Climate & Ag Research | California Climate & Agriculture Network

Report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change

April 4, 2012 by Renata Brillinger Leave a Comment

Guest Blog:

Doreen Stabinsky is a Professor of Global Environmental Politics at College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, ME. She is also a consultant and advisor on agriculture and climate change

“On a planet with sufficient food for all, a billion people go hungry. Another billion over-consume, increasing risks from chronic diseases.”

Last week, yet another high-level report on a topic of global concern was published by yet another group of eminent experts – this one on food security and climate change. The eminent experts – the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change – were assembled by a group of donor countries and the World Bank for the one-year task of producing the report and its recommendations.

High-profile attention to an issue as urgent as climate change impacts on agriculture is certainly welcome. With countries globally lagging in their attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that will prevent dangerous temperature increases and the Kyoto Protocol gasping its last breaths as industrialized countries jump ship from legal obligations to reduce their emissions, someone needs to ring alarm bells about what increased temperatures and changing precipitation patterns mean for global food supplies.

Researchers at Stanford University last year published in Science magazine findings that global yields in maize and wheat had already decreased 3.8 to 5.5% respectively due to increasing temperatures. Current projections are for average global temperature increases of between 2.5 and 5° Celsius (4.5-9° Fahrenheit) before the end of this century. The Commission warns that: “Climate change above 3°C risks overall decreases in the global food production capacity that would be profoundly destabilizing even in places where food production remains adequate locally.”

For those looking for a brief, comprehensive introduction to the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security, the report provides a well-referenced, solid and more-or-less balanced treatment. Industrial-scale, chemical-dependent agriculture (albeit disguised as “sustainable intensification”) has its place in the report, as do resource-conserving technologies and agroecological methods of production. As indicated by my opening quote, the report considers the food security challenges of both poverty and affluence. Notably, the Commission takes on the issue of food waste, writing for example that in the UK, “approximately 22% of household food and drink is wasted.”

Yet after a very thorough establishment of the problems to be addressed, the report proposes some oddly non-sequitur recommendations. The number one recommendation? Establish a “work programme” on agriculture under the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The lead on food security and climate change policy at the global level isn’t to be taken by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and its Committee on World Food Security (which aren’t even mentioned in the list of possible relevant international institutions). It’s to be handled by an obscure, hyper-politicized subsidiary body of the climate change convention.

Expert reports are not immune to global political squabbles. In fact, expert commissions are sometimes established in order to obscure the politics behind conflicts through unbiased, objective, “expert” advice. With the bizarre prioritization of its recommendations, the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change provides hints that such an end is indeed at least part of its raison d’être.

At the global political level there is an ongoing fight between rich and poor countries on taking responsibility for action to stem the global climate crisis. Rich countries and the World Bank (the donors for the work of the Commission) are keen to have a work program on agriculture under the UNFCCC. They want to establish a mechanism through which poor countries do the work of reducing greenhouse gas levels through storing carbon in their soils and rich countries are relieved of the burden of reducing their own agricultural emissions. Up to this point, poor countries are not agreeing to that mode of “burden sharing,” not least because permanent emission reductions on the part of major emitters are essential to stemming the threat of climate change and soil carbon sequestration will only ever be uncertain and temporary.

(In addition to funding the Commission, the World Bank paid for a series of meetings over the course of 2011, all of which coincidentally concluded that a UNFCCC SBSTA work program was necessary. The findings of all these “expert” meetings have been exhaustively reiterated by rich country governments in the climate negotiations on a work program.)

Putting recommendation 1 and its obscure political messages aside, the report does provide useful recommendations, though means of implementation are less clear. Some of the recommendations are even bold and novel (for international policymakers anyway), such as recommendations to reshape food access and consumption patterns and to reduce loss and waste in food systems. In recommendation number two, the Commission highlights the need to significantly raise the level of global investment in sustainable agriculture.

