But beyond the headline-making investments, the legislation recognizes a less publicized but important part of the effort to combat climate change: nature. Or, more precisely, given the chance, nature can be a profound ally in the fight against climate change.
“It’s historic, no doubt,” said Tom Cors, director of North American policy and government relations at the Nature Conservancy. He called the new funding to protect forests and promote climate-friendly agricultural practices a “once-in-a-generation investment.”
Money earmarked for “nature-based” climate solutions includes about $20 billion for conservation agriculture and $5 billion to protect forests nationwide, according to the Congressional Research Service.
While those numbers are small compared to other big-ticket items, many environmental advocates say such investments are crucial to giving the country a better shot at hitting the long-term climate goals, and serves as a reminder that caring for the earth has additional benefits. wildlife and human health.
“We can really get a big bang for our buck by addressing climate solutions that also address the environmental crisis,” Cors said. “Natural climate solutions are not a substitute for decarbonizing our economy and energy sector. But they are a complement so that we can achieve greater emission reductions than we would otherwise.”
However, it remains uncertain whether the current legislation will ultimately provide money in the most effective and sustainable ways.
“The devil is always in the details,” said Peter Reich, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who has long studied the impact of global warming on forests. “Exactly how you spend the money can have little positive impact on slowing climate change or much better.”
This is very clear: To slow down the warming of the Earth, people have to rely on a big help from trees, wetlands, peatland and other landscapes that absorb a lot of carbon dioxide every year. But the earth also releases greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere as forest fires burn, forests are cleared, permafrost melts or wetlands drain.
If people mismanage the earth by continuously destroying forests or by farming in unsustainable ways, the emissions that warm the planet can increase. On the contrary, adopting smarter farming practices and caring for forests in ways that reduce the risk of fire, for example, can make reaching climate goals more realistic.
Healthy forests, restored wetlands and undisturbed grasslands can pull billions of tons of carbon out of the atmosphere each year. That makes soil the largest and most reliable carbon sequester in the world today, and worth protecting.
“Climate change is harming our forests at a time when we need them to fight climate change,” said Jad Daley, president of the nonprofit conservation group American Forests. “If we lose what the forest is doing for us now, we have no chance. They can help us or they can hurt us, depending on the time and energy we give them.”
Daley noted that last year’s infrastructure spending package included significant support for reforestation initiatives, and President Biden this year signed an executive order aimed at strengthening forest management. However, some historic preservation efforts operate on small budgets or no dedicated funds at all.
“The fact that the forests are included is really, really important,” he said. “I’ve been working on this issue non-stop for 15 years. It always feels like we’re the last guest on the dinner party invite list.
The Inflation Reduction Act will help supercharge existing efforts, he said, including $700 million for a program to permanently protect forest lands through conservation easements and acquisitions by local governments, $450 million to help private landowners more effectively manage forests and $100 million to fund grants for. innovative and climate-friendly use of wood.
Then there are the billions dedicated to helping reduce the risk of wildfires on public lands, as well as funding to help cities expand urban forestry programs that sequester carbon and help create shade to overcome deadly “hot islands.”
Both initiatives have benefits for the climate, said Daley, but also help to address the serious effects that impose the suffering of millions of Americans.
“It’s an environmental issue, but it’s also a moral imperative,” he said.
When she ran for mayor of Tucson in 2019, Regina Romero promised to plant 1 million trees in the desert city by 2030, especially in low-income communities with little tree canopy. He sees planting more trees as an important climate policy, but also an equity issue that can help increase shade, lower utility bills and improve animal habitats.
One challenge is that the effort could cost tens of millions of dollars – money that is not readily available. Romero said he raised nearly $650,000 through private funding and hired an urban forestry manager, among other policies. But help from the Inflation Reduction Act, he said, could be a game changer.
“We are so absolutely ready for these funds,” said Romero in an interview, and added that he hopes that the city will be a model for the implementation of nature-based climate solutions in an urban setting. “This will absolutely help us maximize our efforts and our goals.”
On the agriculture side, the legislation would pour nearly $20 billion in additional funding into existing federal conservation programs that encourage farmers and ranchers to embrace a more climate-friendly environment. activities, including planting crops, better management of water sources, and conservation of grasslands and others. carbon sequestering landscapes.
One program slated to receive an additional $8.45 billion is the USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which offers financial and technical assistance to farmers and non-industrial forest managers for efforts designed to to “lead to cleaner water and air, healthier soil and better wildlife habitat. , while improving agricultural operations.”
Advocates note that EQIP and other existing conservation programs are outnumbered 3 to 1, and that the new funding will help meet the greater need.
“We are equipping farmers, foresters, and rural communities with the necessary tools to be part of the solution,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement after the bill was passed. that room.
He noted that the law’s climate-smart agriculture, forestry and rural energy programs “are supported by more than 1,700 farm groups, companies, environmental advocates, leading economists, local elected officials and municipalities, and trade associations.”
But the bill was not accepted by everyone.
Silvia Secchi, an economist and geographer at the University of Iowa, said a key problem with the legislation is that it doesn’t break new ground. Instead, he said, it funds existing programs that are purely voluntary, that pay farmers for work already done, and that there is no guarantee that any changes will lead to permanent reductions. of greenhouse gases.
“There is no stick here; it’s all carrot,” said Secchi. He said the bill does not force action on major climate-related issues related to agriculture, such as animal waste and excessive fertilizer use.
“Will this fund solve every problem? No,” said Aviva Glaser, senior director of agricultural policy for the National Wildlife Federation.
But at the same time, he said that the new money could have a “transformative” effect if it helps farmers and ranchers to more widely adopt practices that are good not only for innovation for the climate but also for wildlife and for soil and water quality.
“We need to work with them to solve the climate crisis,” Glaser said. “And there are a lot of farmers and ranchers and hunters here who are willing. They just need help. … This will provide it.”
The Inflation Reduction Act does not include all the funding that supporters of environmentally-based solutions want. Nor will it, by itself, protect all the landscapes that need protecting or fully get the country on track with the emission-cutting goals outlined by Biden.
But to many climate advocates, it trumps the gridlock that has persisted on Capitol Hill for so long.
“Is this enough money? No, there should be more,” Cors said. “[But] two weeks later there was no payment. Nothing will happen. And that is not an option. “
