Some farming methods can help reduce climate-warming pollution. Using less chemical fertilizer is one way to cut emissions.
Fertilizer production requires a lot of energy, and it releases nitrous oxide – a potent greenhouse gas.
No-till farming, which avoids plowing fields, can also help by reducing fuel use from tractors.
But many claims about storing more carbon in soil are questionable. While plants do pull carbon dioxide from the air as they grow, keeping that carbon locked in the soil long-term is tricky.
Scientists are still unsure if practices like cover cropping actually lead to meaningful increases in soil carbon over time.
When do climate benefits get exaggerated?
Companies and governments often make big promises about regenerative agriculture fixing climate change. But the science doesn’t always back up these claims.
There are a few key issues:
- Measuring soil carbon is inconsistent. Taking samples at different depths can give very different results.
- Carbon stored in soil isn’t necessarily permanent. Droughts or changing crops can release it back to the atmosphere.
- It’s unclear if practices like no-till farming actually increase soil carbon in the first place.
So while preserving existing soil carbon is good, claims about adding large amounts of new carbon are often overstated.
What’s regenerative grazing and does it help the climate?
Regenerative grazing involves carefully managed cattle grazing to improve soil health. Supporters say it can increase soil carbon. But the climate benefits are often oversold.
Grazing can help maintain grasslands, which store carbon. But adding more carbon through grazing is hard.
Cattle also produce methane, a potent greenhouse gas. So the net climate impact is likely small or even negative in many cases.
Why does accuracy about climate impact matter?
It’s crucial to be realistic about regenerative agriculture’s climate potential. Overstating the benefits can:
- Distract from more effective climate solutions
- Give false hope about solving climate change easily
- Let companies claim they’re climate-friendly without making real change
- Waste time and resources on practices with limited impact
Is regenerative farming still worthwhile?
Yes! Even if climate benefits are smaller than claimed, regenerative practices have other important benefits:
- Improving soil health and fertility
- Reducing erosion
- Boosting biodiversity
- Increasing resilience to drought and floods
- Cutting chemical use
- Potentially improving crop yields
These are all great reasons to adopt regenerative methods. We just shouldn’t expect them to be a magic fix for climate change.
Some key regenerative practices include:
- Cover cropping
- Crop rotation
- Reduced tillage
- Composting
- Integrated pest management
Farmers report many on-farm benefits from these techniques. They’re worth pursuing for their local environmental and economic impacts.
The challenge is separating hype from reality when it comes to climate claims. Companies and policymakers should be cautious about promising big climate wins from regenerative agriculture. Instead, they can highlight the other real benefits while still pursuing proven climate solutions.