Undoubtedly, however, given the seriousness of the challenges ahead of us, the most important message of the report lies in its final call to action: “Without a global commitment to reducing GHG emissions from all sectors, including agriculture, no amount of agricultural adaptation will be sufficient under the destabilized climate of the future. While change will have significant costs, the cost of remaining on the current path is already enormous and growing. Given the already intolerable conditions of many livelihoods and ecosystems, and the time lag between R&D and widespread application, urgent action must be taken now.”

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, General Information

Urge Your State Lawmakers to Support Sustainable Agricultural Solutions to Climate Change

February 6, 2012 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

The California Legislature will soon take up the issue of how the state should allocate the fees generated through the implementation of the state’s climate change law, AB 32. The legislature and the governor will debate how to expend fees generated from the first auctions held this year of cap and trade allowances (aka permits to emit greenhouse gases). It is estimated that between $400 million and $1 billion will be generated in 2012. All fees must be used to address climate change and meet the objectives of the AB 32.

As we noted a couple of weeks ago, Gov. Jerry Brown included in his recent budget proposal an outline of how cap and trade generated fees may be expended, including investments in sustainable agricultural activities that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important step forward.

To raise these issues in the legislature, CalCAN and our allies sponsored SB 237, the Agriculture Climate Benefits Act. Authored by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis), the bill outlined uses of cap and trade fees to support research, technical assistance and financial incentives for agricultural practices and farming systems that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the bill did not move out of Senate committee in January and was held in suspense, essentially blocking the bill from moving forward this year.

While we had hoped to keep the bill moving, we did find support in the legislature for our proposal, and we will continue to build upon this, with your help, during what will likely be a contentious budget process to determine the fate of cap and trade fees.

You can help make the case for sustainable agricultural solutions to climate change. Write your state senator and representative and ask them to support cap and trade investments in agriculture.

The message is simple: “I’m writing to express my support for a portion of cap and trade fees to go towards research, technical assistance and financial incentives for agricultural practices and farming systems that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and assist California farmers and ranchers in coping with climate change. Sustainable and organic agriculture offer some of the best solutions to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while providing environmental and health co-benefits.”

Click here to find your State Senator and Representative’s addresses (search by zip code)

Please let us know you sent a letter. Drop us a line to: info@calclimateag.org.

Find more information on SB 237.

Filed Under: AB 32 Implementation, California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Uncategorized Tagged With: California agriculture, cap-and-trade, climate change, climate legislation, Governor Jerry Brown, SB 237

Rangeland Conservation Group Impresses with Leadership & Vision

January 26, 2012 by Renata Brillinger Leave a Comment

After attending the annual summit of the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition (CRCC) in Davis last week, I’m more impressed than ever with the group and their efforts. The long-term viability of California’s grazing lands — under siege in many ways — depends on the leadership, partnership and vision of the stakeholders in this coalition.

CRCC is a coalition of ranchers, environmentalists, land trusts, public agencies and researchers working together to preserve and enhance the ecosystems services of California’s rangeland while supporting the long-term viability of the ranching industry. The focus of the summit was on managing rangelands for multiple ecosystems services and highlighting the many public benefits rangelands provide — food provision, wildlife habitat, open space, limiting urban sprawl, watershed protection, recreation, and not least of all, carbon sequestration.

The summit also highlighted the threats to these working lands. For example, many speakers mentioned the negative impact of the defunding of the Williamson Act (a program that has provided tax incentives for farmland protection for decades) that is no longer effective in providing counter-pressure against development. A research team from UC Davis reported on rancher survey findings indicating that 42 percent of ranchers would sell some or all of their land without financial support from the Williamson Act, and 56 percent of those predicted the land would be developed for non-agricultural purposes. Jaymee Marty from The Nature Conservancy stated that their research shows the biggest threat to rangeland conversion is from intensive agriculture such as vineyards, orchards and irrigated pasture — a threat that the Williamson Act does not mitigate. This gap points to a need for better programs to protect rangeland.

This is a group not afraid to talk about climate change, both in terms of the impacts it will have and the climate benefits offered by rangelands. Many rancher members are carefully watching the carbon market in hopes that it will provide new financial incentives to keep them in business. The many scientific and political barriers to fulfilling these hopes have yet to be overcome.

