Studies suggest that regenerating soil by turning
our backs on industrial farming holds the key to
tackling climate change
Cracked soil by a village in Iran abandoned by farmers
because water reserves ran dry due to overuse.
Photograph: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images
It’s getting hot out there. Every one of the past 14
months has
broken the global temperature record. Ice cover in
the Arctic sea just
hit a new low, at 525,000 square miles less than
normal. And apparently we’re not doing much to stop it:
according to Professor Kevin Anderson, one of Britain’s
leading climate scientists, we’ve already
blown our chances of keeping global warming below
the “safe” threshold of 1.5 degrees.
If we want to stay below the upper ceiling of 2
degrees, though, we still have a shot. But it’s going to
take a monumental effort. Anderson and his colleagues
estimate that in order to keep within this threshold, we
need to start reducing emissions by a sobering
8%–10% per year, from now until we reach “net zero”
in 2050. If that doesn’t sound difficult enough, here’s
the clincher: efficiency improvements and clean energy
technologies will only win us reductions of about 4% per
year at most.
How to make up the difference is one of the biggest
questions of the 21st century. There are a
number of proposals out there. One is to capture the CO2
that pours out of our power stations, liquefy it, and
store it in chambers deep under the ground. Another is
to seed the oceans with iron to trigger huge algae
blooms that will absorb CO2. Others take a
different approach, such as putting giant mirrors in
space to deflect some of the sun’s rays, or pumping
aerosols into the stratosphere to create man-made
clouds. Unfortunately, in all of these cases either the
risks are too dangerous, or we don’t have the technology
yet.
These pipes at Vattenfall’s “Schwarze Pumpe” (“Black
Pump”) power station were part of a pilot CCS
project in 2009. In 2014 Vattenfall ceased the
research because costs were too high. Photograph:
Michael Urban/AFP/Getty Images
This leaves us in a bit of a bind. But while
engineers are scrambling to come up with grand
geo-engineering schemes, they may be overlooking a
simpler, less glamorous solution. It has to do with
soil.
Soil is the second biggest reservoir of carbon on the
planet, next to the oceans. It holds four times more
carbon than all the plants and trees in the world. But
human activity like deforestation and industrial farming
– with its intensive ploughing, monoculture and heavy
use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides – is ruining
our soils at breakneck speed, killing the organic
materials that they contain. Now 40% of agricultural
soil is
classed as “degraded” or “seriously degraded”. In
fact, industrial farming has so damaged our soils that a
third of the world’s farmland
has been destroyed in the past four decades.
As our soils degrade, they are losing their ability
to hold carbon, releasing enormous
plumes of CO2 [pdf] into the atmosphere.
There is, however, a solution. Scientists and farmers
around the world are pointing out that we can regenerate
degraded soils by switching from intensive industrial
farming to more ecological methods – not just organic
fertiliser, but also no-tillage, composting, and crop
rotation. Here’s the brilliant part: as the soils
recover, they not only regain their capacity to hold CO2,
they begin to actively pull additional CO2
out of the atmosphere.
The science on this is quite exciting. A study
published recently by the US National Academy of
Sciences claims that regenerative farming can
sequester 3% of our global carbon emissions. An
article in Science suggests it could be
up to 15%. And new research from the Rodale
Institute in Pennsylvania, although not yet
peer-reviewed, says sequestration rates could be
as high as 40%. The same report argues that if we
apply regenerative techniques to the world’s pastureland
as well, we could capture more than 100% of global
emissions. In other words, regenerative farming may be
our best shot at actually cooling the planet.
Yet despite having the evidence on their side,
proponents of regenerative farming – like the
international farmers’ association
La Via Campesina – are fighting an uphill battle.
The multinational corporations that run the industrial
food system seem to be dead set against it because it
threatens their monopoly power – power that relies on
seeds linked to patented chemical fertilisers and
pesticides. They are well aware that their methods are
causing climate change, but they insist that it’s a
necessary evil: if we want to feed the world’s growing
population, we don’t have a choice – it’s the only way
to secure high yields.
Scientists are calling their bluff. First of all,
feeding the world isn’t about higher yields; it’s about
fairer distribution. We already grow enough food
for 10 billion people. In any case, it can be argued
that regenerative farming actually
increases crop yields over the long term by
enhancing soil fertility and improving resilience
against drought and flooding. So as climate change makes
farming more difficult, this may be our best bet for
food security, too.
The battle here is not just between two different
methods. It is between two different ways of relating to
the land: one that sees the soil as an object from which
profit must be extracted at all costs, and one that
recognizes the interdependence of living systems and
honours the principles of balance and harmony.
Lines of maize on the Malaysian organic farm run by
Dr Mohd Ishak Syed Ahmad in Malacca. Photograph:
Bazuki Muhammad/REUTERS
Ultimately, this is about more than just soil. It is
about something much larger. As Pope Francis put it in
his much-celebrated encyclical last year, our present
ecological crisis is the sign of a cultural pathology.
“We have come to see ourselves as the lords and masters
of the Earth, entitled to plunder her at will. The
sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air
and in all forms of life are symptoms that reflect the
violence present in our hearts. We have forgotten that
we ourselves are dust of the Earth; that we breathe her
air and receive life from her waters.”
Maybe our engineers are missing the point. The
problem with geo-engineering is that it proceeds from
the very same logic that got us into this mess in the
first place: one that treats the land as something to be
subdued, dominated and consumed. But the solution to
climate change won’t be found in the latest schemes to
bend our living planet to the will of man. Perhaps
instead it lies in something much more down to earth –
an ethic of care and healing, starting with the soils on
which our existence depends.
