Farm fertilizers and pesticides are increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Government subsidies are making the problem worse.

Fertilizers and pesticides used on agricultural products emit greenhouse gasses. Increased greenhouse gas emissions contribute to a wide array of environmental problems, including those that directly affect the agriculture industry, such as reduced crop yields and disrupted farming practices. Fertilizer and pesticide runoff is a direct result of entrenched policies of the Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) and its wide range of taxpayer-funded subsidies and grants.

Estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture show that nearly 11 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from factory farming, including the fairly well-known issue of livestock emissions, with cow flatulence and belches accounting for about 40 percent of the factory farming share. However, one data point less discussed is the role of high-nutrient agricultural runoff entering waterways, also referred to as eutrophication.

Eutrophication may be an obscure vocabulary word, but its effects are familiar. Eutrophication causes “dead zones,” which are waters with low oxygen caused by algae overgrowth, making other marine life incapable of survival. The largest and most well-known is the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone, but about 200 such zones exist throughout the United States. Dead zones harm tourism, recreation, and fishing; kill marine life; and degrade water quality, among other major concerns. According to research, eutrophication is also a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Though estimates vary widely, research predicts that eutrophication may increase methane emissions by 30 to 90 percent over the next century. The overall impact is equivalent to 18 to 33 percent of overall annual emissions from burning fossil fuels. The emissions come from the blue-green algae, a direct result of fertilizer and pesticide runoff.

In order to solve this problem, environmental groups and legislators have called for increasing regulations on agricultural fertilizers and pesticides, the primary contributor to eutrophication and dead zones. In fact, many regulations and programs are already in place, including the Clean Water Act, though agriculture is largely exempt.

Others point to increased funding for environmental programs. Some already exist as part of the FCIP, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, though their effect is not as far reaching as the name would suggest. Pro-environment groups like the Environmental Working Group note in their research that much of the program’s funding does not actually go to environmental conservation practices.

Instead of heavy-handed regulations, which often harm smaller family farms, or taxpayer-funded grant programs, which have a track record of being inefficient and ineffective, Congress, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, should prioritize changes to the FCIP that incentivize good environmental practices.

One of the best ways to do this is to incentivize the restoration of natural ecosystems, including wetlands and estuaries, which serve as natural filtration systems for agricultural runoff. Research shows that by using just 3 percent of existing wetlands as a natural filtration system, up to 45 percent of nitrogen pollution runoff can be eliminated. This also brings a benefit to farmers, as wetlands reduce the risk of flood and drought by storing water. Due to backward subsidy structures in the FCIP, many existing wetlands have been drained in order to maximize crop area yield.

Instead of billions of dollars a year of taxpayer funding through the FCIP, which encourages farms to maximize every square foot of land to grow crops, the program should reduce or dismantle crop yield subsidy programs and instead focus on a variety of financial and tax incentives to restore wetlands. The effects of such policies will alleviate greenhouse gas emissions, increase farm resilience to natural weather events, improve water quality, and have (literal) downstream effects on tourism and fishing industries. The recent election showed a populace eager for change, and Congress has an opportunity to make reforms that may even be capable of the unthinkable, bipartisan support. With both environmental and economic benefits on the line, these programs are ripe for reform.