To put a point on the impacts of climate change discussed at the summit, just a couple of days later a report was released called “The Impact of Climate Change on California’s Ecosystem Services.” Predictions under two climate models are both bad for ranching — warmer, drier conditions will desiccate grasslands while warmer, wetter conditions will cause intrusion of less digestible brush. Summarizing the findings for rangelands, lead author Rebecca Shaw said, “A less stable climate will reduce the ability of natural landscapes to support cattle grazing, so ranchers may have to grow or buy extra hay instead of getting it for free from nature, as they do now.”

Some of the most exciting research work in this field is coming out of the California Rangeland Watershed Laboratory at UC Davis at the Graduate Group in Ecology, both headed by Ken Tate. Several members made presentations at the summit and are closely involved with CRCC. They have a strong interest in improving their participatory research efforts by working more closely with ranchers to correlate research findings with on-the-ground experience.

One of the most interesting presentations was made by Valerie Eviner (a CalCAN science advisor) who described how difficult it is to translate scientific findings and models to real ranch conditions, and how challenging it can be for ranchers to balance competing ecosystems management and economic priorities. She acknowledged that scientists still are not able to give prescriptions to ranchers since there is so much variability in rangeland systems. She described an ambitious project they are undertaking to collect vast amounts of information and observations from ranchers in an attempt to draw connections between management strategies, geographic and climatic conditions and the resulting impacts on ecosystems indicators. CalCAN will play a supporting role in this research as it moves forward.

Keep an eye on this coalition. There is a lot to learn from their whole systems approach and collaborative multi-stakeholder structure.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: conservation, ecosystems services, ranching, rangeland

Governor’s Conference on Climate Risks Signals Need for Deeper Investment

January 2, 2012 by Jeanne Merrill 1 Comment

2011 was a year of extreme weather events in the United States: devastating floods along the Mississippi River, severe drought in the southwest, tornadoes and hurricanes with grave impacts. Making the connections between a rise in extreme weather events and climate change was the focus of Governor Jerry Brown’s December conference on Extreme Climate Risks and California’s Future, held at the Academy of Sciences in San Francisco.

Governor Jerry Brown offers opening remarks at the conference on Extreme Climate Risks and California's Future.

The impetus for the conference was a recent report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), entitled Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Rising global temperatures, the report argues, will lead to frequent and longer periods of heat waves as well as shifts in precipitation patterns that will lead to more frequent and severe floods and droughts. All of which will stress and strain our economies, leading to greater numbers of “climate refugees”, those displaced by extreme weather events, unless we act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put in place measures to adapt to a changing climate.

In our blog we’ve written extensively on the connections between rising temperatures, changing climate patterns, and the impacts on California agriculture. At a time when climate change appears to be on the political backburner, the Governor’s conference put climate change and its real life impacts on people back in the forefront.

The President of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Paul Wenger, addressed the conference attendees about the real concerns that climate change will lead to greater water scarcity in California. Farmers and ranchers will find their ability to produce food and fiber deeply challenged if adequate water supplies to produce their crops and livestock are not available.

The conference was an important step by Governor Brown to demonstrate his commitment to maintaining California’s work to address climate change and move us toward an economy that supports renewable energy and sustainable, healthy communities with good jobs. But the path forward is not always clear.

California will need to invest in making the transition towards a clean, green economy possible. We cannot avoid the worst impacts of climate change without the resources needed in our communities to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to a changing climate. That’s why CalCAN sponsored the Agriculture Climate Benefits Act, Senate Bill 237, and it’s why we will continue to make the case for AB 32 investments in our communities, now and into the future.

Filed Under: California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: AB 32, agricultural economy, California agriculture, effects of climate change, farmer, SB 237

New USDA Guide Highlights Ecosystem Credit Trading Opportunities and Challenges

December 6, 2011 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

The USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service recently released a new guide, The Natural Resources Credit Trading Reference. The reference is intended for NRCS staff, policymakers, and others interested in the potential of the marketplace to incentivize conservation and ecosystem services from agriculture.

