Read on Twitter
This critique of regenerative agriculture is much more about the issues with carbon offsets than regenerative ag itself. And that is where the problem lies.
Carbon offset markets are based on the idea that a tCO2 here = a tCO2 there. But hard to prove. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/
Carbon offset markets are based on the idea that a tCO2 here = a tCO2 there. But hard to prove. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/03/1002484/why-we-cant-count-on-carbon-sucking-farms-to-slow-climate-change/
There's a lot of problems w/ offset markets, here's just 2:
1) Some offsets are inherently hard to account for because of long timeframes or complex biological processes (e.g. ag or cookstoves). Much harder than engineered systems.
1) Some offsets are inherently hard to account for because of long timeframes or complex biological processes (e.g. ag or cookstoves). Much harder than engineered systems.
2) To maintain the idea that this tCO2 precisely offsets that tCO2 (so that emissions there don't need to be reduced) means very complex accounting and monitoring systems that cost a lot of money. And while the tick box may get checked, the uncertainties remain huge.
If we think something has some additional climate benefits and is good for its own reasons, we need to find another mechanism to support those activities. We've seen this already in cookstoves. Lots of good reasons to have cleaner cookstoves rather than burn wood.
But cookstove offsets need lot of money to "ensure" a certain # of tCO2 was offset so someone else doesn't need to reduce their emissions. It's wasteful and not at all certain. Better to support cookstove dissemination because good for health, gender, etc. w/ climate co-benefit
