Meeting the Methane Pledge: The U.S. Can Do More on Agriculture

Agriculture (USDA)BioRefineries/Renewable Fuel Production Business News/Analysis California Environmental Protection Agency Federal Agency/Executive Branch Federal Legislation Feedstocks Funding/Financing/Investing grants Iowa Manure Methane/Biogas Opinions Policy Sustainability White House

June 30, 2022

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Ben Lilliston (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy) When the United States and European Union signed the Global Methane Pledge in September 2021, it shined a bright light on the urgent need to slash emissions of this potent, short-lived greenhouse gas.¹ By the COP26 meeting in Glasgow two months later, more than 111 countries had joined the pledge. By signing, countries agreed to cut methane emissions (from 2020 levels) by 30% by 2030. Countries agreed to an annual Methane Ministerial to assess progress. In January 2022, U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry hosted 20 countries to follow up on the Global Methane Pledge and called for each country to set its own methane reduction plan.²

The momentum to reduce methane emissions is both exciting and daunting. While most of the attention from the pledge focused on the fossil fuel and gas industry, agriculture is the world’s largest methane source. Earlier in 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) urged action on methane because it is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period, and it is more short-lived.³ While carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for up to 1,000 years, methane only remains in the atmosphere for 10-12 years. Global methane emissions have risen steadily over the last century but have increased at an accelerated rate since 2007, according to a recent paper in Nature.⁴ By slashing methane emissions by 2030, the planet can see more immediate benefits for the climate, while buying time for ongoing action to reduce carbon dioxide.

The Biden administration announced its U.S. methane plan during the Glasgow meeting. For agriculture-related emissions, the plan relies almost exclusively on various government grants and subsidies for the controversial use of methane digesters on giant manure lagoons created at large-scale dairy, beef and hog operations. The use of digesters to capture and produce manure-based gas, best understood as factory farm gas, is opposed by many rural residents around the country because of the residual pollution associated with these operations. More recent evidence suggests the production of factory farm gas is fueling consolidation in the dairy industry and incentivizing large-scale operations to produce more manure and ultimately new emissions.

To meet the U.S. commitment on the Methane Pledge, there is much more the Biden administration can and must do, from ordering the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set clear, absolute limits on methane emissions for the biggest hog and dairy operations, to expanding and improving farm conservation programs, to updating trade and finance rules that would help spur climate action. Congress can do its part by reforming the next Farm Bill in 2023 to meet the Global Methane Pledge by redirecting subsidies and policies that currently drive factory farm methane emissions toward more agroecological systems of farming and animal production.

The U.S. commitment to the Methane Pledge should also include a deeper reassessment of agriculture and trade policy. U.S. Farm Bills, trade deals and weak regulatory oversight have propelled the continued expansion of the factory farm system of meat and dairy production. To reduce major sources of methane in U.S. agriculture requires a comprehensive approach that goes beyond a technical focus on reducing a single gas. Instead, we must begin a transition out of the damaging factory farm system in a way that reduces greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other pollutants, while supporting farmers and rural communities. Such a transition must include reforming farm policy and redirecting public investments into more agroecological systems of raising animals.

...

The Biden administration’s U.S. Methane Emissions Reductions Action Plan,⁶ announced at the Glasgow meeting, lays out a suite of policies and programs to meet its methane reduction goal by 2030. The Biden Plan directly targets the oil and gas sector, responsible for 30% of the country’s methane emissions, through EPA actions under the Clean Air Act.⁷ The Biden Plan also sets a goal of capturing 70% of methane emitted from landfills, once again citing the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to require the reduction of methane emissions at the nation’s largest landfills.

For agriculture, the Biden Plan makes no mention of EPA’s Clean Air Act authority and instead focuses on: 1) “alternative manure management systems;” 2) the “expansion of on-farm generation and use of renewable energy systems;” 3) the “development of a climate smart agricultural commodities partnership initiative;” and 4) “increased investments in agricultural methane quantification.”

All four agriculture strategies are tied to the controversial use of anerobic digesters to capture factory farm gas from giant manure lagoons at large-scale dairy, beef and hog operations. Factory farm gas is sent into methane gas pipelines and branded as “renewable.” While some factory farm gas is captured, the manure and associated air and water pollution linked to this factory farm system remain in place. (See below for more on factory farm gas.)

Here is a deeper dive into the four agriculture strategies of the Biden Methane Plan:

1. Alternative manure management systems and other manure-reducing practices — The Biden Plan states that the USDA will work through the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to use conservation programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to subsidize the new construction and use of methane digesters on manure lagoons. In 2021, USDA introduced a Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry pilot program through EQIP and particularly directed support to methane digesters.⁸ The Biden Plan also mentions the expanded use of the Rural Business Cooperative Service, the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) and the AgStar program as programs it will use to subsidize farmers’ construction and/or use of digesters. This strategy would also support the installation of lagoon covers and flares for methane. The Biden Plan claims if the Build Back Better Act were passed, additional resources would fund “the equivalent of 500 farms installing anaerobic digesters; 1,200 farms installing lagoon covers with flares; and 250 farms installing solids separators.” This strategy does include language, almost as an afterthought, on the use of conservation programs to help farmers transition to pasture grazing of livestock — something existing conservation programs already do through supports for practices such as adding fencing or perennial grasses.

