Bill Overview
Title: Qualified Agricultural Carbon Sequestration Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows certain qualified applicants (i.e., farms) a new tax credit for the abatement and sequestration of carbon dioxide emissions related to certain agricultural activities. The bill requires the Department of the Treasury to establish a qualified agricultural carbon sequestration and abatement program to consider and award certifications for farms eligible for the credit.
Sponsors: Rep. Ryan, Tim [D-OH-13]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals associated with farms and agricultural operations eligible for carbon sequestration programs
Estimated Size: 500000
- The legislation is specifically targeted towards farms since it provides tax credits for carbon sequestration related to agricultural activities.
- According to the FAO, there are more than 570 million farms worldwide. However, not all will engage in carbon sequestration activities.
- The number of farms eligible for the program would be less than the total number of farms, depending on the criteria set by the Department of Treasury.
- A proportion of global farms in developed countries might be more poised to engage in carbon sequestration due to better infrastructure and access to information.
Reasoning
- The policy directly targets farms that engage in carbon sequestration activities, estimated to be about 500,000 in the US according to USDA data.
- Farms not involved in carbon sequestration won't be impacted directly by the policy, reflecting a large section of the 2 million total US farms.
- Economic factors and farm size may determine eligibility, with larger and more economically stable farms more likely to participate since they have resources to invest in new practices.
- Small family-owned farms might face challenges in adopting new practices without additional support, impacting the well-being outcomes expected from policy incentives.
- Given a budget of $5 billion in the first year, not all qualified farms will receive enhancements, necessitating prioritization based on readiness and projected impact.
- Incorporating perspectives from various farm sizes, types (e.g., dairy, crop), and regions will provide a nuanced view of the policy's potential impact.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the policy; it aligns with the sustainable practices we're already trying to implement.
- It would help offset costs and motivate us to adopt more eco-friendly technologies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Vineyard Manager (California)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've been waiting for something like this. It could enhance our business model by integrating sustainability with financial benefits.
- I hope the application process isn't too cumbersome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Farmer (Texas)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interested in the financial potential but unsure about the technical requirements.
- Incentives could change perspectives among ranchers if they're substantial enough.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Farm Owner (Florida)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have concerns about the policy favoring larger, more resource-rich farms.
- Support for smaller farms to adopt sequestration practices is crucial for success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Agricultural Consultant (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could boost demand for consultancy services, helping farmers navigate eligibility and compliance.
- Excited but cautious about the program's potential complexity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential in using this to test more sustainable practices on my farm.
- Availability of credits would encourage technology partnerships for innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Dairy Farm Owner (North Carolina)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Dairy farms face unique challenges with emissions, and incentives could help us experiment more.
- The program might favor sectors with clearer sequestration pathways, like crop farms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Farmer (Kansas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic. Having subsidies for carbon sequestration could transform aspects of grain farming.
- Concerns exist about the longevity of such policies amidst political changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Organic Farm Owner (Oregon)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Personally excited, but worried about larger farms dominating applications.
- A chance to align our operations with personal values while gaining economic benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Small Farm Operator (Georgia)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a small farmer, benefits sound promising but we might face hurdles in meeting technical criteria.
- Accessing funds could accelerate our transition plans.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000000 (Low: $4000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 2: $5100000000 (Low: $4100000000, High: $6100000000)
Year 3: $5200000000 (Low: $4200000000, High: $6200000000)
Year 5: $5400000000 (Low: $4400000000, High: $6400000000)
Year 10: $6000000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $7000000000)
Year 100: $15000000000 (Low: $12500000000, High: $17500000000)
Key Considerations
- Adoption rates among farms may vary significantly based on regional agricultural practices and capability.
- The cost-effectiveness of sequestration methods will impact the level of participation and successes in carbon dioxide reduction.
- Monitoring and verifying actual amounts of sequestered carbon could pose administrative challenges and affect program efficacy.