Although livestock management is a small contributor to overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States, it makes up half of all U.S. agricultural emissions. Changes in livestock management can benefit air and water quality and help slow global climate change. The objective of this report is to synthesize and communicate the fundamental information necessary for designing agricultural GHG mitigation and reporting programs. It will be of use to private or voluntary markets and registries, commodity group and supply chain initiatives, and regulatory agencies. It summarizes strategies for managing GHG emissions from livestock systems and reviews options for quantifying and accounting for farm-scale implementation of such strategies.

Early implementation experience and a handful of empirical analyses in the literature indicate that the supply of forest carbon offsets may be constrained by, among other factors, transaction costs, access to markets, and carbon accounting rules and regulations. To more fully explore this issue, we use a forest growth and carbon accounting model to assess the relative influence of several key accounting, financial, and market variables on forest carbon offset project viability. We find that project performance, indicated by sequestration rate and project profitability, varies widely across the three project/forest type combinations evaluated here. The effects of carbon price and project length vary in both magnitude and direction from project to project. Project accounting considerations, including baseline establishment method and deductions for “leakage” and other factors, tend to figure prominently in each project, but vary in their absolute effect. These initial results suggest that choice of accounting protocol is a critical decision facing landowners considering forest offset projects. Results also suggest that a one-size-fits-all accounting approach may fail to maximize either landowner participation or the representation of forest types or management systems.

Responsible for 6% of U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) production, agricultural land use has significant potential to reduce these emissions and capture additional carbon in the soil. Many different activities have been proposed for such mitigation, but assessments of the biophysical potential have been limited and have not provided direct comparison among the many options. We present an in-depth review of the scientific literature, with a side-by-side comparison of net biophysical GHG mitigation potential for 42 different agricultural land management activities in the United States, many of which are likely applicable in other regions. Twenty of these activities are likely to be beneficial for GHG mitigation and have sufficient research to support this conclusion. Limited research leads to uncertainty for 15 other activities that may have positive mitigation potential, and the remaining activities have small or negative GHG mitigation potential or life-cycle GHG concerns. While we have sufficient information to move forward in implementing a number of activities, there are some high-priority research needs that will help clarify problematic uncertainties.

Management of forests, rangelands, and wetlands on public lands, including the restoration of degraded lands, has the potential to increase carbon sequestration or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beyond what is occurring today. In this paper we discuss several policy options for increasing GHG mitigation on public lands. These range from an extension of current policy by generating supplemental mitigation on public lands in an effort to meet national emissions reduction goals, to full participation in an offsets market by allowing GHG mitigation on public lands to be sold as offsets either by the overseeing agency or by private contractors. To help place these policy options in context, we briefly review the literature on GHG mitigation and public lands to examine the potential for enhanced mitigation on federal and state public lands in the United States. This potential will be tempered by consideration of the tradeoffs with other uses of public lands, the needs for climate change adaptation, and the effects on other ecosystem services.

This document, now in its third edition, is a comparision report to the T-AGG report Assessing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Opportunities and Implementation Strategies for Agricultural Land Management in the United States. The third edition updates the side-by-side comparision of the biophysical greenhouse gas mitigation potential of 42 agricultural land management activities with newly available and previously unincluded data from field experiments, modeling, and expert review. Activities with sufficient research estimates of mitigation potential are now all derived from original individual data points of side-by-side experiments (previous editions included expert and modeling estimates and applied different weighting factors).

A new book features two chapters on reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions penned by researchers at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions—Brian Murray and Lydia Olander. The 456-page book reviews the state of agricultural climate mitigation globally and focuses on the design and implementation of activities to reduce emissions and increase carbon storage.

Approximately 6% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from agriculture. This number could be reduced through the use of on-farm management practices, such as switching to no-till, reducing fallow, managing species composition on grazing lands, and adjusting management of nitrogen fertilizer. Efforts are under way by government, industry, and others to incentivize such practices by creating new business opportunities or revenue for farmers and ranchers. This assessment reviews a wide range of agricultural practices and provides a roadmap and resource for programs and initiatives that are designing protocols, metrics, or incentives to engage farmers and ranchers in large-scale efforts to enhance GHG mitigation on working agricultural land in the United States.

A number of on-farm management practices can help to reduce U.S. agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and generate significant increases in carbon sequestration. This brief summarizes the mitigation potential and the state of scientific knowledge for a wide range of agricultural practices in the United States and highlights key issues for implementing programs to incentivize GHG mitigation in agriculture.

Agriculture is among the world’s largest sources of greenhouse emissions and is the largest source of certain types of anthropogenic nitrogen pollution. But as a source of renewable fuels production and carbon sequestration, agriculture could also be part of the solution to energy security and climate change problems. Similarly, improved management of agricultural nitrogen use could be the key to managing nitrogen pollution in surface- and groundwater systems. If policy makers are to determine how best to develop and implement effective policy interventions to correct environmental problems in agriculture, the critical linkages among demand, supply, land use, nitrogen use, and greenhouse gas emissions must be captured. This paper projects greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen use from agricultural and forestry practices under baseline and alternative biofuel scenarios in the United States, while accounting for land use competition, production heterogeneity, and a full suite of biofuel production possibilities.

There are a number of reasons for considering some kind of market-based, pay-for-performance mechanism to mitigate developing country greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This policy brief lays out arguments for the auctioned put option as a pay-for-performance mechanism that would allow governments or philanthropic organizations to support and catalyze markets for GHG reductions. The existing offset market, with its detailed methodologies for calculating emission reductions, offers tools that could be borrowed by such a mechanism. Auctioned put options could target a subset of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects—segregated by type of project or country of origin—or an entirely different set of activities, such as REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation plus conservation, sustainable forest management, and enhancement of carbon stocks). The key element is that there must be standardized rules (or the promise of rules) detailing how emission reductions get counted and certified.