麻豆淫院

Agriculture is a major contributor to the climate crisis. Large agribusiness corporations are pursuing a range of agricultural innovations to increase carbon sequestration in soils. However, according to a study in Environmental Science & Policy, so-called "carbon farming" proves problematic.

The benefits attributed to these "climate-smart" farming practices are based largely on estimates rather than measurements. In addition, large corporations could also use carbon farming to offset their carbon footprints without significantly changing their practices. The overall contribution of carbon farming to emissions reductions could be overestimated as a result.

Carbon farming includes measures such as agroforestry, intercropping, conservation tillage and the optimized use of fertilizers. Agribusiness companies hope that this will contribute to climate change mitigation and, at the same time, increase farmers' incomes by enabling them to generate and sell carbon credits.

However, according to researchers Sarah Hackfort (Humboldt University of Berlin) and Tobias Haas (Research Institute for Sustainability at GFZ), considerable risks and uncertainties are associated with carbon farming in practice.

A permanent solution?

There are considerable questions about the permanence of the available carbon storage solutions. "Carbon stored in the soil using these methods can be released back into the atmosphere as a result of changes in land use, climate fluctuations, or soil disturbances, which can lead to a reversal of the sequestration gains," explains Haas. The potential to sequester more carbon dioxide in the soil does exist. However, whether this storage can be sustained over longer periods remains uncertain.

According to the researchers, the sequestration of carbon in soils is subject to significant fluctuations, making it difficult to use scientifically sound, robust measuring instruments. Established agricultural companies often disguise this by using the term "measurements" where "estimates" would be more appropriate, and by promising additional benefits such as higher crop yields that may not be realizable.

Discussion distracts from the need to reduce emissions

The uncertainty over how much carbon dioxide agriculture can realistically sequester casts serious doubt on the viability of carbon markets for carbon farming. Problems already apparent in existing carbon markets could also be reproduced. Studies also call into question many of the emission reductions claimed, such as those from reforestation projects. If this also occurs with carbon farming, it would damage the credibility and legitimacy of the agricultural industry.

"In the wider debate on carbon farming large agribusiness corporations want to position themselves as part of the solution to the climate problem鈥攎uch like the petrochemical industry. However, the ideas they propagate raise false hopes and divert attention from the need to reduce emissions and bring about profound changes in the agricultural system," says Haas.

The debate on carbon farming approaches could contribute to a continuation of the existing agro-industrial model鈥攚ith negative consequences for the climate.