80 Million Reasons Not to Pay for Regenerative Farming

The Regenerative Ag Racket

This week, the Good News Network wrote about, “The First Farmer in the US to Sequester Carbon for Cash in Private Marketplace Earns $115,000 For His Planting Strategy.” The long and short of it; a Maryland farmer who owns 10,000 acres of commodity grain cropland (corn, soybeans, and wheat) sold carbon credits to a couple of major groups in exchange for planting cover crops and limiting his tillage.

Not only is this money poorly spent, it’s just the beginning of what could be a decades long boondoggle of pouring “climate investment” money down the drain while actively making our global environment worse.

What’s really going on here?

This Maryland farmer (Trey Hill is his name) got paid by Shopify, the University of Arizona, and others to “offset” their carbon emissions. That means, rather than actually changing anything about their business practices to reduce their own negative climate impact, they’re paying a farm, ostensibly, to suck some of the carbon they’ve emitted out of the atmosphere and sink it into the soil, by way of these “regenerative” practices.

Good deal, right? As long as the net amount of carbon getting pumped into the atmosphere is reduced, things are getting better, correct? No. Because…