The USDA just bet a billion dollars that it can turn No. 2 yellow corn—and the world—a few shades greener. In early February, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced a $1 billion competitive grant offering to fund pilot projects through the department’s “Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities” program.
It is clear the current administration sees the USDA and its influence over domestic agriculture as critical to the larger quest to fight climate change. What is not so clear is the definition of a “climate-smart” commodity. Those details are yet to be written.
Another “Bridge to Nowhere”
Or could it be the cornerstone of generational shift in agricultural policy? The USDA currently describes a climate-smart commodity as “an agricultural commodity that is produced using farming, ranching or forestry practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon.” The whole goal of this program is to act as a kick-starter to fund cooperation in public and private partnerships and encourage innovation to create and verify products produced in climate-positive ways.
Even if one can define a “climate-smart” commodity, can you verify it actually meets that definition?
Redefine ‘Commodity’
Differentiating a kernel of No. 2 yellow corn and doing that at scale could easily be categorized as agriculture’s moon shot project. If one truly can identify, isolate and segregate crops produced using “climate-friendly” methods, then one could argue that such a crop should no longer even be called a “commodity.” On the surface, that sounds like a good thing. Transforming production agriculture from a commodity-dominated exchange to a “value-added” marketplace has been seen for decades as one of the best ways to put more money into producers’ pockets. Could this finally lead us out of the perpetual wilderness of buying everything at retail, selling everything at wholesale and paying freight both ways?
The Utopian/carrot Approach
The billion- or even trillion-dollar question here is whether the future marketplace has enough “value” in it to sustain the perpetual existence of climate-smart commodities. Can free market innovation with a boost of taxpayer dollars be enough to spur a whole new “food group” at the grocery store? Will the concept resonate with enough climate-conscious consumers “voting with their dollars” to economically support a whole new branch of the food supply chain that is deemed “climate-smart”? What happens if such dreams fall short? Will it only be a matter of time before the stick approach rises?
Although the USDA has pointed out this initiative is not attempting to mandate any specific practices, the fear is that changes in other governmental policies related to climate will by default create an “artificial green” marketplace. In other words, will government and society simply make it harder, more expensive and socially unacceptable not to be green?
Green Ambitions Derail Common Sense
Climate policy critics point to the European Union’s ill-conceived Farm to Fork Strategy as a case in point. Rolled out in 2020 as part of the EU’s Green Deal, the plan drives to reduce EU farmers’ pesticide use by as much as 50% and reduce fertilizer use by 20%. In addition, the plan calls for transitioning as much as 25% of European farmland into organic production. All of these goals are to be achieved by 2030.
It must be noted the USDA’s own Economic Research Service (ERS) threw cold water on the EU plan soon after it was released. According to the ERS analysis, the suggested input reductions would lower EU farmers’ productivity by 7% to 12% and affect their competitiveness in both domestic and global markets.
Negative numbers like those predicted for the EU were likely the reason the USDA and Vilsack decided on a much kinder and gentler approach to try and advance climate-smart practices on U.S. farms. The Secretary says the department has identified more than 40 practices that have positive climate benefits. The goal of the climate-smart program is to let producers and the agriculture industry figure out what combination of practices makes the best “climate” potluck stew and then ask you to verify the recipe.
Don’t Let the Rules Be Written For You
Programs like the climate-smart commodities initiative must not be ignored or dismissed. It is not that big of a stretch to imagine that the practices and protocols trialed during this program could end up planted in key components of future agricultural policies—for instance, the next farm bill or crop insurance programs. Imagine eligibility for USDA payments or crop insurance subsidies being based on your farm’s climate-smart rating?
Yes, that’s when things will get real. So, closing your eyes, sticking your head in the sand or hoping for a change in political winds will not make the climate subject go away. Not this time.