2. Promoting on-farm renewable energy from methane — This Biden strategy is essentially an advocacy campaign through a new USDA-led public/private partnership “to promote biogas policies, programs and research.”

...

3. Launching a Climate-Smart Partnership Initiative — USDA is taking $1 billion of the Commodity Credit Corporation’s $33 billion budget,⁹ used to fund farm programs, to launch a new initiative to develop a market for commodities based on their purported “climate benefits.”

...

4. Increased investments in agricultural methane measurement and innovations — USDA will devote more research resources toward methane reduction strategies, including “feed additives and manure management systems (digesters).”

...

When livestock manure is stored in manure lagoons and liquified for spraying on fields, it also produces methane. When manure is handled as a solid and applied to fields, it produces much less methane. The EPA identifies the liquid manure systems of large-scale factory farm dairy and hog operations as major sources of methane emissions and nitrous oxide (another potent greenhouse gas). Methane emissions from manure management have increased 68% since 1990, according to the EPA. The EPA writes, “The majority of this increase is due to swine and dairy cow manure, where emissions increased 49 and 117 percent, respectively….In many cases, manure management systems with the most substantial methane emissions are those associated with confined animal management operations where manure is handled in liquid-based systems.”¹⁵ The EPA writes: “the shift toward larger dairy cattle and swine facilities since 1990 has translated into an increasing use of liquid manure management systems, which have higher potential CH4 emissions than dry systems.”

...

While emerging methane sensors have focused on oil and gas, they will soon also include agriculture.

...

Methane digesters to sell gas off-farm are enormously expensive (around $4.2 million for a 2,000 dairy cow operation,²⁰ making them only financially viable for the largest operations. A 2011 USDA report under then Secretary Vilsack explained that public subsidies for factory farm gas will largely benefit large-scale hog and dairy operators.²¹

...

There are several engines driving the use of methane digesters. One of the most important is California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), with a goal to help reduce emissions from the state’s transportation sector by 20% by 2030. Factory farm gas grades well under the LCFS scoring system, making it eligible for credits (generally between $170-$190) under the policy. The LCFS credits are often combined with a variety of state and federal subsidies to make digesters more profitable.

...

At the federal level, the national Renewable Fuel Standard allows factory farm gas producers to create and sell Renewable Identification Numbers (RIN) credits (similar to the LCFS) to fossil fuel providers to meet their obligations under the RFS.

...

Research by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) earlier this year confirmed that subsidies for digesters far exceed the cost to capture the methane in a digester, and that the subsidy is nearly as large as the price the farmer was receiving for milk. UCS concluded that this development gives major advantages to large dairies over smaller dairies, creating potential incentives to either consolidate production or add cows to existing dairies to take further advantage of the subsidies.³⁰

There are already signs that policies promoting digesters are incentivizing factory farms to expand and produce more manure. In Iowa, recently passed legislation that allows dairies to expand beyond the current 6,000 limit if they use a digester for all manure. Seven operations responded by expanding their numbers of dairy cows.³¹

If cows are added to produce additional manure to generate more factory farm gas, the gas can no longer be characterized as a byproduct of milk production. The manure instead becomes an intentional and additional pollution source that would not have otherwise existed, and any leakage from the digester or pipeline becomes additional methane pollution.

...

Limit Emissions, Eliminate Exemptions:

1. The EPA should take steps to limit methane emissions from large-scale dairy and hog operations. In April 2021, IATP joined Public Justice and other family farm and environmental justice organizations in petitioning the EPA to set caps on methane emissions for the largest dairy and hog operations under the Clean Air Act.⁶³

...

2. Require Environmental Review for government guaranteed loans

...

3. Incorporate the Methane Pledge and the Paris Climate Agreement as binding measures in trade deals

...

4. Require companies to fully disclose methane emissions

...

Redirect Public Spending:

5. Expand and redirect conservation programs

...

EQIP and the more comprehensive Conservation Stewardship Program are enormously popular among farmers looking for support for sustainable practices, such as planting perennial grasses or incorporating managed rotational grazing systems. Nationwide, only 31% of farmers who apply for EQIP and only 42% of farmers who apply for CSP are accepted. By removing CAFOs from EQIP eligibility and expanding these programs to meet demand, farmers can have more options to be successful outside of the factory farm system.

6. Redirect USDA guaranteed loans away from factory farms —

...

7. Redirect public payouts for factory farm gas

...