Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
of those identified by the same authors for conversion of arable to woodland or to ley-rota-
tion.
72
It is clear that rewarding any localized increase in soil carbon that has been recycled from
a limited common pool is a waste of money. We should be focussing on ways of extracting
carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and root biomass; this fresh carbon is
the only carbon worth paying for, and then only if it is not offset by a corresponding drop
in photosynthetic carbon gain elsewhere. It will be a remarkably sophisticated monitoring
system that can work all that out.
We need, anyway, to be increasing the biomass productivity of our land, and its biod-
iversity, by whatever sustainable ways can be found. If this can be achieved through or-
ganic and permaculture techniques such as greater use of perennials and legumes, better
recycling of biomass, and rotational grazing systems such as at Polyface Farm, then in-
creased soil organic carbon will result, and this will be of direct benefit to the farmer in
other respects. The Soil Association advocates, and I agree, that rather than paying farmers
for questionable amounts of sequestration, we should provide incentives for farming activ-
ities that provide multiple benefits, including carbon sequestration.
73
We also need to be wary of the exaggerated claims for carbon farming from its propon-
ents, because it is a distraction from the main issue. Carbon dioxide currently represents 77
1850 and 1998 was caused by fossil fuels, while 19 per cent is estimated to have been
a result of soil carbon loss. Any claim that we can put all the carbon we have dug up from
the bowels of the earth back into its skin has to be viewed with the deepest suspicion.
76
Such views are suspect, not only because they are likely to be inaccurate, but because
they are an expression of the same environmental ideology that often lurks behind the over-
emphasis on methane. Claims that carbon sequestration in soil and trees can singlehandedly
reverse climate change are a bid to make the biosphere responsible for remedying global
warming problems that are primarily caused by fossil fuels - as can clearly be seen in the
Carbon Farmers of America's promise that, for $175 dollars, they will turn your car into a
carbon sink.
Repeatedly, advocates of carbon farming remind us how carbon sequestration will com-
pensate for the damage cause by industry and transport. This example is from Ken Yeo-
mans, who clearly shares his brother's antipathy for bicycles, as quoted by Graham Harvey:
' Don't believe the lobby groups. We won't need to decrease our standard of living. We
won't need to abandon the family car. Nor will we need to live the austere life of monks or
ride to work on push-bikes.'
77
