Source: POLITICO'S MORNING AGRICULTURE, 6/11/20
  
The debate over the science and feasibility of using agricultural practices to draw more carbon into soil has been simmering for some time. The discussion is intensifying as a bipartisan cadre of senators, including Senate Agriculture ranking member Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), introduced a measure last week aimed at legitimizing carbon markets in the ag sector.

The bill is backed by industry heavyweights like the American Farm Bureau Federation, as well as a long list of food companies and other corporations interested in carbon offsets.

“It sounds good, but doing this at scale is not easy,” Janet Ranganathan, vice president for research, data and innovation at World Resources Institute, said during a webinar on the issue on Wednesday. “I do think we need to look before we leap.”

Some potential problems: One issue is how to ensure the carbon stored in soil is kept there and not tilled up during planting.

Another is properly accounting for how carbon moves through ecosystems — that is to say, could carbon be just shifting around, without making a dent in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

Throwing cold water on the idea: WRI in mid-May published a lengthy blog post questioning the potential for farmland to sequester carbon on a wide scale.

“Our view is that the practices grouped as regenerative agriculture can improve soil health and yield some valuable environmental benefits, but are unlikely to achieve large-scale emissions reductions,” the researchers wrote.

A divide on the soil carbon question: Another group of scientists issued a beefy rebuttal, arguing that WRI’s post “confuses rather than clarifies” the science and policy issues.

“We believe that the science is clear that regenerative agriculture can in fact contribute significant emission reductions and CO2 removal, as well as improve soil health,” the scientists countered.