climate change is occurring,

and is linked to increased atmospheric concentrations of GHG.2 Evidence continues

to accumulate that human activities and man-made GHG are contribute to global

climate change.3 Fossil fuel combustion in the U.S. and globally accounts for the

greatest amount of GHG emissions and increasing atmospheric concentrations, but

other activities, including land use, land-use change and agriculture, also contribute.4

Just last week, on July 2, 2003, the World Meteorological Organization issued an

unprecedented alert indicating that record extremes in weather and climate events

were continuing to occur around the world, stating: ‘‘(r)ecent scientific assessments

indicate that, as the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change,

the number and intensity of extreme events might increase.’’5 The Organization documented recent extreme weather events in several countries, including the following

in the United States:

‘‘In the United States, there were 562 tornados during May, which resulted in 41

deaths. This established a record for the number of tornados in any month. The previous monthly record was 399 tornadoes in June 1992. In the eastern and southeastern part of the US, wet and cold conditions prevailed for well over a month.

Weekly negative temperature anomalies of—2 degrees Celsius to—6 degrees Celsius

were experienced in May while precipitation excesses, ranging from 50 mm to 350

mm over a period of more than 12 weeks starting in March 2003, have been recorded.’’

To prevent dangerous consequences from climate change, the U.S. and other countries must reduce our reliance on the burning of fossil energy sources.6 Mandatory

policies to reduce GHG emissions are needed to command the resources and ingenuity necessary to convert to a less fossil-carbon-intensive future, and in a time-
46

7 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn2/

gpoc.htm). 8International Food and Policy Research Institute, 2020 VISION: ‘‘Global warming changes

the forecast for agriculture,’’ April 2001. (http://www.ifpri.org/2020/newslet/nv—0401/nv—0401—

Global—Warming.htm) 9 Rosenzweig, C., A. Iglesias, X.B. Yang, P.R. Epstein, and E. Chivian, ‘‘Climate Change and

U.S. Agriculture: The Impacts of Warming and Extreme Weather Events on Productivity, Plant

Disease, and Pests;’’ Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School,

May 2000. 10 U.S. Department of State, U.S. Climate Action Report 2002, Washington, DC, May 2002.

Report at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/car/index.html 11Ibid.

frame that prevents potentially devastating consequences for our society and others.

Such policies, once enacted, will take time to implement. But until the U.S. begins

to approach global climate change with credible policies that reduce net GHG emissions, we should pursue with vigor strategies such as agricultural sequestration to

help offset as much of our emissions as possible.

Global Warming is a Threat to Agriculture

U.S. agricultural is a major industry. Farming contributed $80.6 billion (0.8 percent) to the national gross domestic product (GDP) in 2001.7 The U.S. agricultural

sector provides the safest, most abundant and economical food and fiber supply in

the world, and is the engine behind U.S. growth and prosperity, literally fueling our

ability to prosper. However, farmers and many rural communities operate on the

financial edge, within narrow profit margins and under variable environmental conditions. The threat of global warming and potentially severe weather events jeopardize the very livelihood of farmers and rural communities, as well as the ability

of agriculture to continue to fuel U.S. prosperity. The potential impact of global climate change on agriculture should not and cannot be ignored.

Some general circulation models (GCMs) predict that regional temperatures and

moisture shifts caused by warming trends will require adaptive changes in agriculture across the country.8 However, predictions for reduced crop yields, increased

flooding, droughts, pests and diseases also raise the possibility that U.S. agricultural production will be harmed.9 U.S. farmers are a resilient, market-savvy group,

keeping up with futures markets and trade boards, reacting as necessary to optimize profits and remain viable. However, catastrophic storm events can overwhelm

a farmer’s resilience and ability to adapt, as can changes in moisture that can devastate harvests, forage, and livestock production. Warmer climates also favor the

proliferation of insect pests and crop and livestock diseases. Potential severe weather events, such as flooding or drought, can overwhelm not just individual farmers,

but entire communities and regions. The agricultural sector and rural communities

alike thus have vested interests in addressing the threat of climate change.

Agriculture and Forestry as a Source and Sink of GHG Emissions

Agriculture and forestry currently represent a ‘‘net sink’’ in the U.S., and helped

to offset just over 7 percent of U.S. emissions in 1999. The enactment of policies

to promote more widespread adoption of proven management practices to enhance

this sink effect can boost this potential above current ‘‘business as usual’’ levels. Agricultural soils were but 0.6 percent of the total net sink, for instance, but scientists

estimate the soils have the capacity to offset up to 10 percent of U.S. emissions.

Total U.S. emissions in 1999 were 1840 million metric tons of carbon equivalents

(MMTCE).10 The agricultural and forestry sectors contributed roughly 134 MMTCE,

or 7 percent of total U.S. emissions, but also reduced emissions by 270 MMTCE,

or nearly 15 percent of total U.S. 1999 GHG emissions. Thus, agriculture and forestry accounted for a net reduction of 137 MMTCE, or just over 7 percent of total

U.S. emissions in 1999.

Approximately 91 percent of the ‘‘net sink’’ effect of agriculture and forestry (or

approximately 125 of the 137 MMTCE) was due to forest sequestration, including

trees, forest soils, and harvested wood. Agricultural soils accounted for 8 percent of

the 137 MMTCE net sink, or 11 MMTCE.11 For both agricultural soils and forests,

this represents the net sink effect under current, ‘‘business as usual’’ conditions.

Agriculture as a source of GHG Emissions

Agriculture contributes emissions of 3 of the 6 GHG’s of concern: carbon dioxide,

methane, and nitrous oxide. For CO2, agricultural emissions are primarily from fossil fuel use, soil carbon release, and biomass burning. Methane emissions from agriculture are primarily from enteric fermentation in ruminant animals, rice cultivation, and biomass burning. For nitrous oxides, soils, fertilizers, manures and bio-
47

12Conservation Technology Information Center (WWW.ctic.purdue.edu). 13Lal, R., R.F. Follett, J.M. Kimble, 2003, pre-publication data.

mass burning contribute to releases from agriculture, with the greatest amount

coming from the use of fertilizers.

Reductions from any of these sources can help to offset U.S. emissions. Scientists

and policymakers are working on many of these areas.

For example, wind power on agricultural lands can reduce some of our reliance

on fossil fuel combustion, as can the production of renewable energy sources and

biofuels produced from agricultural materials (plant materials, animal wastes).

Changes in tillage practices and the use of cover crops can reduce on-farm fuel use

and nitrogen fertilizer applications rates. Methane from livestock and manures can

be reduced through improved diets and changes in manure treatment. And soil carbon sequestration can be increased through improved management practices such

as no-till and other conservation practices, the use of shelterbelts, grass waterways,

site specific management, restoration of wetlands, and improved irrigation management, to name a few. Taken individually and together, these practices can make significant contributions toward offsetting our national emissions.

The Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC), a public-private partnership dedicated to sharing information and data on agricultural management systems, estimates that approximately 80 percent of environmental issues that result

from cropland and cropping practices can be corrected with the proper management

approaches, including integrated conservation tillage.12

Production Agriculture as a Sink

I would like to focus specifically on agricultural soils, and practices that can increase soil carbon sequestration. Changes in tillage practices can reduce fossil fuel

use; result in net sequestration of CO2 in soils as soil organic carbon, or humus (the

‘‘life bread’’ of soils); reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soils and fertilizers; improve water quality; and increase wildlife habitat. Simply put, soil carbon enhances

agricultural sustainability. Fortunately, soil carbon is a component of soil that can

be changed via management practices.

Soil scientists estimate that the potential for U.S. agricultural soils to sequester

additional carbon ranges from 98–276 MMTCE per year (average 187 MMTCE per

year) which represents fully 10 percent of U.S. annual emissions.13 However, this

capacity represents the upper potential for soils, and would only occur if all cropland

soils were immediately managed to maximize carbon uptake. If that were to occur,

the ability of these soils to absorb carbon at these levels would still fall over time,

since soils have a finite ability to absorb carbon, until a ’saturation’ level is

achieved. Rates of carbon sequestration drop as saturation levels are approached.

In other words, maximization of agricultural soil carbon sequestration could mitigate up to 10 percent of our national emissions annually, but only for a 10-to 20-

year period. But that timeframe is enough to offset some of our emissions as we

transition our economy away from the current reliance on fossil fuels, and toward

a less fossil-carbon intensive energy base. Agriculture can be a band-aid, but it

won’t prevent global climate change.

Soil Carbon: Multiple benefits to farmers and society

Agricultural and soil scientists have measured the carbon content of soils for more

than a century; USDA maintains test plots where they’ve collected and monitored

soil carbon content for well over 100 years. Carbon monitoring in soils did not begin

because of a potential link to global warming, however. The carbon content of soils

is indicative of the ‘‘health’’ of soils. Increased soil carbon content or soil carbon sequestration leads to improved soil ‘‘tilth’’ (structure), thus reducing erosion of soils

from wind and water; improved soil fertility and crop productivity; reduced runoff

of agricultural nutrients and chemicals; and improved air quality.

Soil carbon content is increased via the addition of organic matter to soils also

known as ‘‘humus.’’ Plants, via photosynthesis, remove CO2 from the air for the production of plant biomass, which over time is sequestered in the soil as soil carbon,

or humus. The carbon remains sequestered and stable in the soil as long as it is

not disturbed or tilled. Tillage or the turning over of soils leads to exposure of the

humus, and the resulting release of carbon. Thus, traditional tillage practices that

‘‘inverted’’ soils have led to the release of carbon. In this way, conversion of lands

for agricultural uses in this country historically has led to emissions of carbon dioxide. Traditional tillage practices continue to add to U.S. carbon releases, albeit at

a lower rate, since most agricultural soils that are traditionally tilled have reached

a low-point of carbon emissions, a near-equilibrium.
48

14Lal, R., J.M. Kimble, R.F. Follett, and C.V. Cole, ‘‘The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect,’’ Sleeping Bear Press, Inc., 1998. 15February 10–11, 2003 briefing on Agriculture and Climate Change, sponsored by the National Environmental Trust, the National Academy of Sciences, the Conservation Technology Information Center, the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, the

Soil Science Society of America, and the National Farmers Union; and hosted by Senators Sam

Brownback and Tom Harkin, and Congressmen Wayne Gilchrest and John Olver. 16Calculation: [(774 million gal. fuel X 6.1 tons carbon per gal. fuel)/2000 lbs/ton) x 0.907 U.S.

tons to metric tons = MMTCE].

Scientists have shown that the adoption of conservation or no-till by farmers can

reverse the historic and continued carbon loss thus helping to reduce U.S. emissions, while contributing to agricultural sustainability and ancillary environmental

benefits.14

Farmer’s Experiences with No–Till: Practice Confirms Research

Some compelling stories from farmers who have converted to conservation tillage

and no-till farming perhaps best provide a picture of the many benefits to society

and farmers of this management practice. At a February, 2003 congressional briefing on global warming and soil carbon sequestration,15 Elmon Richards of Richards

Farms in Circleville, Ohio shared his experiences with Senate and House staff.

Beginning in the 1970’s, Richards Farms began planting their 3,500 acres of corn

and soybeans without tilling the soil. By converting to ‘‘no-till,’’ they found that the

time it took to plant their fields was significantly reduced, as were fuel use, labor

and equipment costs. Through experimentation they additionally found that by

planting crop rows closer together, the crop canopy developed earlier and reduced

the use of herbicides for weed control. Despite initial reduction in yields, the Richards’ found that after 5 years of complete no-till on their croplands, yields increased

back to pre-conversion rates or even higher, due mainly to increased soil quality and

improved water infiltration and retention. Additionally, the carbon content of the

soils started to increase, leading to improved aggregate stability and higher earth

worm populations in other words, the soil began to look more like natural soils,

teaming with biological life.

Among the benefits of no-till farming documented by the Richard’s family are:

• the need for fewer, smaller tractors; • the need for fewer tractor passes over fields; • reduced fuel use; • reduced labor costs; and • more free time.

More specifically, the tractors the Richards’ used for conventional tillage consumed an average of 3–4 gallons of fuel per acre for chiseling, disking, field cultivating, planting and spraying. The smaller no-till tractors consume an average of

0.3 to 0.4 gallons of fuel per acre for planting and spraying or one-tenth the fuel

use per acre.

If we were to apply the Richards’ figures on a national scale, we can begin to appreciate the potential impacts of just one aspect of this agricultural management

change. Cropland nationwide accounts for 420 million acres, of which about 240 million are used for the major grain crops. Traditional tillage methods on these 240

million acres would use approximately 840 million gallons of fuel to till and plant.

Using the Richards’ data, fuel use would drop to 96 million gallons nationwide for

no-till planting a savings of 744 million gallons of fuel annually. Since each gallon

of fuel burned releases 6.1 pounds of carbon to the atmosphere, a reduction of 744

million gallons would reduce carbon emissions from fuel savings alone by approximately 2.1 MMTCE per year16 which does not even account for the carbon sequestered in the soil!

Gordon Gallup of Idaho, who is currently President of the Idaho Grain Grower’s

Association, offers similar evidence of the benefits of no-till. Gordon, his wife and

sons currently farm about 3,000 acres in a wheat-barley rotation on the Snake River

plateau in Southeast Idaho. The Gallup’s switched to no-till in 1985, and documented the following results:

• Tractor hours reduced from 1,400 to 120 per year;

• Water adsorption tests show the soils adsorb at a rate of 3.25 inches per hour

of rainfall, compared to the neighbor’s conventionally tilled soils, which adsorb at

0.6 inches per hour;

• ‘‘Phenomenal soil structure,’’ evidenced by rarely having to clean sediment basins (which collect eroded soil sediments) since converting to no-till;

• Higher yields (higher profit) during drought years, compared to neighbors who

conventionally till;
49

17Conservation Technology Information Center, Crop residue management data.