The guide attempts to tackle the critiques of those who remain skeptical that developing a marketplace of buyers and sellers of ecosystem services will achieve greater environmental stewardship in agriculture, compared to traditional conservation programs and command and control regulation, and outlines how such markets might best be developed.

Whether you’re a convert to the powers of the marketplace to bring about greater stewardship of the environment or wary of Chicago commodity traders getting into the business of trading water, carbon and other environmental goods, as someone concerned with sustainable agriculture, it is useful to understand the pros and cons of environmental credit trading. It’s the current policy idea du jour.

How to achieve greater environmental stewardship?

For decades economists have noted the problems of externalities leading to environmental pollution. Since the benefits of clean air, water, and healthy soil aren’t factored into the price of most goods we buy there is no incentive, economists argue, for the producers of those goods – food, shoes, cars, you name it – to conduct their business in a way that protects the environment and minimizes pollution.

To make sure our rivers don’t burn as they once famously did in Ohio and our air doesn’t choke us, in the 1970s Congress passed landmark legislation – the Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Clean Air Acts – that regulated companies to prevent pollution and safeguard our environment. And those laws are largely credited with significant improvements in our environment – the rivers don’t burn anymore and air quality has improved in many areas. But we still have environmental pollution, and we’re now aware of more complex environmental problems like climate change.

How can we better address the environmental pollution problems in our communities and tackle the complexities of issues like climate change? Some argue that if we can put a price on the benefits of ecosystem services like clean water and air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions then we can use the power of the market to achieve more cost-effective and more nimble solutions to our environmental problems.

Can we put a price on it?

The new USDA guide focuses on environmental credit trading schemes, which are set up as an exchange where a regulated entity, say a power plant, pays the producer of ecosystems services (clean air, water, biodiversity, etc.), such as a farmer, to meet greater environmental stewardship goals and achieve the standard set forth in the regulation.

The authors outline essential features for developing an effective market for ecosystem services. Key features include an agreement on the commodity that is being traded, which in the arena of biological ecosystem services can get complex fast. The authors note , for example, the commodity is in the form of carbon sequestration – the ability to store atmospheric carbon, a greenhouse gas, in soils and woody biomass – what happens if a change in agricultural practice or a forest fire releases the carbon? Who is responsible for the loss of carbon? Is the commodity price discounted to account for the potential of carbon loss? By how much?

Another essential feature of effective markets, they argue, is a price for the commodity must be established and be transparent. But little attention in the guide discusses how to set prices. How much is clean air worth? And if the clean air provided by a farm is intended to offset the air pollution from a factory is that clean air commodity traded at a one-to-one value (i.e. is the clean air benefit from the farm equal to the loss of clean air from the factory?) or not? If not, what’s the difference?

Ecosystem models have become more sophisticated in recent years, and the authors argue the models can be used effectively to estimate the amount of ecosystem benefit from agricultural activities to help inform the development of the market. But a model is only as good as its data. If we depend upon models to estimate the ecosystem service provided by agriculture, we’ll need regional and in some cases local data (soil, climate, etc.) to calibrate them.

Moreover, a model may be able to account for how a change in agricultural practice can achieve a reduction in water contamination, but it may miss how that change affects air quality, wildlife habitat or GHG emissions. And what if one activity is good for improving water quality, but it hurts biodiversity? How do we determine these trade-offs?

Can the marketplace help transform agriculture?

In a November article in Science, a group of researchers recently highlighted the promise and peril of paying for ecosystem services. They argue that few existing ecosystem payment programs pay for ecosystem services that address multiple benefits.

They note: “Incentives for biofuels production that promote conversion of tropical forests to tilled fields may reduce carbon storage and habitat that supports biodiversity. Incentives for habitat protection that create corridors between protected areas may increase disease risks by increasing contact between wild and domesticated animals. Where ecosystem services are jointly produced, paying for only one service can be as damaging as paying for none.”

