Congress must protect billions to help farmers tackle climate crisis

As 2023 Farm Bill discussions heat up, some members of Congress are proposing that $19.5 billion allotted in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to help farmers tackle climate change should instead be co-opted to enlarge already-bloated farm subsidy programs.

Such a move would be folly. The money Congress itself designated for climate-smart farming is essential to quickly expand farmers’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — and commodity farmers don’t need even more subsidies.

The agricultural industry's share of U.S. emissions is at least 11 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

That includes livestock and crop production, but doesn’t take into account land clearing and fertilizer production — so agriculture’s contribution to the climate crisis is likely much larger.

And unlike other industries, which are increasingly implementing climate-friendly solutions to reduce emissions, agriculture’s share continues to grow. Without meaningful intervention by Congress, the sector's emissions could surpass those of all other industries by 2050.

The IRA designated $19.5 billion for four different Agriculture Department programs that pay farmers to implement conservation practices. Some of these methods — which are what the IRA money is meant to fund — can help reduce emissions. (Many other conservation practices do not reduce emissions, but have other environmental benefits like improved water quality or wildlife habitat.)

Of the four, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, will receive the most IRA money — $8.45 billion. This is a “working lands” program — one that allows farmers to adopt conservation methods while farming their land.

Close to 200 practices are available for farmers enrolled in EQIP, but only 40 are designated “climate-smart” by the USDA. The IRA funding would only go to these conservation tactics that reduce emissions.

For those farmers enrolled in EQIP, this includes basic methods like planting cover crops, grown over the winter when fields are normally bare; nutrient management, the reduction of fertilizer use or changes in fertilizer timing or placement; and conservation crop rotations, when a farmer changes which crops she grows each season to improve soil health.

The IRA money will benefit not only crop growers, but also ranchers and livestock producers. Climate-smart methods funded by EQIP for these farmers include prescribed grazing, or managing the order of when to graze and when to rest pasture land, and silvopasture, or incorporating trees into livestock systems.

And $1.4 billion has been set aside for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. One part of this initiative pays farmers to permanently retire farmed wetlands, which are especially vulnerable to extreme weather linked to climate change.

Both implementing climate-smart conservation practices on working lands and permanently retiring farmland can reduce agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions or store carbon in the soil.

Conservation methods like nutrient management that reduce nitrous oxide emissions from farms are particularly important, since 73 percent of these emissions come from crop fertilizer.

Many farmers are already on board with incorporating conservation into their businesses. In fact, without the IRA money, there is nowhere near enough funding to meet farmer demand for USDA’s conservation programs. For example, in 2021, just 30 percent of farmers’ applications to EQIP were funded.

Existing conservation programs must be reformed to prioritize cutting agriculture’s emissions, and the IRA funds will help accelerate this essential shift.

But a handful of members of Congress are calling for some or all of the IRA funds set aside for conservation programs to be used to expand commodity subsidy programs in the 2023 Farm Bill. Many farm groups support such a move.

Raising subsidies is a bad idea for many reasons, not least of which is that they are already far too high.

Subsidies are provided by taxpayers, in theory to help agricultural producers manage variations in production and profitability. Most go toward producers of corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton — and the largest and wealthiest farms disproportionately benefit.

Less than 30 percent of farmers and ranchers receive commodity subsidies, meaning these programs don’t provide a safety net for most growers.

If the IRA money does get added to the 2023 Farm Bill, it should remain protected for conservation, not be used as a slush fund for farm subsidies — or anything else. These funds are crucial for reducing agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Anne Schechinger is Midwest director for the Environmental Working Group Midwest Director and is an agricultural economist based in Minneapolis.