来源：《彭博商业周刊》
原文刊登日期：2021年3月3日
Agriculture has never been a principal focus of efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. But farm emissions — which make up about 10% of the U.S. total — are coming under increasing scrutiny as Democrats take the reins of agricultural policy and farmers themselves awaken to the threats of climate change. One strategy in particular is getting attention this year: encouraging farmers to view emissions reduction as potential sources of income.
农业从来都不是减少温室气体努力的主要重点。但随着民主党掌握农业政策，农场主自身也意识到气候变化的威胁，占美国总排放量约10%的农业排放正受到越来越多的审查。其中一项战略今年尤其受到关注：鼓励农场主将减排视为潜在的收入来源。
The idea is fairly straightforward. Farmers would take steps to reduce their carbon output, such as reducing cultivation to avoid releasing soil carbon and planting cover crops to hold carbon in the soil. In return, they could sell credits to companies looking to reduce their own climate footprint. Private markets for such credits are already springing up, and Congress took measures to encourage similar exchanges in the 2008 Farm Bill.
这个想法相当简单。农场主将采取措施减少碳排放，例如减少耕作以避免释放土壤碳，以及种植覆盖作物以保持土壤中的碳。作为回报，他们可以向寻求减少自身碳足迹的公司出售碳排放权。碳排放权的私人市场已经如雨后春笋般涌现，国会也在2008年的农业法案中采取措施鼓励类似的交易。
But much about this concept has yet to be worked out, notably the basic question of how to measure the climate value of various farming practices. Here the U.S. Department of Agriculture could help. A Senate bill introduced last year would direct the USDA to create standards for measuring the effectiveness of climate-protection measures on farms, certify people to help farmers take such measurements and verify their value, and work with the Environmental Protection Agency to monitor private carbon-credit markets.
但关于这一概念的很多问题还有待解决，尤其是如何衡量各种耕作方式的减排价值这一基本问题。在这方面，美国农业部可以提供帮助。参议院去年提出的一项法案将指导美国农业部制定衡量农业气候保护措施有效性的标准，认证帮助农场主采用这些措施并核实其价值的人，并与美国环境保护署合作监控私人碳排放权市场。
Such exchanges could go a long way toward encouraging farmers to reduce emissions. But they won’t work unless regulators can ensure that they’ll actually bring substantial climate benefits. The danger is that a carbon-credit system might instead mainly enable airlines, investment funds, energy firms, agribusinesses and other companies to excuse their own greenhouse-gas emissions by purchasing inexpensive and largely meaningless offsets.
这样的交换对鼓励农民减少排放大有影响。但是，除非监管机构能够确保它们确实能给气候带来实质性好处，否则它们不会起作用。危险在于，碳排放权交易体系可能主要使航空公司、投资基金、能源公司、农业综合企业和其他公司通过购买廉价且基本上毫无意义的抵扣来为自己的温室气体排放辩解。
By setting standards for measurement and verification, and monitoring the private markets, the USDA can maximize the potential of “carbon farming.” It can also extend the benefits beyond the big operations, which can most easily demonstrate emissions reductions, to smaller farms — by helping them participate in collective efforts.
通过制定衡量和验证标准，并监控私人市场，美国农业部可以最大限度地发挥“碳农业”的潜力。它还可以通过帮助小型农场参与集体努力，将受益范围扩大到大型农场之外，后者最容易实现减排。
Carbon credits won’t be enough on their own; they should be thought of as a complement to other efforts to encourage climate-friendly agriculture, including existing USDA programs that help farmers finance conservation efforts, and Energy Department research on soil carbon capture. Congress should also make possible improved terms on loans and reduced premiums on crop insurance for farmers who limit emissions and conserve carbon.
仅靠碳排放权交易是不够的；它应该被视为对其他鼓励气候友好型农业的努力的补充，包括现有的美国农业部帮助农场主资助保护工作的项目，以及能源部关于土壤碳捕获的研究。国会也应该为限制排放和保存碳的农场主改善贷款条件和降低农作物保险的保费。
That said, carbon trading does hold significant promise for limiting emissions on the farm — so long as it’s based on verifiable practices that will allow markets to accurately value the credits. The first step is to get the right data.
也就是说，碳交易在限制农场排放方面确实有很大的前景——只要它建立在可验证的实践基础上，允许市场准确评估碳排放额度。第一步是获得正确的数据。