A central tenant of sustainable agriculture is the importance of taking a whole farm systems approach. That is, to create a more sustainable, biological farming system we must take an integrated approach to managing the soil, pests, habitat, etc. of the farm.

The new USDA reference outlines important considerations to developing effective market-based mechanisms to achieve greater environmental stewardship in agriculture. It is worth a read. But it is this central tenant of sustainable agriculture that they do not adequately address: Can the buyers and sellers of ecosystem services avoid the unintended consequences of rewarding the improvement of one aspect of our environment without degrading others?

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Federal Policy Tagged With: agricultural economy, climate change, Ecosystem Services, Environmental Stewardship, farmer, NRCS, on-farm energy, on-farm renewable energy, policy, USDA

What are farmers around the world doing to prepare for climate change?

November 15, 2011 by Elena Idell Leave a Comment

Farmers around the globe are experiencing the impacts of a changing climate. However, we don’t have to wait to see what happens to our food and farming systems. It’s possible to take proactive action now to address climate change. And some countries are doing just that.

Australia and Scotland both have innovative agriculture and climate change programs that combine farmer know-how and science to ensure sustainable farming systems for the years to come.

Australia

Australia’s Farming Future is the government-run program that assists farmers in preparing for climate change. It includes the Climate Change Research Program, the FarmReady Program, and the Climate Change Adjustment Program.

The Climate Change Research Program provides on-farm demonstrations and research on how changes in farming practices can help with climate change adaptation and mitigation of climate change for primary agricultural industries, focusing on the management of soils in farming practices, reducing greenhouse gas pollution, and adapting practices to climate change. This research program is large scale, involving various research providers, industry groups, and universities, and represents the first steps toward Australia’s solutions to climate change.

The FarmReady program is a grant program involving training farmers, indigenous land managers and farming groups in ways to develop practices for responding to the impacts of climate change. The program provides grant funding for producers to train their staff in new practices to adapt to climate change as well as undertake projects for adapting to climate change. The two grants available are the FarmReady Reimbursement Grants, which allow producers and industries to receive up to $1,500 (AUD) for training courses, and the FarmReady Industry Grants, which allow up to $80,000 (AUD) per year for the installation of farm management practices for adjusting to climate change impacts.

The Climate Change Adjustment Program is an advice, counseling, and assessment program that also aims to help producers and industries manage the impacts of climate change through training grants, financial assessment, and business analysis. This program allows farmers to use the assistance of the government to re-evaluate farming practices and create a Climate Change Action Plan for an industry in order to better its farming practices and prepare for the impacts of global warming.

The Torr Farm participates in Scotland's Climate Change Focus Farms Initiative.

Scotland

The Scottish Agricultural College’s program Farming For a Better Climate (FBCC) provides research opportunities, planning and information on ways that farmers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change.

A related initiative, the Climate Change Focus Farms Initiative, works with four farms to demonstrate practical approaches to climate change. Through the program, each operation seeks to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and use practices that increase farm resilience to climate change. These farms are part of the program run by the government-funded Scottish Agricultural College FBCC initiative that works toward climate change research and mitigation.

One of the participating farms is Torr Farm, an organic dairy farm that uses clovers to fix nitrogen in the soil and uses nitrous oxide monitoring chambers to monitor how much nitrous oxide is released from the soils. Stewart Tower Farm is in the process of working toward combating climate change by taking account of the nutrients in farmyard manure as well as using inorganic fertilizers more efficiently.

Maintaining a viable food production base in the face of climate change is central for our health and security. By combining research, on-farm demonstration, training, and technical support Australia and Scotland are taking steps to ensure that agriculture is ready for a changing climate. There’s no reason California and the rest of the United States cannot do the same.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: Australia, climate change, farmer, livestock agriculture, policy, Scotland

Weather Extremes Signal Need for Bold Action to Transform California Agriculture

November 15, 2011 by Ted Quaday Leave a Comment

It seems like not a day goes by without a report from somewhere in the world of an extreme weather event. A couple weeks ago an unusually early winter storm in New England dumped two feet of snow, cut power to millions, and caused death for some. Last week, Alaska’s Pacific Coast was slammed by a so-called “monster” storm that devastated coastal villages and threatened Nome with flooding and high winds. Last spring and summer, unusually powerful tornadoes wrecked destruction and death across wide sections of the Great Plains and South. An on-going drought in the Southwestern United States continues to threaten crops and livestock.