(WWW.ctic.purdue.edu). 18 Nishantha, F., G. Watson, C. Rice, J. Kimble, and M. Ranson, ‘‘Establishment of Benchmarks for the Measurement and Monitoring of Soil Carbon Sequestration,’’ pre-publication data.

• No significant difference in crop diseases between the Gallups’ fields and

neighboring, conventionally tilled fields; and

• Carbon content of soils has more than doubled.

Terry Davis of Roseville, Illinois also shared his experiences with congressional

staff at the February briefing. Among the benefits he emphasized, Terry documented the effect of no-till on water infiltration, run-off, and soil erosion. He found

that carbon sequestration from no-till:

• Significantly improved water infiltration and the water holding capacity of his

soils, and virtually eliminated run-off and soil loss (compared to neighboring fields

experiencing same weather impacts);

• Led to an increase in the organic content of his soils from 2.1 percent in 1980

to 3.4 percent in 1995 an increase in soil carbon content of nearly two-thirds; and

• Allowed him to cut nitrogen fertilizer applications by 50 percent, which translates into less nitrous oxide emissions and less leaching of nitrates into groundwater

(which would ultimately end up in the Gulf of Mexico).

Finally, the following data are from farmers in the Colonial Soil and Water Conservation District in nearby Virginia. Conversion to no-till planting:

• Reduced run-off by 75 percent;

• Reduced sediment loss by 98 percent;

• Reduced nitrogen fertilizer losses in run-off by 95 percent;

• Reduced phosphorus run-off by 92 percent; and

• During Hurricane Floyd in 1999 (a 500+ year storm event), the soils held up

incredibly well, showing no evidence of concentrated flows, a lack of down-stream

bank erosion, of sediment deposition, and affected vegetation.

Barriers to Adoption of Conservation Tillage

The percentage of total planted acres in the U.S. under conservation tillage rose

from 25 percent in 1989 to nearly 37 percent in 2002.17 No-till increased from 5 to

20 percent in that same period. While not all crops and soils are suited to no-till,

policies to promote conservation tillage could ensure greater adoption rates.

The Richards’, the Gallups’, Terry Davis and other agricultural producers have attested that landowners are reticent to change from conventional tillage to no-till for

a variety of reasons, including: tradition and culture; the prohibitive costs of purchasing or renting new equipment; and the need for technical assistance.

There is a 2–5 year ’risk period’ when converting from traditional to conservation

tillage, where management practices are unfamiliar, and soils need to become ‘‘reestablished’’ in the absence of tillage. Technical assistance is especially important during this period. However, some farmers are unable to weather the short-term drop

in yields during the ’risk period’ even though yields tend to rebound and in many

cases are higher under no-till, once the soil and the farmer adapt to this management change. Financial incentives may help.

Finally, it is important to ensure that policies to promote practices that optimize

carbon sequestration do not have unintended (negative) environmental impacts. Assessments of the impacts on other GHG and on wildlife should be conducted prior

to enactment.

Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification of Soil Carbon Content

Soil carbon content and changes in content can be accurately measured and monitored, and have been for many years. Farmers routinely collect soil samples to determine fertilizer application needs, and soil carbon is one of the parameters measured. Over two million such samples are collected every year, and these samples

document changes in carbon over time. Specific sampling performed at experimental

plots also shows changes in carbon content over time.

Natural variability of soils and carbon content of soils exists, even within the

same field, making it difficult to accurately assess soil carbon content over large

areas without a large number of soil samples. However, recent research has shown

that soil scientists can apply their knowledge of landforms (topography) to selectively and precisely measure carbon within fields such that the aggregate carbon

content of the soils can be reported with less than 10 percent variability.18 Such

data can then be extended to large areas with the use of computer modeling, soil

maps, and other resource information.
50

19Kimble, J.M., R. Lal, and R.F. Follett, eds, ‘‘Agricultural Practices and Policies for Carbon

Sequestration in Soil,’’ CRC Press LLC, 2002.

With additional research, rates of change in soil carbon content can be calculated

and predicted for various management practices, and remote sensing and other

methods can be used to confirm and calibrate carbon data. Models such as CENTURY are already being used to show changes in soil carbon content over time in

areas as large as the continental U.S.19 Continued work can enhance the accuracy

of the data at smaller spatial scales, to ensure accuracy at the field level for individual farmers.

Carbon Markets

Carbon markets are forming and operating in this country. The concept of emissions trading can provide financial opportunities to farmers who sequester additional carbon (i.e., above ‘‘business as usual’’) on their lands. Agriculture offers the

prospect of sequestering carbon in a low-cost, societally beneficial way for the

emerging carbon market. If carbon tons sequestered on agricultural lands are to be

traded or sold by farmers, it is important that such issues as baselines,

additionality, leakage and permanence be addressed, and that transparent accounting protocols be developed.

Conclusions

Credible policies to reduce net U.S. GHG emissions are needed to prevent the potential economic, social, and environmental consequences of unmitigated climate

change. The agricultural sector is particularly vulnerable to global climate change

and severe weather events, but with the right mix of policies and incentives to enhance its sink effect, agriculture can also help to mitigate the greenhouse effect by

reducing U.S. GHG emissions. The enhanced sink effect of agriculture can be a

‘‘win-win’’ for the sector, for farmers, for society, and the environment, but it is not

a panacea for greater action. Rather, it can be a useful and cost-effective bridge as

we transition to a less fossil carbon intensive future.

I would be happy to answer any questions you have about any portion of my testimony.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA ROSENZWEIG, GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES AT

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Agriculture and climate are mutually dependent. Their interactions involve temperature effects, water supply and demand, and fluxes of carbon through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration. Climate also affects the crop pests and

predators. Climate is important not only in terms of average conditions, but also in

regard to the frequency and intensity of extreme events, such as floods, droughts,

and heat spells.

Agricultural soils can be both a contributor to and a recipient of the effects of a

changing climate. In the past, land management has generally resulted in considerable depletion of soil organic matter and the release of carbon dioxide. Now, there

is the potential to restore soil organic carbon through improved management techniques, enhancing soil structure and fertility and helping to counter climate change.

An important caveat is that the capacity for agricultural soil carbon sequestration

is constrained by the amount of carbon lost during the conversion of natural ecosystems to agriculture, so that its effectiveness as a mitigating activity for climate

change is not unlimited.