Of course, regenerative farming
doesn’t offer a permanent solution to the climate
crisis; soils can only hold a finite amount of carbon.
We still need to get off fossil fuels, and – most
importantly – we have to
kick our obsession with endless exponential growth
and downsize our material economy to bring it back in
tune with ecological cycles. But it might buy us some
time to get our act together.
It’s getting hot out there. Every one of the past 14 months has broken the global temperature record. Ice cover in the Arctic sea just hit a new low, at 525,000 square miles less than normal. And apparently we’re not doing much to stop it: according to Professor Kevin Anderson, one of Britain’s leading climate scientists, we’ve already blown our chances of keeping global warming below the “safe” threshold of 1.5 degrees.
If we want to stay below the upper ceiling of 2 degrees, though, we still have a shot. But it’s going to take a monumental effort. Anderson and his colleagues estimate that in order to keep within this threshold, we need to start reducing emissions by a sobering 8%–10% per year, from now until we reach “net zero” in 2050. If that doesn’t sound difficult enough, here’s the clincher: efficiency improvements and clean energy technologies will only win us reductions of about 4% per year at most.
How to make up the difference is one of the biggest questions of the 21st century. There are a number of proposals out there. One is to capture the CO2 that pours out of our power stations, liquefy it, and store it in chambers deep under the ground. Another is to seed the oceans with iron to trigger huge algae blooms that will absorb CO2. Others take a different approach, such as putting giant mirrors in space to deflect some of the sun’s rays, or pumping aerosols into the stratosphere to create man-made clouds. Unfortunately, in all of these cases either the risks are too dangerous, or we don’t have the technology yet.
This leaves us in a bit of a bind. But while engineers are scrambling to come up with grand geo-engineering schemes, they may be overlooking a simpler, less glamorous solution. It has to do with soil.
Soil is the second biggest reservoir of carbon on the planet, next to the oceans. It holds four times more carbon than all the plants and trees in the world. But human activity like deforestation and industrial farming – with its intensive ploughing, monoculture and heavy use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides – is ruining our soils at breakneck speed, killing the organic materials that they contain. Now 40% of agricultural soil is classed as “degraded” or “seriously degraded”. In fact, industrial farming has so damaged our soils that a third of the world’s farmland has been destroyed in the past four decades.
As our soils degrade, they are losing their ability to hold carbon, releasing enormous plumes of CO2 [pdf] into the atmosphere.
There is, however, a solution. Scientists and farmers around the world are pointing out that we can regenerate degraded soils by switching from intensive industrial farming to more ecological methods – not just organic fertiliser, but also no-tillage, composting, and crop rotation. Here’s the brilliant part: as the soils recover, they not only regain their capacity to hold CO2, they begin to actively pull additional CO2 out of the atmosphere.
The science on this is quite exciting. A study published recently by the US National Academy of Sciences claims that regenerative farming can sequester 3% of our global carbon emissions. An article in Science suggests it could be up to 15%. And new research from the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania, although not yet peer-reviewed, says sequestration rates could be as high as 40%. The same report argues that if we apply regenerative techniques to the world’s pastureland as well, we could capture more than 100% of global emissions. In other words, regenerative farming may be our best shot at actually cooling the planet.
Yet despite having the evidence on their side, proponents of regenerative farming – like the international farmers’ association La Via Campesina – are fighting an uphill battle. The multinational corporations that run the industrial food system seem to be dead set against it because it threatens their monopoly power – power that relies on seeds linked to patented chemical fertilisers and pesticides. They are well aware that their methods are causing climate change, but they insist that it’s a necessary evil: if we want to feed the world’s growing population, we don’t have a choice – it’s the only way to secure high yields.
Scientists are calling their bluff. First of all, feeding the world isn’t about higher yields; it’s about fairer distribution. We already grow enough food for 10 billion people. In any case, it can be argued that regenerative farming actually increases crop yields over the long term by enhancing soil fertility and improving resilience against drought and flooding. So as climate change makes farming more difficult, this may be our best bet for food security, too.
The battle here is not just between two different methods. It is between two different ways of relating to the land: one that sees the soil as an object from which profit must be extracted at all costs, and one that recognizes the interdependence of living systems and honours the principles of balance and harmony.
Ultimately, this is about more than just soil. It is about something much larger. As Pope Francis put it in his much-celebrated encyclical last year, our present ecological crisis is the sign of a cultural pathology. “We have come to see ourselves as the lords and masters of the Earth, entitled to plunder her at will. The sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life are symptoms that reflect the violence present in our hearts. We have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the Earth; that we breathe her air and receive life from her waters.”
Maybe our engineers are missing the point. The problem with geo-engineering is that it proceeds from the very same logic that got us into this mess in the first place: one that treats the land as something to be subdued, dominated and consumed. But the solution to climate change won’t be found in the latest schemes to bend our living planet to the will of man. Perhaps instead it lies in something much more down to earth – an ethic of care and healing, starting with the soils on which our existence depends.
Of course, regenerative farming doesn’t offer a permanent solution to the climate crisis; soils can only hold a finite amount of carbon. We still need to get off fossil fuels, and – most importantly – we have to kick our obsession with endless exponential growth and downsize our material economy to bring it back in tune with ecological cycles. But it might buy us some time to get our act together.
Join our community of development professionals and humanitarians. Follow @GuardianGDP on Twitter. Join the conversation with the hashtag #SheMatters.