All this extreme weather can’t help but raise the specter of climate change as a primary cause. Quite simply, a warming atmosphere fueled by increasing greenhouse gas emissions is creating dangerous weather. Sadly, the news on the emissions front seems to be going from bad to worse. Last week the US Department of Energy reported that carbon emissions worldwide made their biggest annual increase ever in 2010. That report was followed by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that it’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index was also on the rise.

Looking at these distressing reports, the phrase that comes to mind is the Boy Scout motto “Be Prepared.” Be prepared for weirder, wackier, more extreme weather as we continue to load the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases.

At the California Climate and Agriculture Network, we do a good bit of thinking about just exactly how we might prepare ourselves to face this on-going global crisis. Data analyzed in the report Ready… Or Not? tells a disturbing story — California farmers and ranchers will not escape climate change effects, and there are insufficient resources available help them cope.

A diminished Sierra snowpack will melt earlier, causing flooding in the spring and reducing water supplies over the summer. Scientists predict chill hours — the time fruit and nut trees need to spend in cooler temperatures to produce fruit — will decline dramatically over the next several decades. A drop in chill hours will threaten key California crops like nuts, grapes, stone fruit, avocadoes and some wine grape varietals.

State livestock producers, who generated $8 billion in revenues in 2009, will also face challenges. Water shortages will cut animal productivity. More livestock will die. Those that live will lose appetite, produce less milk and fewer eggs, and be less able to reproduce. None of this news is good.

California agriculture contributes $37 billion dollars annually to the state economy. Our farms and ranches are among the most productive on the planet. Clearly, we need to increase our efforts to slow and ultimately reverse this damage. We can’t afford to wait.

Concerns over the agricultural impact of climate change are gaining traction with state policy makers. The California State Board of Food and Agriculture will host a forum in mid-November to learn more about the risks our food producers face due to extreme weather events. In December, Governor Brown will host a conference on confronting climate change. We need to start now and we need bold action to help our food producers and the state’s agricultural economy meet the climate change threat.

Food producers are skilled at adapting to difficult circumstances, and the most innovative growers can lead the way to greater resilience. They know that healthy soil and expansive rangeland can trap carbon and slow climate change. They understand that on-farm water storage can help alleviate summer shortages. Crop diversity can reduce pest damage. Agricultural waste can be transformed into an energy resource.

But given the magnitude of the expected impacts of climate change, California’s farmers and ranchers will need more than individual actions if our agriculture system is to thrive in the coming decades. More research is needed to identify the best farming practices for adapting to climate change. More technical assistance is needed to help farmers make transitions. A state-level conservation program is needed to reward those farmers who adopt new, more resilient food production systems. CalCAN has detailed these and other suggested changes in a comprehensive set of policy recommendations to the Brown Administration.

Funds to support these initiatives could be provided by tapping a percentage of state revenue garnered through the sale of carbon allowances to the biggest CO₂ emitters. Strengthening support for on-farm conservation efforts is also crucial. On-going efforts to encourage renewable energy production through grant support and better policies and programs could reduce grower dependence on fossil fuels.

The challenges of extreme weather and climate change are daunting; the stakes for California’s food production system are high. Bold, innovative programs are needed now to help ensure a thriving farm economy.

Filed Under: California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: California agriculture, effects of climate change, policy, Weather

Agricultural Soils and Climate Change

August 21, 2011 by Adam Kotin 1 Comment

Agriculture’s role in the fight against global warming just got a bit trickier. A new study published in Nature raises a potentially devastating conundrum by suggesting that agricultural soils may emit higher concentrations of potent greenhouse gases in a future CO₂-rich atmosphere.

