With President Biden’s signature climate legislation stuck in legislative limbo, the Administration has turned to various executive authorities to implement change. Addressing the costly effects of climate change is something we’ve long supported. But the issue is too important – and complicated – to be addressed through executive action alone. Congress and the President need to buckle down and do the hard work to change the climate policy. Nowhere is this more important than agriculture.

The costs of climate change are skyrocketing for American taxpayers and farmers. On a cost-adjusted basis, billion-dollar disasters in the U.S. have increased from on average 2.9 per year at an average cost of $17.8 billion in the 1980s to 16.2 disasters per year at an average annual cost of $121.4 billion from 2016-2020. Not only have certain farm bill programs increased in cost as a result, but annual “emergency” disaster spending bills have been layered on top. Farm operations made almost 50 percent of their income from taxpayer subsidies in 2020. This is worrying.

Agriculture has a unique role in the climate debate as both a cause and potential solution. The agriculture sector contributes 10-15 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While other sectors have reduced their emissions, agricultural emissions have actually increased. Reducing emissions while enabling farmers to be more physically and financially resilient to climate challenges is vital. Achieving this will require buy in from Congress and producers around the country.

With Build Back Better (BBB) stalled and a potential climate/energy bill still in flux, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a new $1 billion Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities program. The goal – reducing GHG emissions in agriculture – is laudable. However, taxpayers should take pause because of where it originated:  USDA’s pot of magic money and partisan pandering, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

The CCC is a wholly owned corporation of the US government. It’s mostly an accounting vehicle used to cut and track checks for farm bill programs. The CCC Charter Act of 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714), however, also makes the CCC a source of nearly unrestrained power. The Secretary of Agriculture can use the authority to create programs aimed at increasing domestic consumption of commodities, assisting in production and marketing, and aiding in exports. It’s these authorities the Secretary is using to create the Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities.

The CCC has a long history of politicization and funding special interests. In 2010, the Obama Administration directed half a billion dollars to Arkansas farmers in a bid to secure the reelection of Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Blanche Lincoln (D-AR). In 2018, it was tapped for $218 million to assuage cotton farmers upset that high prices and bountiful harvests negated the need for government subsidies in an industry-specific shallow loss program. In 2015, USDA Secretary Vilsack used the CCC to spend $100 million on new ethanol fuel pumps that the 2014 Farm Bill prohibited (plus $200 million more since then). The greatest example is the $28 billion the Trump Administration deployed to compensate farmers and ranchers economically harmed by the administration’s trade war with China.

USDA has increasingly turned to the CCC to address supply chain disruptions, and now climate change. Applications for the Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities program were accepted through last Friday. This week, USDA said “over 450 proposals ranging from $5 million to $100 million each” were submitted from over 350 groups.

While some applications likely have the potential to achieve real climate outcomes, the proof will be in the pudding. We’ve identified important principles like equity, accountability, and cost-effectiveness that should be considered. But, big questions remain on how USDA will prioritize funding and ensure taxpayers get the best bang for the buck. Will a broad suite of smart climate-beneficial practices be incentivized, rather than just cover crops, for instance? Most importantly, will these programs survive when a change of power, in either Congress or the Administration, occurs?

We’ve voiced our recommendations. But no matter the outcome, taxpayers should be concerned when USDA goes it alone spending taxpayer dollars outside the farm bill process. The buck mustn’t start – and stop – at USDA. Enduring policy change, especially on climate, will require bipartisan buy-in from Congress as well.

The reconciliation bill (BBB) would have increased funding for agricultural conservation programs aimed at climate and water quality outcomes. But the bill hasn’t passed. The next farm bill is an opportunity to increase investments in programs that deliver the best outcomes, but this will require reform, not the status quo.

Underlying perverse incentives that promote risk taking at taxpayer expense – through federal crop insurance subsidies, for instance – must also be addressed. Otherwise, climate progress will be squashed by the elephant in the room. The US should be incentivizing – not disincentivizing – the use of cost-saving, profit-enhancing practices that mitigate climate risks and promote resilience, instead of dependence on federal subsidies.

Opportunities for climate progress in agriculture are bountiful if policymakers put in the work. Common sense solutions that are fiscally sustainable can be achieved. Most importantly, collaboration between the Administration and Congress can start today.