The Carbon Credits Senate Bill -- Pro and Con

 #336: It's Bi-Partisan and Likely To Pass

......................

Below, in a nutshell, are the best arguments for and against the Senate's Growing Climate Solutions Act (S. 1251).

A quick description: The US Department of Agriculture would provide farmers with information on how to tap into the carbon credit market, and with suggestions on how their farm might sequester carbon (employing no-till, using cover-crops, planting trees, etc).  This would be coupled with the USDA certifying third-party evaluators who would determine how much carbon a farmer is sequestering.  Meanwhile, companies wanting to claim that they're carbon-neutral would pay farmers for returning it to the ground. 

For: 

1. Just getting the farm industry on board the climate train, and having them benefit from tackling the problem, is almost enough in itself.  The resistance to addressing Climate Change is of course found disproportionately in rural areas.

2. It's a first step.  A Carbon Credit market will emerge with or without government involvement, so whether corporate farms will benefit more than the little guy is another matter.  This also applies to whether communities of color and poorer neighborhoods bear the brunt of existing pollution: carbon credits will happen regardless.  

3. The perfect should never be the enemy of the good.  For example, the cheaters who clear their forests, then store carbon in their new fields?  Expose the cheating with satellite imagery.  This could even be the trigger for tightening rules.  Remember, no corporation wants the bad publicity of bulldozed forests associated with their brand.

Against:

1.  Let's get it right from the get-go.  Why overlay yet another government program on top of a system that already rewards the biggest, corporate-owned holdings?  Monopolies in most sectors, government help limited to farms growing animal feed, declines in pollinators and other parts of the natural world; there's too much wrong to begin with.

2.  Why shouldn't farmers care enough to make capturing carbon something done without outside help?  Regenerative Farming can be highly profitable.  It takes an adventurous spirit and experimentation, but why do farmers need to be paid to do the right thing?

3.  Attack Climate Change at the source, where carbon is emitted.  Why should the poor, who often live close to industrial parks and major intersections, put up with more pollution (which usually follows carbon) any longer? 

......................

It seems to me that the 'For' arguments are stronger.  If a Climate Credit market is coming, with or without government intervention, the 'Against' arguments are reduced to #2.  Meanwhile, the 'For' arguments are all fairly convincing, especially #1.  But, there may be additional arguments to come.

Official Senate press release.

A summary for the 'For' position.

A summary for the 'Against' position.