For years, scientists have expounded upon the value of soils as potential ‘carbon sinks.’ This means that—with the right management practices—soils can actually store increased amounts of carbon dioxide, thereby preventing it from circulating in the atmosphere and increasing warming through the greenhouse effect. Study after study has evidenced the importance of soil as an important tool in the fight against global warming.

CalCAN Science Advisor and UC Davis Professor Johan Six has conducted extensive research on the complex ways in which soils interact with greenhouse gases and other atmospheric components. His work has played a crucial role in developing ecologically beneficial soil management practices and guiding our evolving knowledge of biogeochemical systems.

The Chicago Climate Exchange, which was North America’s only voluntary, legally binding carbon trading market until it closed last year, actually allowed farmers to bank on the idea of soil as a carbon sink. Specifically, farmers who implemented select management practices such as no-till and strip-till were given ‘carbon credits’ that could then be sold and traded to industrial polluters to ‘offset’ factories’ greenhouse gas emissions. Millions of tons of ‘carbon dioxide equivalent’ (CO₂e) were traded on the market as farmers earned credits by changing their soil management practices.

The use of soils to sequester carbon could also feature prominently in California’s new cap-and-trade program, which is slated to start next year under the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). The California system includes state-approved ‘offset protocols’ that specify which projects can produce tradable carbon credits for sale to capped entities (e.g. fossil-fuel-powered electricity plants). If the agricultural offset protocols currently being developed by the Climate Action Reserve are approved for use in the cap-and-trade system, it seems highly likely that soil sequestration would become an accepted practice for farmers to implement.

For the time being, this strategy seems to make sense. Farmers have an opportunity to practice smart soil conservation while reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and receiving financial incentives.

But according to the study in Nature, this strategy could backfire in the future. By simulating scenarios in which the earth’s atmospheric CO₂ concentrations creep higher and higher, the researchers found that various future atmospheres with CO₂ concentrations above 463 parts per million might actually cause soil-sequestered carbon to be re-emitted as nitrous oxide (N₂0) and methane (CH₄), two greenhouse gases with many times more warming potential than carbon dioxide.

In essence, soils would be sequestering CO₂only to spit out by-products that are significantly worse for the climate.

According to co2now.org, the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at 392.39 parts per million and rising. If atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise due to fossil fuel emissions, the study suggests, we are in danger of seeing soils’ mitigation potential negated by at least 16.6 percent.

The study comes at a time when planning for California’s cap-and-trade system has kicked into high gear. If the results of this study are heeded, they will raise just another of many misgivings around the use of offsets in the state’s program. Environmental justice groups have already filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming that offsets would allow capped entities to continue emitting the vast majority of the greenhouse gases the cap-and-trade system is designed to prevent.

The study’s authors have expressed some surprise at the results of their analysis, but stand by their conclusions. Above all, this finding is a reminder that—as scores of researchers and policymakers are already well aware—agricultural systems are enormously complex beasts to successfully manage and understand. They call for patience, care, perspective—and perhaps a big heaping spoonful of humility.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research Tagged With: carbon, climate change, nitrous oxide, soil

Climate change and winter chill hours

June 15, 2011 by Adria Arko Leave a Comment

Dormant peach orchard

A recent study, Climate Change Affects Winter Chill for Temperate Fruit and Nut Trees, describes the impacts that climate change will have on the temperate fruit and nut industry. This report is of particular importance to the long-term viability of California agriculture which produces almost half the country’s fruits and nuts, valued at $11.8 billion in 2009.

Outside of farming circles, the role of “winter chill hours” in fruit and nut production is little known. Chill hours are defined as the amount of time the temperature is below 45 degrees F. In order to produce, many species of fruit and nut trees require a certain number of winter chill hours of dormancy in order to achieve high yields and quality in the spring; the required number varies by species and cultivar.

In many regions including California, Chile, and Australia, climate change is already causing a reduction in the number of chill hours, threatening reduced yields or complete crop failures of these industries. In an interview one of the authors remarked “in California… I’d be worried about pistachios, walnuts, plums and peaches.”

