The business case for carbon farming in the USA

Alejandro Plastina,Haeun Jo,Oranuch Wongpiyabovorn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-024-00253-5
IF: 4.3563
2024-02-17
Carbon Balance and Management
Abstract:U.S. agricultural producers are increasingly able to participate in private voluntary carbon initiatives that compensate their efforts to sequester CO 2 , reduce GHG emissions, and provide ecosystem services through eligible conservation practices. This study examines the potential effects of alternative private payment regimes (per practice vs. per output), prices paid to farmers relative to out-of-pocket costs (low vs. high), and the availability of information on CO 2 sequestration (limited vs. full), on the adoption of cover crops and no-till in the United States, the resulting CO 2 sequestration, and changes in farmers' net returns. The analysis relies on a highly stylized model of heterogeneous farms calibrated with county-level agronomic data, and simulated for current estimates of GHG impacts of cover crop planting and no-till under different scenarios. Our results indicate that agricultural carbon markets can be profitable for U.S. farmers, although with substantial geographic variability, and that annual carbon sequestration could range between 17 and 75 million mtCO 2 e. Payments per output would incentivize higher carbon sequestration than payments per practice, but the former regime would be less favored by farmers as a unified group than the latter (due to lower aggregate net returns). However, if operators of farms with high carbon sequestration potential could decide the payment regime to be implemented, they would choose the payment per output regime (due to higher net returns per enrolled hectare). Total projected net changes in GHGs under payments per practice, based solely on county-average net GHG effects of cover crops and no-till, over-estimate actual total GHG sequestration (based on the entire distribution of net effects by county) by 2.1 and 14.2 million mtCO 2 e, or 18% and 21%, respectively.
environmental sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The main problems that this paper attempts to solve are as follows: In the US agricultural field, the impacts of different carbon payment mechanisms (pay - for - practice vs pay - for - output), the relative levels of payment prices and farmers' out - of - pocket costs (low vs high), and the availability of carbon dioxide (CO₂) sequestration information (limited vs complete) on the following aspects: 1. **Adoption rates of cover crops and no - till farming**: The adoption situations of these two agricultural conservation measures in various states in the US. 2. **Resulting CO₂ sequestration amounts**: The amounts of CO₂ that can be sequestered through these measures in different scenarios. 3. **Changes in farmers' net incomes**: The impacts of these measures on farmers' economic returns. Specifically, the author uses a highly simplified heterogeneous farm model combined with county - level agronomic data for simulation. The research results show that the agricultural carbon market can bring profitable opportunities for US farmers, but this profitability has significant geographical differences. The annual carbon sequestration amount may be between 17 and 75 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO₂e). Pay - for - output will encourage higher carbon sequestration, but this payment method is less popular among farmers (because the overall net income is lower) than pay - for - practice. However, if the operators of farms with high carbon sequestration potential can choose the payment mechanism, they will choose pay - for - output (because the net income per hectare is higher). In addition, the pay - for - practice estimation based on the county - average net greenhouse gas (GHG) effect may overestimate the actual total GHG sequestration amount by 2.1 and 14.2 million mtCO₂e respectively, or 18% and 21%. ### Keywords - **Cover crops** - **No - till farming** - **Carbon sequestration** - **Conservation measures** - **Net income** - **Pay - for - output** - **Pay - for - practice** - **Agricultural carbon credits** ### Main problem summary The paper aims to evaluate the impacts of different carbon payment mechanisms, payment prices and information availability on the adoption rates of US agricultural conservation measures, CO₂ sequestration amounts and farmers' net incomes, so as to provide scientific basis for policy - makers and farmers to optimize the design and implementation of the agricultural carbon market.