After nearly two decades of research on potential impacts of climate change on

agriculture (see Rosenzweig and Hillel, 1998), attention is now turning to mitigation

and adaptation responses. Mitigation actions such as carbon sequestration in agricultural soils are aimed at reducing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other

greenhouse gases, thereby countering climatic change. Adaptation actions such as

changes in crop types and management practices are responses that optimize production under changing climate conditions. Research on these actions is proceeding

on parallel tracks.

Here, we analyze these response actions and suggest that it is both useful and

necessary for them to be considered jointly. A review of a combination of approaches, including field experiments, regression analyses, and modeling studies,

leads to the following conclusions regarding how a changing climate may influence

agriculture and how mitigation and adaptation responses may interact:

1) Agriculture regions will experience change over time. Effects on agricultural

production systems will be heterogeneous across the Nation and the world. Some
51

regions will experience increases in production and some declines, due to the presence of minimum and maximum thresholds for crop growth. Adaptations, such as

adjustments in planting dates, crop types, and irrigation regimes will likely be required. Geographic shifts in crop growing areas are likely to occur, with associated

changes in production systems. Some production systems will likely expand while

others contract. Although climate-influenced changes to agriculture are likely in the

coming decades, the magnitudes and rates of these changes are uncertain at the regional scale, given the range of projected temperature and precipitation changes

from global climate models and the unknown degree of manifestation of direct physiological effects of increasing CO2 on crops growing in farmers’ fields.

2) Agricultural production in developing countries is more vulnerable. Despite

general uncertainties, studies have consistently shown that overall production in the

mid-and high latitudes is likely to benefit in the near term (approximately to midcentury), while production systems in the low-latitudes are likely to decline. This

finding has implications for world food security, since most developing countries are

located in lower-latitude regions. The vulnerability of developing countries is related

to the growth of crops under current climate conditions nearer their optimum temperature limits and the potential for greater increases in water stress under a

warming climate. Developing countries also have fewer resources for development

of appropriate adaptation measures to counter negative impacts.

3) Long-term effects on agriculture are negative. If climate change effects are not

abated, agricultural production in the mid-and high-latitudes is likely to decline in

the long term (approximately by the end of 21st century). These results are consistent over a range of projected temperature, precipitation, and direct CO2 effects

tested. They are due primarily to detrimental effects of heat and water stress on

crop growth as temperatures rise. Increased climate variability under climate

change is also likely to negatively affect agriculture.

4) A changing climate will affect mitigation potential. Responses to a changing climate will contribute to determining which mitigation techniques are successful, and

at what levels, over the coming decades. Because some carbon-sequestration projects

have long durations (?40–50 years needed to accumulate carbon in agricultural soils

in temperate regions), farmers may need to consider which sequestration techniques

have the better chance to succeed under changing climatic regimes. Our research

shows that the soil carbon sequestration potential of agricultural soils is likely to

vary under changing climate conditions (Fig. 1). If changing climate is not taken

into consideration, calculations of carbon to be sequestered may be in error.

5) Mitigation and adaptation responses are synergistic. Conversely, mitigation

practices can also enhance the adaptation potential of agricultural systems. For example, carbon sequestration in agricultural soils leads to more stable soil-water dynamics, enhancing the ability of crops to withstand drought and floods, both of

which may increase under changing climate conditions. In addition, many of the

strategies proposed for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are

‘‘best practices,’’ i.e., they increase input efficiency while limiting environmental

damage. For instance, use of tree shelterbelts can help to minimize soil erosion and

stabilize soil carbon; mulches added between row crops help to conserve soil water,

reduce erosion, and sequester carbon (Fig. 2).

6) Mitigation practices may help to make the U.S. agriculture sector ‘‘carbon-neutral.’’ A combination of management techniques, from reduced or no-tillage, to modified irrigation and fertilization application, has the potential to sequester ?50 million tons of carbon yearly, approximately matching yearly greenhouse gas emissions

from the U.S. agricultural sector, estimated at ?50 million tons carbon (Fig. 3). Recall, however, the caveat that the capacity for agricultural soil carbon sequestration

is constrained by the amount of carbon previously lost during conversion to agriculture, so that its effectiveness as a mitigating activity for climate change is not

unlimited.

In conclusion, our research suggests that planning and implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures in response to the global climate change issue should

be coordinated and proceed hand-in-hand. Investments in programs and research

will be needed to assure effectiveness in both adaptation and mitigation activities

for U.S. agriculture.

Key References

CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology), 1992. Preparing U.S. Agriculture for Global Climate Change. Task Force Report No. 119, Ames, IA.

Fischer, G., Shah, M., van Velthuizen, H., and Nachtergaele, F.O., 2002. Global

Agro-ecological Assessment for Agriculture in the 21st Century. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and United Nations, Special Report 118,

Laxenburg, Austria.
52

Rosenzweig, Cynthia and Daniel Hillel. 1998. Climate Change and The Global

Harvest: Potential Effects of the Greenhouse Effect on Agriculture. Oxford University Press. New York. 324 pp.

Rosenzweig, C. and D. Hillel. 2000. Soils and global climate change: Challenges

and opportunities. Soil Science 165(1):47–56.
53
54

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. FREDERICKSON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

Chairman Voinovich, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am grateful to have the opportunity to submit a statement on behalf

of the National Farmers Union 300,000 independent, diversified, owner-operated

family farms and ranches from 27 States across the Nation. We commend your efforts today to discuss the complex issues surrounding agriculture production, carbon

sequestration and climate change.

What we do know is that farmland, rangeland, and forests will play an important

role in meeting the challenge of climate change through carbon sequestration and

renewable bioenergy. Farmers Union members historically have been very interested in, and our stated policy has specifically called for, increased funding for carbon sequestration and bioenergy research, development, and deployment.

We encourage you to significantly expand efforts to conduct a comprehensive scientific inventory of carbon stored in U.S. soils and to develop methods to predict

how soil carbon levels would be affected by different practices and policies. For example, over the past few years the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

has invested over $3 million in projects to demonstrate and test various means of

reducing greenhouse (methane) gas emissions in agriculture, such as compost based

waste-handling facilities, rotational grazing systems, and improved feed and forage

systems. We suggest that this effort could be expanded and made more comprehensive.

Our farmers and ranchers also see opportunities for increased income and increased environmental benefits in projects that will expand efforts aimed at broadening the use of biomass to produce power, fuels, and chemicals. In the late 1990’s

we saw funding for this specific research at a level of $251 million; $105 million for

USDA and $146 million for the Department of Energy. We encourage you to keep

a close eye on the level of basic research funding that will provide the necessary

data and information that will hopefully make carbon sequestration and biomass energy and fuels programs a reality for farmers and ranchers.
55

Our members are agricultural producers, both row croppers and ranchers, and

they participate in all of USDA agricultural, rangeland, grassland and forestry conservation programs, in one way or another. Our members also hope to participate

in climate change studies and pilot projects, especially if these studies and projects

benefit the future of America’s family sized farms and ranchers.

