Does the Democrats’ ‘Build Back Better’ plan adequately address agriculture and climate change challenges?
Does the Democrats’ ‘Build Back Better’ plan adequately address agriculture and climate change challenges?


With the $27 billion directed towards agricultural conservation, combined with about $2 billion for agricultural research, the current Build Back Better proposal is a real step in the right direction. Ideally, the conservation proposals in BBB are a signal of what kind of policy priorities we are likely to see in the 2023 Farm Bill: large, focused on climate, and pretty quiet.
Such a boost to conservation incentive programs would have some pretty large climate benefits for US agriculture. This is doubly true given the language of the BBB plan, which states that funding for these programs must prioritize funding to projects that “address climate change.”
Paying producers to purchase equipment that can improve yields, reduce runoff, or adopt practices and adopt technologies that require less fertilizer, reduce methane emissions from cattle, or manage how animals graze can all add up to significant GHG reductions and other environmental benefits.
In a recent report, we at the Breakthrough Institute found that adopting existing technologies to the extent that is possible, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from US beef production by 41 MMT CO2e/year by 2030, or approximately a half a percent of total current US emissions.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here.

![]() | Videos | More... |

Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!
![]() | Bees & Pollinators | More... |

GLP podcast: Science journalism is a mess. Here’s how to fix it

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’
![]() | Infographics | More... |

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer
![]() | GMO FAQs | More... |

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?
![]() | GLP Profiles | More... |

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’








Viewpoint — Fact checking MAHA mythmakers: How wellness influencers and RFK, Jr. undermine American science and health
Viewpoint: Video — Big Solar is gobbling up productive agricultural land and hurting farmers yet providing little energy or sustainabilty gains
Trust issues: What happens when therapists use ChatGPT?
Fighting deforestation with CO2: Biotechnology breakthrough creates sustainable palm oil alternative for cosmetics
California, Washington, Oregon forge immunization alliance to safeguard vaccine access against federal undermining
30-year-old tomato line shows genetic resistance to devastating virus
The free-range chicken dilemma: Better for birds, but with substantial costs
‘You have to treat the brain first’: Rethinking chronic pain with Sanjay Gupta