Biden's carbon-banking plan for agriculture plan draws support and criticism from across the political spectrum

"The Biden administration's ambitious plan to create a multibillion-dollar bank to help pay farmers to capture carbon from the atmosphere is running into surprising skepticism, challenging Agriculture Department officials to persuade the industry to get behind the massive climate proposal," Zack Colman, Liz Crampton and Helena Bottemiller Evich report for Politico. "Arguably one of the federal government’s most ambitious attempts to combat climate change, the concept aims to use market forces to produce sharp reductions in the human-made emissions that are the primary cause of global warming."

"Though specifics of the plan haven't yet emerged, the concept is a novel one: With scores of major corporations having made grand promises about achieving carbon-neutrality, USDA would help offer a chance to buy credits to offset their pollution by supporting farmers who plant an extra batch of crops such as cereal rye and clover or make other on-farm changes to help absorb carbon dioxide into the soil. Such agriculture techniques would bring about a net reduction in greenhouse gases," Politico reports. "The benefits of switching to more climate-friendly practices could quickly disappear if farmers deviate from recommended actions. For instance, disturbing soil could release all the accumulated carbon back into the atmosphere, an issue USDA could prevent by serving as referee, carbon-bank advocates say."

Support and criticism of the notion is coming from both liberal and conservative groups. It's popular among some environmentalists, but others worry it could let polluters off the hook. Meanwhile, the American Petroleum Institute recently announced its support for carbon trading. "The American Farm Bureau Federation, the most influential farm group in Washington, indicated recently that it has some hesitations about the carbon-bank idea, even though it could put millions of dollars into the coffers of its members," Politico reports. "The questions reflect the difficult politics of climate change, questions about the science of carbon sequestration, and fears that big food and agriculture companies will use the scheme as an inexpensive way to avoid reducing their own carbon footprint. Farmers and ranchers worry they won't end up benefiting much from the potential gold rush, as corporations and financial middlemen race to get into the markets."