Our members are anxious to learn from experiences with farming methods that

promote soil carbon sequestration and improve soil quality and agricultural sustainability, as these practices can identify additional benefits beyond carbon sequestration. We have as well supported greater emphasis on improved farm management

techniques, because we believe that teaching farmers to be the best possible stewards of their resources is a better long-term approach to sustainability than simple

land retirement.

It is said that the feed-grain crops and soils most prevalent in the areas farmed

by our membership are among the highest in potential carbon sequestration, especially in our row crop farming States. We will be glad to see the results of a National Soil Carbon Inventory that might verify this claim, so that our farmers and

ranchers can better understand and realize the potential benefits they are producing

for climate change efforts, especially now that it is grasped that they might be considered active participants in a global climate change carbon sequestration program.

Our farmers and ranchers want to contribute to and participate in programs that

produce potential environmental and biomass energy benefits for our country.

Our membership is also very interested in any studies that will help us better

understand the potential future consequences of global climate change as it affects

the various farming regions of the United States. We have seen that climate

changes brought about by the El Nino and La Nina events in the past few years

have affected the U.S. farming regions in different ways. We hope to better understand these phenomena so that out family farmers and ranchers can plan for the

future, and so that policymakers can make voluntary climate change and agricultural policy more effective for our producers.

However, if there are costs associated with climate change and carbon sequestration policy approaches that result in an undue burden borne by the family farm and

ranch, we will ask that Congress actively seek an appropriate mechanism that will

provide incentives for the cash-strapped family owned farm and ranch to participate

fully in these initiatives.

We as well look forward to the further development of legislative initiatives that

have already been offered (that we are aware of) in this Congress such as Senator

Carper’s Clean Air Planning Act of 2003 (S. 843); Senator Lieberman’s Climate

Stewardship Act of 2003 (S. 139); and Senator Jeffords’ Clean Power Act of 2003

(S. 366). We think the voluntary programs that have been described in these types

of legislative vehicles could be valuable in pushing forward initiatives that could create useful opportunities for farmers and ranchers.

Thank you for the chance to offer our comments today and we look forward to

working with you and your staff’s on these important issues.

INTEGRATING CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ACCOUNTING

RULES AND GUIDELINES FOR TERRESTRIAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION: A WHITE

PAPER OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES

Introduction

This paper is intended to serve as a guide to the International Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) member agencies, as well as the conservation community in general, in developing and articulating positions relative to pending and

future policies and legislation pertaining to carbon sequestration. Specifically, this

paper will deal with the issue of accounting rules and guidelines that are to be developed for terrestrial carbon sequestration, and how conservation principles can

and should be integrated into those rules and guidelines. We will offer the view that

carbon sequestration is, in essence, a conservation issue, with tremendous potential

to not only offset the emissions of greenhouse gases through the storage of carbon,

but also to restore the ecological functions of terrestrial ecosystems and their capacity to store carbon.

Much in the same way that Farm Bill conservation programs have had a tremendous impact on the Nation s wildlife and fish habitats since 1986, carbon sequestration programs are likely to be as influential, if not more so, on the landscapes of

tomorrow. Therefore, the conservation community must devote the same level of attention to the development of these new programs as we have to the Farm Bill conservation programs that we are already familiar with. Considering that land in the

United States is a finite resource, which is being subjected to increasing pressure
56

to provide a variety of societal needs, it is essential that carbon sequestration initiatives accomplish as many additional environmental purposes as possible. It will be

a poor bargain for society if efforts to offset greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration result in a diminishing of other natural resources for which society

would have to pay separately and additionally to correct.

Background

Carbon sequestration can be defined as the capture and secure storage of carbon

that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere. As the Department

of Energy s third approach (in addition to increased fuel efficiency, and alternative

technologies) in managing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, carbon

sequestration is believed to have immediate potential to reduce greenhouse gases in

ways and at a cost that is both economically feasible and environmentally acceptable. The Department of Energy in its ‘‘Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap’’

has identified two goals for carbon sequestration, one of which is to demonstrate environmental acceptability. However, some in the environmental community have expressed ideological resistance to carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas management tool, primarily due to its being seen as solely an emissions-offset issue, and

a way around other strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as increased efficiency of automobiles, or the use of alternative technologies to produce

energy.

In addition to the release of atmospheric carbon through the emissions of fossil

fuels, another major cause of the loss of stored carbon, as much as 50 percent over

the last 50–70 years, has been the wide-scale alterations in the landscape through

de-forestation and conversion to agriculture, urbanization, and other activities. According to USDA (2002), ‘‘The dominant drivers in terrestrial carbon emissions have

been the conversion of forest and grassland to crop and pastureland, and the concomitant depletion of soil carbon from conventional agricultural management practices.’’ This has resulted in increased carbon emissions to the atmosphere and reduced capacity of the terrestrial ecosystem to capture and store atmospheric carbon.

On February 14, 2002, President Bush announced his Administration s Global

Climate Change Initiative, which is aimed at reducing the growth of GHG emissions

in the U.S. while sustaining economic growth. The President established a target

of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. Economy (a measure of the

ratio of GHG emissions to Gross Domestic Product) by 18 percent over the next 10

years. As part of the Global Climate Change Initiative, a range of new and expanded domestic energy policies will be implemented, including carbon sequestration. To accomplish this aspect of the initiative, President Bush ‘‘directed the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations on further, targeted incentives for

forest and agricultural sequestration of greenhouse gases. The President further directed the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, to develop accounting rules and guidelines

for crediting sequestration projects, taking into account emerging domestic and

international approaches.’’

Through terrestrial carbon sequestration, the Department of Energy has established ‘‘regional improvements in ecosystem stability, biodiversity and water quality’’ as expected outcomes of the ancillary or collateral benefits of terrestrial carbon

sequestration. In other words, conservation benefits are seen only as a potential byproduct of terrestrial carbon sequestration. However, there is also potential and the

need to create a paradigm whereby terrestrial carbon sequestration is seen as an

ecosystem restoration tool, providing both carbon storage benefits and ecosystem

restoration benefits. Without this new paradigm becoming an integral component in

the development of carbon storage programs, the potential for programs with harmful impacts to natural ecosystems and their health will increase.

Conservation Issues

As the development of accounting rules and guidelines moves forward, there are

a number of issues that the conservation community should be prepared to address.

The resolution of these issues will greatly influence whether carbon sequestration

will be viewed as an environmental asset or an environmental liability. To strengthen carbon sequestration s potential as an environmental asset, public agencies with

fish and wildlife population management responsibilities must be brought into the

decisionmaking process.

