Can organic agriculture mitigate climate change? If you were to simply Google the question – which, being a millennial I have done – you would be led to believe that it does. I love a good underdog story and, like The Little Engine That Could, I think a lot of things are possible through optimism and hard work. But advocates of organic farming, like the United Nations Food and Drug Administration, think that it can mitigate climate change without the hard work necessary to truly make it happen.
A recent study by the Rodale Institute found that, if all conventional agricultural land started using organic farming practices, such as mulch tilling and seasonal crop rotations, agriculture could – in theory – capture 100% of annual carbon emissions. The study also found that organic farms have lower greenhouse emissions than conventional farms due to avoidance of synthetic fertilizers, which are compounded with nitrogen and require fossil fuels to produce. However, some studies have argued that it conclusion is premature as lower emissions depend on the amount fertilizers used on organic and conventional farms and the amount of food that can be produced per acre of land.
In a research article I published in 2014, regarding the ability of organic farming to reduce greenhouse gas emission in the Agriculture and Human Values, I argued that recent patterns in the organic market in the United States limit the ability of organic farming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In the course of my research, I wasn’t all too surprised when I found that for every acre increase in certified organic farmland there wan an increase in greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production in the United States. That’s not because I didn’t believe what advocates like the USDA, Rodale institute and United Nations say it can be, but because of all the economic factors influencing the organic market.
The process of carbon sequestration, which allows atmospheric carbon dioxide to be absorbed by plants through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass and soils, relies on strict organic management practices, such as crop rotations and mulch tilling. If you look at the USDA standards for organically produced goods, you will find that the soil management practices necessary to promote carbon sequestration are encouraged, but not required.
Instead, the USDA uses its seal to create a ceiling and a floor for organic practices, allowing organic to be a profitable industry. It no longer matters, at least within conventional grocery markets, if one farmer’s organic standards result in higher green house gas emissions than another because, in the eyes of the consumer at, say, Whole Foods, they are the same. But the Earth’s climate will definitely know the difference.
To top it all off, a big organic farm is going to make much more money than a small one because their practices allow them to produce more high-in-demand goods. And all that machinery necessary to maintain big organic farms – necessitated by the choice to refrain from using synthetic chemicals – essentially cancel out any reduction in carbon emissions that any farm would normally obtain from relying strictly on organic fertilizers and pesticides.
My research therefore showed no significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture over time as organic farming grew. It makes economic sense to have big mono-cropping farms that use a lot of machines if you can afford them: the problem is those practices don’t really help at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Until we address the problem of many organic farms being all too similar to their conventional counterparts, organic farming will never be that little farming movement that could. Instead, the organic farming that we have in the United States will be the movement that thinks it can – but really can’t.