With these four crops being a substantial part of California’s agricultural economy, a decrease in production of these crops would have an large impact. Approximate production values in 2009 were $583 million for pistachios, $740 million for walnuts, $257 million for dried and fresh plums , and $326 million for peaches. California accounted for nearly all of the national production of Clingstone peaches, pistachios, dried plums, and walnuts. These production values not only reflect the demand of Americans, but international demand as well — the number one export of California was tree nuts, followed closely by fruit.

What can be done to ensure that these products and industries will continue to be available? The authors wrote of the possibility of moving the industries northward, towards the Pacific Northwest. From the perspective of farmers who have homes, community ties, capital investments, and in many cases long family histories where they now farm, the prospect of “moving north” is probably a non-starter. Remember also that these are trees that take years to mature and require tremendous investments in infrastructure and plant material.

There are certain agricultural management practices that can help with the adaptation to changes in winter chill hours. Although irrigation and shading can reduce the temperature in an orchard, these solutions are resource and energy intensive and therefore not very sustainable. Newly developed cultivars can lower chill hour requirements, but require costly and long-term research endeavors. It is of extreme importance to increase the efforts to develop adaptation tactics with a focus on breeding new cultivars that can better manage with climate change.

This study provides yet another compelling set of data to add to our understanding of the vulnerability of California agriculture to climate change. In order to address these issues, policies must be put in place to support research, technical assistance and direct incentives for growers to adapt to climate change and contribute to mitigating it. CalCAN’s report entitled “Ready…or Not? An Assessment of California Agriculture’s Readiness for Climate Change” provides more background on the expected impacts of climate change and assesses the readiness of the state’s agriculture system to address them. The indications are clear about the high stakes, but the policy tools continue to lag.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research Tagged With: chill hours, climate impacts, fruit, nut

Water outlook bleak for California agriculture

April 28, 2011 by Renata Brillinger 1 Comment

Earlier this week, the Department of Interior released a report describing the projected shifts in temperature, precipitation and runoff caused by climate change in eight Western river basins.

Three of the eight river basins are of importance for California agriculture, most notably the Sacramento and San Joaquin basins that provide water for six of the state’s top 10 agricultural counties. The report also looked at the Klamath basin (in northern California) and the Colorado basin (supplying the agriculturally important Imperial Valley).

Fact sheets and the full report provide detail, but generally the report validates what other analyses have found—that California’s water supplies will be greatly stressed by reduced snowpack and changed patterns of runoff, and existing tensions between agricultural, urban and environmental uses of the water will exacerbate.

In a nutshell, this is how it will happen. In this century, temperatures will increase by roughly 5-6 °F in each of the river systems. The warmer conditions will cause earlier snowmelt and more moisture falling as rain instead of snow at lower elevations, thereby increasing the risk of flooding. Because late spring and summer runoff will decrease, there will be greater surface water shortages through the summer dry season, significantly increasing future demands on groundwater. Particularly in the Colorado system, warming will also cause significant reservoir evaporation and losses during water conveyance and irrigation. The warmer temperatures will cause increased water demands by agriculture at times when less water will be available.

Warmer conditions might result in increased fishery stress, reduced salmon habitat, increased water demands for instream ecosystems, shifts in species geographic ranges, and increased invasive species infestations. Endangered species issues might be exacerbated.

Warmer temperatures will increase the demand for electricity—especially during hot summer months—while at the same time the reduced water supply will hamper hydropower generation. This will put pressure on both the demand and cost of electricity.

This report paints an obviously bleak picture for agriculture. Combined with other expected impacts—new pest, invasive species and disease pressures, decreased chill hours essential for fruit and nut production, livestock stress, and erratic and extreme weather events—the notorious adaptability of farmers and ranchers will be put to the test and the principles and practices of sustainable agriculture will no longer be a philosophical or market-based choice but rather an imperative for survival.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research Tagged With: California agriculture, climate models, effects of climate change, water shortages