• Terrestrial carbon sequestration, as the third approach in managing greenhouse gas emissions, will become a conservation catalyst, much the same way that

farm policies and other major land use policies have been catalysts for large-scale

habitat change in the past. This force for change has both positive and/or negative

potential impacts on ecosystems and their habitats.
57

• Terrestrial carbon sequestration will introduce an economic variable into land

use and land management decisions that will likely be unprecedented in scope, and

unknown in effect. In essence, carbon sequestration programs will affix an economic

value onto an ecological function, a value which heretofore has never been part of

the equation in making land use or land management decisions.

• Without appropriate guidelines and restrictions and/or incentives, economic

forces of carbon sequestration could negatively influence the ability to restore native

habitats and ecosystem integrity. Non-native species may be shown to possess greater carbon storage capability than native species, thus creating an economic market

force that will provide cheaper carbon storage methods, but yield no ecological benefits, or perhaps even cause further degradation of ecosystems.

• Within the environmental community, a number of organizations harbor an

ideological resistance to carbon sequestration programs, seeing these programs as

ways to avoid other alternatives for reducing greenhouse gases. Without incorporating conservation principles into the development of guidelines and accounting

rules, ideological resistance to carbon sequestration programs is likely to become

stronger and broader among many mainstream conservation organizations, especially if carbon programs result in adverse impacts to floral and faunal communities.

The Farm Bill and Carbon Sequestration

The President s Global Climate Change Initiative has identified the Farm Bill and

its conservation provisions as a primary vehicle for accomplishing significant carbon

sequestration benefits in the next 10 years. In his fiscal year 2003 budget, President

Bush requested a $1 billion increase in Farm Bill funding ‘‘as part of a 10-year

(2002–20 11) commitment to implement and improve the conservation title of the

Farm Bill, which will significantly enhance the natural storage of carbon.’’ Activities

and program objectives pertaining to carbon sequestration are identified in three titles of the 2002 Farm Bill:

• Title 2, Conservation. Sec. 1240H. Conservation Innovation Grants ‘‘implement

projects, such as’’. . . . ‘‘(B) innovative conservation practices, including the storing

of carbon in the soil’’

• Title 8, Forestry. Sec. 4. Forest Land Enhancement Program Program Objective #4 is ‘‘Increasing and enhancing carbon sequestration opportunities.’’

• Title 9, Energy. Sec. 9009. Cooperative Research and Extension Projects Purposes:

• Developing data addressing carbon losses and gains in soils and plants (including trees) and the exchange of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture;

• Understanding how agricultural and forestry practices affect the sequestration of carbon in soils and plants (including trees);

• Evaluating the linkage between Federal conservation programs and carbon

sequestration;

• Developing methods, including remote sensing, to measure the exchange of

carbon and other greenhouse gases sequestered, and to evaluate leakage,

performance, and permanence issues.

It is clear that the Farm Bill will be of emerging importance as a vehicle for delivering a significant portion of the Nation s carbon sequestration efforts. Coupled with

the Secretary of Agriculture s responsibilities ‘‘to provide recommendations on further, targeted incentives for forest and agricultural sequestration of greenhouse

gases’’ and ‘‘to develop accounting rules and guidelines for crediting sequestration

projects’’, conservation organizations must be prepared to become engaged in this

process to ensure that sound conservation policies are considered and incorporated

into carbon sequestration program development.

Operating Principles to Guide the Development of Accounting Rules and Guidelines

The following principles are offered as guiding principles for IAFWA and its member organizations in developing positions and recommendations relative to carbon

sequestration accounting rules and guidelines.

• Adopt a Conservation-based Vision of Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration

• The vision should recognize that carbon sequestration is a conservation issue

in a fundamental sense, and not just in an ancillary or collateral sense.

• The vision should be eco-regionally based (temperate forests, forested wetlands, prairies, grasslands, etc.), recognizing that different ecosystems have

inherently different carbon storage mechanisms and capabilities, and carbon

sequestration activities should be tailored to those capabilities while recognizing the priority fish and wildlife habitat needs unique to each eco-region.

• Apply the Principle of Concurrent Restoration to determinations.
58

• The Principle of Concurrent Restoration seeks to restore the natural ecological capability of the terrestrial ecosystem to store carbon by promoting policies and guidelines that will restore that ecosystem in an environmentally

sustainable way. Carbon sequestration activities should not diminish other

natural resources, including fish and wildlife.

Principle of Concurrent Restoration: Whereas the process of terrestrial carbon sequestration involves the restoration of a degraded ecological function, the restoration

of that function should not come at the expense of other ecological functions and values and should in fact produce concurrent restoration benefits. • Identify fish and wildlife as public resources that are managed by States for

the benefit of present and future generations. • These public resources make significant contributions to the Nation s economy through fish and wildlife-related recreation, with 82 million participants

spending over $100 billion in 2001. Because terrestrial carbon sequestration

has the potential to alter the current landscape and habitats that fish and

wildlife depend on, States occupy an important and unique role as a stakeholder in the development of these programs. Rules and guidelines that assign value to land use and that may result in large-scale conversions of habitat require consultation with State fish and wildlife agencies.

USDA Accounting Rules and Guidelines

As the USDA moves through its process of developing accounting rules and guidelines, as directed by the President, there are a number of issues and questions concerning their development that should be addressed relative to the Principle of Concurrent Restoration for terrestrial carbon sequestration. Therefore, we offer the following conservation principles that should be considered in evaluating and developing recommendations relative to Accounting Rules and Guidelines:

• Qualifying activities for terrestrial carbon sequestration should provide benefits to both carbon sequestration and ecological restoration. Under Section 1605(b)

of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Department of Energy developed a Voluntary

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, including voluntary reporting of carbon sequestration projects. Within this program, a number of forestry and agricultural activities are listed with potential carbon sequestration benefits. Some activities, such

as afforestation of agricultural lands, have the potential to provide ecological benefits if conducted with an ecological restoration objective. Likewise, such activities

could also adversely impact wildlife habitat if, for instance, exotic species were used

or a monoculture plantation forest were established. The Department of Energy also

recognizes that prairie and grassland ecosystems hold great promise to provide carbon storage benefits, though less work has been conducted in these systems compared to forested systems. Therefore, carbon sequestration programs designed for

prairie and grassland ecosystems should be carefully constructed to maintain and/

or enhance the ecological integrity of the system while providing carbon storage benefits.

• Qualifying activities should be eco-regionally based, to ensure compatibility

of carbon sequestration practice(s) with the climate and soil characteristics

of the area. Incentives should be established to promote and encourage carbon sequestration projects that include an ecological restoration component.

• Qualifying activities should require or provide incentives to use native species rather than exotic or invasive species in carbon sequestration projects.

• Qualifying activities should require or provide incentives for carbon sequestration projects to promote diverse landscapes utilizing endemic species as

opposed to exotic or monoculture systems (except in cases where restoring

natural forests favor monoculture systems, e.g., longleaf pine ecosystems).

