Farms, forests create an 'emissions sink' for carbon dioxide

By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI
Capital Press

The amount of greenhouse gases sequestered by agriculture and forestry more than offsets the emissions produced by these industries, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Total U.S. emissions fell nearly 3 percent in 2008, largely due to decreased fuel and electricity use tied to high prices, according to the EPA's most recent emissions report.

Emissions from agriculture and forestry comprised about 6 percent of the U.S. total, which is roughly the same proportion as in the previous two years, according to EPA data.

Total emissions from agriculture and forestry were equivalent to less than 460 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide emissions, but the industries sequestered more than 830 million tons of greenhouse gases, based on EPA's estimates.

Overall land use activities -- which include agriculture, forestry, urban tree cover and composting -- comprised an "emissions sink" equivalent to 940 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, cutting total emissions by about 14 percent, according to EPA data.

Rick Krause, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said the EPA's statistics provide a strong argument against trying to curb climate change by reducing agricultural emissions.

"If you try to chip away at that 6 percent (of emissions) and you force people to go out of business, you lose a portion of that 14 percent they currently sequester," he said.

The EPA released an "endangerment finding" in December 2009 which found that greenhouse gases are a form of pollution under the Clean Air Act.

The American Farm Bureau Federation expects that EPA will try to restrict agricultural emissions as part of the regulations being developed by the agency.

The regulations are due in January 2011, but the EPA may try to phase in restrictions on livestock production over a longer period of time, said Krause.

However, such a gradual approach would be "on shaky ground" legally and wouldn't permanently exclude the industry from regulation, he said.

For that reason, the federation and other industry groups have asked a federal appellate court to revoke the EPA's endangerment finding.

Based on EPA's emissions statistics, it's likely that livestock producers would be targeted for regulation, Krause said.

EPA attributes more than 40 percent of agricultural emissions to livestock production and manure management, according to the recent report.

Emissions from soil management -- such as the use of fertilizer -- are estimated to contribute to nearly 55 percent of agricultural emissions.

However, these are considered "fugitive emissions" and won't likely be subject to the Clean Air Act, said Krause. "They probably would not be regulated."

David Doniger, climate center policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, discounted concerns about emissions regulations.

"There's very little to worry about in terms of carrying out the Clean Air Act and agricultural sources," he said, noting that any restrictions would include exemptions and would be designed to be economically feasible.

Doniger also disagreed with the view that restrictions would end up harming natural resource industries that sequester carbon.

"The guys who grow forests are not the same ones who run animal feedlots," he said.

Link