"Offsets must be real and verifiable"
So says the editorial board of the New York Times in regard to agriculture provisions in climate change legislation being discussed today in the Senate Agriculture Committee.
For instance, the bill would allow polluters to meet their requirements not by paying farmers to put new conservation techniques in place but by paying them to keep doing things they were already doing. The result is that money changes hands, but the atmosphere is no better off. Offsets must be real and verifiable, or the integrity of the entire scheme is at risk.
Recall that on July 13th, EWG released an analysis of the agriculture provisions in the House version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Our analysis shows that current provisions could allow the equivalent of over 67 of the dirtiest power plants to avoid any controls on greenhouse gas emissions while missing the opportunity to encourage farmers to do more to protect the climate.
Post a comment