These incentives should be developed for both forested and prairie ecosystems.

• Qualifying activities should encourage and promote the development of carbon sequestration projects utilizing natural vegetation systems, as opposed

to ‘‘enhanced’’ vegetation.

• Qualifying activities for primary and secondary existing forests should include provisions that allow and encourage thinning and other forest stand

improvement practices, when needed, to reduce excessive stocking levels.

This will result in benefits to many wildlife species, with the added benefit

of increased timber quality at the end of the rotation.

• Careful consideration must be given to the integration of carbon sequestration benefits and credits into existing Farm Bill conservation programs such

as the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program.

Likewise, new Farm Bill conservation programs, such as the Conservation

Security Program and Grassland Reserve Program have the potential to sig-
59

nificantly influence conservation on private lands, and provide further carbon sequestration benefits. If carbon sequestration benefits are included as

part of the ranking process for these programs, they should not detract from

other intended conservation benefits to wildlife habitat, soil conservation,

and water quality, and in fact should be structured to enhance these benefits. If carbon sequestration credits are to be allowed within these publicly

financed programs, then practices should be required to provide concurrent

environmental benefits.

• Addressing the issues of additionality, leakage, permanence, and verification

• To ensure that carbon sequestration programs result in a net gain of stored

carbon within an environmentally sustainable context, the issues of

additionality (carbon storage benefits accrued in addition to what would

occur in the absence of a carbon project), leakage (migration of carbon emitting activities such as logging or land clearing to other areas outside the

project area, effectively offsetting carbon sequestration benefits), permanence

(duration of carbon storage methods), and verification (methods for measuring and verifying carbon sequestration benefits) should be addressed with

careful consideration of their ecological impacts.

• Addressing the issue of scale

• Scale refers to the land area that will be used to determine baseline carbon

storage capacity (no carbon offset programs in place), and also to evaluate

additionality and leakage as carbon programs are established. The scale for

carbon sequestration programs should be of sufficient size to enable effective

monitoring of additionality and leakage. At a minimum, carbon programs

should be accounted for and reported at the county level. This would allow

for State and region-wide summaries with minimal effort. However, consideration for an ecological scale is also warranted, which will require more sophisticated measurements and analyses. Therefore, carbon projects should be

geospatially referenced, to allow for GIS analyses utilizing remote sensing

data and other technologies.

• Development of demonstration and research projects

• In the energy title (Title IX) of the 2002 Farm Bill, emphasis is placed on

developing demonstration and cooperative research projects to further the

understanding of carbon sequestration on the carbon cycle, increase the understanding of how agricultural and forestry practices affect the sequestration of carbon in soils and plants, develop cost-effective means of measuring

and monitoring changes in carbon pools in soils and plants, evaluate the

linkage between Federal conservation programs and carbon sequestration,

and to establish benchmark standards for future carbon programs. However,

none of these objectives will lead to an evaluation of environmental acceptance of carbon storage methods, or whether concurrent restoration benefits

will result. Therefore, In addition to these objectives, demonstration projects

should assess concurrent restoration benefits and the environmental acceptability of carbon sequestration methods. Demonstration projects should also

promote additionality, and not result in the conversion of native grasslands

to forests or other non-native systems.

• Monitoring and evaluation should address not only the carbon response, but

also the ecological response.

• A monitoring and evaluation component for a carbon sequestration program

should be able to evaluate the following: 1) Sequestration estimates and

measurement; 2) Baseline development; 3) Leakage assessment; 4) Permanence; 5) Ecological benefits, including habitat restoration, water quality,

flood storage, etc.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES

444 NORTH CAPITOL STREET, NW,

Suite 544, Washington, DC 20001, February 28, 2003

Mr. WILLIAM HOHENSTEIN

Global Change Program Office

United States Department of Agriculture

Room 12-A, J.L. Whitten Building

1400 Independence Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20250–3814

DEAR MR. HOHENSTEIN: The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

(Association) appreciates the opportunity provided by the United States Department

of Agriculture (USDA) to comment on the development of revisions to the agri-
60

culture and forestry sections of the Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

and accounting rules and guidelines for crediting carbon sequestration projects in

agriculture and forestry.

The Association represents all 50 State fish and wildlife agencies and their interest in the professional management of the Nation s fish and wildlife resources.

Along with fish and wildlife agencies from Canada and Mexico and many non-governmental conservation organizations that are contributing members, the Association develops, supports and defends legislation, rules and policies which safeguard

and improve the well-being of North America s fish and wildlife resources.

Much in the same way that Farm Bill conservation programs have had a tremendous impact on the Nation s wildlife and fish habitats since 1986, carbon sequestration programs are likely to be as influential, if not more so, on the landscapes of

tomorrow. Considering that land in the United States is a finite resource, which is

being subjected to increasing pressure to provide a variety of societal needs, it is

essential that carbon sequestration initiatives accomplish as many additional environmental purposes as possible. It will be a poor bargain for society if efforts to offset greenhouse gases through carbon sequestration result in a diminishing of other

natural resources for which society would have to pay separately and additionally

to correct.

The Association believes that carbon sequestration is, in essence, a conservation

issue, with tremendous potential to not only offset the emissions of greenhouse

gases through the storage of carbon, but also to restore the ecological functions of

terrestrial ecosystems and their capacity to store carbon. Rather than viewing terrestrial carbon sequestration activities as simply a carbon storage mechanism that

may have some ancillary or collateral conservation benefits that occur by chance,

we believe carbon sequestration activities should be viewed as an ecosystem restoration tool, with the express purpose of providing both carbon storage benefits and

ecosystem restoration benefits. Rules and guidelines developed for greenhouse gas

reporting and sequestration accounting should make clear the expectation that

qualifying activities will provide benefits to both carbon sequestration and ecological

restoration and protection. The Association offers the following operating principles

to guide development of accounting rules and guidelines by USDA and the Department of Energy (DOE): • Adopt a conservation-based vision of terrestrial carbon sequestration. The vision

should recognize that carbon sequestration is a conservation issue in a fundamental

sense, and not just in an ancillary or collateral sense. The vision should be eco-regionally based (temperate forests, forested wetlands, prairies, grasslands, etc.), recognizing that different ecosystems have inherently different carbon storage mechanisms and capabilities, and carbon sequestration activities should be tailored to

those capabilities. • Apply the Principle of Concurrent Restoration to determinations. The Principle

of Concurrent Restoration seeks to restore the natural ecological capability of the

terrestrial ecosystem to store carbon by promoting policies and guidelines that will

restore that ecosystem in an environmentally sustainable way. Carbon sequestration

activities should not diminish other natural resources, including fish and wildlife.

Principle of Concurrent Restoration: Whereas the process of terrestrial carbon sequestration involves the restoration of a degraded ecological function, the restoration of that function should not come at the expense of other ecological functions

and values and should in fact produce concurrent restoration benefits.

• Fish and wildlife are public resources that are managed by States for the benefit of present and future generations. The economic benefits generated by the Nation s fish and wildlife resources are enormous, with 82 million U.S. residents 16

years old and older participating in fish and wildlife associated recreation and

spending over $100 billion in 2001. Because terrestrial carbon sequestration has the

potential to alter the current landscape and habitats that fish and wildlife depend

on, States occupy an important and unique role as a stakeholder in the development

of these programs. Rules and guidelines that assign value to land use and that may

result in large-scale conversions of habitat require consultation with State fish and

wildlife agencies.

Without incorporating these operating principles into the development of guidelines and accounting rules, ideological resistance to carbon sequestration programs

is likely to become stronger and broader among many mainstream conservation organizations, especially if carbon programs result in adverse impacts to floral and

faunal communities.

As the USDA and DOE move through the process of developing accounting rules

and guidelines, there are a number of issues and questions concerning their development that we believe must be addressed relative to the Principle of Concurrent Restoration for terrestrial carbon sequestration:
61

• Qualifying activities for terrestrial carbon sequestration should provide benefits

to both carbon sequestration and ecological restoration. Under DOE’s Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program, a number of forestry and agricultural activities are listed with potential carbon sequestration benefits. Some activities, such as

afforestation of agricultural lands, have the potential to provide ecological benefits

if conducted with an ecological restoration objective. Likewise, such activities could

also adversely impact wildlife habitat if, for instance, exotic species were used or

a monoculture plantation forest were established. DOE also recognizes that prairie

and grassland ecosystems hold great promise to provide carbon storage benefits,

though less work has been conducted in these systems compared to forested systems. Therefore, carbon sequestration programs designed for prairie and grassland

ecosystems should be carefully constructed to maintain and/or enhance the ecological integrity of the system while providing carbon storage benefits. • Qualifying activities should be eco-regionally based, to ensure compatibility

of carbon sequestration practice(s) with the climate and soil characteristics

of the area. Incentives should be established to promote and encourage carbon sequestration projects that include an ecological restoration component. • Qualifying activities should require or provide incentives to use native species rather than exotic or invasive species in carbon sequestration projects. • Qualifying activities should require or provide incentives for carbon sequestration projects to promote diverse landscapes utilizing endemic species as

opposed to exotic or monoculture systems (except in cases where restoring

natural forests favor monoculture systems, e.g., longleaf pine ecosystems).

These incentives should be developed for both forested and prairie ecosystems. • Qualifying activities should encourage and promote the development of carbon sequestration projects utilizing natural vegetation systems, as opposed

to ‘‘enhanced’’ vegetation. • Qualifying activities for primary and secondary existing forests should include provisions that allow and encourage thinning and other forest stand

improvement practices, when needed, to reduce excessive stocking levels.

This will result in benefits to many wildlife species, with the added benefit

of increased timber quality at the end of the rotation. • Careful consideration must be given to the integration of carbon sequestration benefits and credits into existing Farm Bill conservation programs such

as CR? and WRP. Likewise, new Farm Bill conservation programs, such as

the Conservation Security Program and Grassland Reserve Program have

the potential to significantly influence conservation on private lands, and

provide further carbon sequestration benefits. If carbon sequestration benefits are included as part of the ranking process for these programs, they

should not detract from other intended conservation benefits to wildlife habitat, soil conservation, and water quality, and in fact should be structured to

enhance these benefits. Carbon sequestration credits should be allowed within these publicly financed programs in ways that will provide concurrent restoration benefits. All carbon sequestration projects developed with government financing should be clearly identified and tracked as such to distinguish them from privately financed projects.

• How will demonstration and/or research projects be developed? In the energy

title (Title IX) of the 2002 Farm Bill, emphasis is placed on developing demonstration and cooperative research projects to further the understanding of carbon sequestration on the carbon cycle, increase the understanding of how agricultural and

forestry practices affect the sequestration of carbon in soils and plants, develop costeffective means of measuring and monitoring changes in carbon pools in soils and

plants, evaluate the linkage between Federal conservation programs and carbon sequestration, and to establish benchmark standards for future carbon programs.

However, none of these objectives will lead to an evaluation of environmental acceptance of carbon storage methods, or whether concurrent restoration benefits will

result. Therefore, in addition to these objectives, demonstration projects should assess concurrent restoration benefits and the environmental acceptability of carbon

sequestration methods. Demonstration projects should also promote additionality,

and not result in the conversion of native grasslands to forests or other non-native

systems.

• How will additionality, leakage, permanence, and verification be addressed? To

ensure that carbon sequestration programs result in a net gain of stored carbon

within an environmentally sustainable context, the issues of additionality (carbon

storage benefits accrued in addition to what would occur in the absence of a carbon

project), leakage (migration of carbon emitting activities such as logging or land

clearing to other areas outside the project area, effectively offsetting carbon seques-
62

tration benefits), permanence (duration of carbon storage methods), and verification

(methods for measuring and verifying carbon sequestration benefits) should be addressed with careful consideration of their ecological impacts. The concept of independent third party verification of emission reductions could also be applied to

verification of ecosystem restoration benefits by enlisting the State agency with resource management responsibility (e.g., the State fish and wildlife agency) to verify

project benefits, such as whether the project contributes to fish and wildlife resource

management objectives.

• How should the issue of scale be incorporated? Scale refers to the land area

that will be used to determine baseline carbon storage capacity (no carbon offset

programs in place), and also to evaluate additionality and leakage as carbon programs are established. The scale for carbon sequestration programs should be of sufficient size to enable effective monitoring of additionality and leakage. At a minimum, carbon programs should be accounted for and reported at the county level.

This would allow for State and region-wide summaries with minimal effort. However, consideration for an ecological scale is also warranted, which will require more

sophisticated measurements and analyses. Therefore, carbon projects should be

geospatially referenced, to allow for GIS analyses utilizing remote sensing data and

other technologies.

• T3Monitoring and evaluation should address not only the carbon response, but

also the ecological response. A monitoring and evaluation component for a carbon

sequestration program should be able to evaluate the following: 1) Sequestration estimates and measurement; 2) Baseline development; 3) Leakage assessment; 4) Permanence; 5) Ecological benefits, including habitat restoration, water quality, flood

storage, etc.

The Association commends USDA and DOE for soliciting input from stakeholders

on revisions to the Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and the accounting rules and guidelines for carbon sequestration projects through public workshops

and the opportunity to submit written comments. The Association looks forward to

working with USDA and DOE as the process moves forward to insure that conservation benefits become an integral part of the reporting and accounting rules and

guidelines.

Sincerely,

JOHN G. BAUGHMAN,

Executive Vice President,

National Farmers Union.

Æ