An Analysis of Utah Resolution H.C.R. 1, “CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO WORK TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THE CLIMATE, PUBLIC LANDS, AND CARBON SEQUESTRATION”
Utah House Concurrent Resolution 1 (H.C.R. 1) is landmark legislation with profound national and even international implications for changing the nature of the debate over the climate policy. It unanimously passed both houses of the legislature in the 2022 session and was signed by the governor.
Achieving Unanimous Support for a Significant Climate Measure is a Landmark Accomplishment in its Own Right
There is not even unanimous public agreement on whether climate change is a serious problem, much less on policies to deal with it. The views of Utah legislators run the full gamut, from highly being skeptical to regarding it as an urgent and existential threat. Yet, all of those legislators, regardless of their individual viewpoints, supported this approach.
Determining how this was achieved could clearly be instructive to the current debate on climate policy nationally and even internationally. This analysis identifies what we think are some of the key dynamics that resulted in this unanimous support.
The Resolution Laid a Step by Step Foundation for the Policy Recommendations
Each of the “whereas” clauses either provided important facts or logical conclusions that supported the recommendations contained in the “now therefore be it resolved” clauses.
Because Utah is a public lands state, with about two-thirds of its land area controlled by the federal government, much of the specific language in the resolution focuses on changes in federal land management policies. There is particular emphasis on dealing with the catastrophic wildfires that are destroying tens of millions of acres, mainly in the West and most of them federally-managed.
It obviously is not hard to get consensus on dealing with this wildfire crisis, especially in the West. But it is the justifications in the resolution for these policy changes that sets it apart from the relatively common, simple “feel good” exhortations that states often enact. Instead, at its core, this resolution is official recognition of the immense potential for the enhanced management practices already being employed on tens of millions of acres in the U.S. alone to sequester vast amounts of CO2 in natural systems such as soil and forests. It then uses this as the basis for making some logical, but somewhat revolutionary, recommendations for federal climate policy.
We believe this is the most specific recognition of this true potential by any level of government and the first to make policy recommendations that actually reflect this vast potential.
While the resolution focuses primarily on natural resources policy recommendations, recognizing the true potential for sequestering carbon in natural systems has profound implications for the larger debate over how to deal with climate issues. It is (or should be!) a game-changer.
In this regard, a number of the of these “whereas” clauses are especially noteworthy.
The first two clauses highlight some of the announced goals of President Biden’s “whole of government” approach to dealing with climate. They note that he specifically addresses such relevant issues as human health, biodiversity, preserving forests, restoring critical carbon sinks, and improving land management. The resolution essentially accepts these as goals to be met and develops the case for the policy recommendations made in the “now therefore be it resolved” clauses that better accomplish them.
The clause on line 51 (a line-numbered version of the resolution is available on our website (here) identifies a common-sense objective when working in a complex and divisive policy environment. That is, to try to first identify any areas of agreement and attempt to build on those.
On line 54 the resolution expands on the president’s call to protect and enhance carbon sinks and lists international bodies and protocols such as the Paris Accords and the French-led “4 per 1,000 Initiative” that similarly recognize their importance.
Line 60 makes a critical climate-related point, that federal lands (and all land by implication) can be either carbon sinks or carbon emitters. That is, they can either be adding to global emissions or can be helping control them. The observation that which one they are depends on management is a critical foundation for the recommendations that follow.
The clause on line 66 states the fact that lands that are carbon emitters not only impact climate but also create other adverse environmental, social, health, and economic impacts. Recognizing these associated negative impacts is a critical foundation block for the later recommendations in the resolution and is an important element in building consensus for them. Too often, these broader impacts are not recognized in discussions of carbon sinks and emitters.
The clauses on lines 69-80 layout facts that have huge national and international implications. The state of Utah is recognizing the immense potential of enhanced carbon sequestration in natural systems to not just achieve net-zero CO2 emissions for decades to come but even net-negative emissions. It notes that this potential is backed by a growing body of research and that the techniques and practices to achieve it are already being demonstrated on millions of acres in the U.S. alone.
To be sure, there has been growing recognition of the value of natural sequestration, and this element is now included in most climate strategies. But, as the resolution states, the true potential has generally not been recognized. As already noted, when this potential is recognized and applied to climate policy options, it is literally a game-changer. (Note: A detailed discussion of the research, demonstrations, and other findings the state relied upon in adopting this language is outside the scope of this analysis but much more information on them can be found on our website, www.WinWinCO2Solutions.org.)
The clause on line 81 is also critical because it recognizes that atmospheric carbon can only be sequestered at large scale within healthy and high functioning ecosystems. Healthy ecosystems produce a wide range of environmental and economic benefits in their own right. Some of these are listed.
The key point is that if the goal is to sequester the maximum carbon and you are dealing with a degraded ecosystem (as is increasingly the case) the first step must be to help restore it. As it heals, not only is carbon being sequestered more effectively but it also starts to generate these numerous and valuable co-benefits. This fact underpins the cost-benefit calculations and recommendations discussed below.
The clause on line 88 notes that tens of millions of acres are currently being managed specifically to generate these co-benefits and not for any climate considerations. Those land managers employing them are doing so solely because it improves their bottom line. Recognizing this is important for several reasons. It shows that these practices that can also deliver huge sequestration results are extremely cost-effective. The fact that expenditures to expand these practices can be justified on their own merits alone reassures climate skeptics and others leery of spending money to deal with climate concerns. At the same time, these expenditures are accomplishing the kinds of emission control that climate activists believe is essential. The fact that this carbon is being sequestered essentially at no cost was also an important element in making this approach a win-win solution.
Lines 97-108 lay the groundwork for setting a standard of stewardship for the federal government in managing the public’s lands and resources. The implications of this are discussed below. Again, citing another co-benefit was important in convincing some legislators who might well have opposed any policy initiative that dealt only with climate to support this resolution.
Lines 114-120 cite some of the human health impacts of exposure to wildfire smoke and note that research shows that close to half the pollution in some western states is the result of this smoke.
Line 121 notes that the techniques to repair and enhance natural sinks are easily and rapidly scalable. This is clearly important to those who feel an urgency to control greenhouse gas emissions as well as to those anxious to reduce the damage being caused in a range of areas by catastrophic fire and the general and continuing land degradation.
These “whereas” clauses lay out the key research areas, widely available techniques, and practical demonstrations that are essential underpinnings for the policy recommendations in the resolution. At various points in the legislative process, more supporting details and data were provided, either by the sponsors or by Win/Win CO2 Solutions Alliance and others in the hearings.
The legislature and the governor clearly were adopting this resolution with knowledge of and based on this supporting research and documentation. This approach was probably essential in creating the consensus that led to the unanimous adoption of the resolution.
The Landmark Action “Resolved” Clauses
In the “resolved” clause on line 123, the state of Utah challenges the federal government to make sequestering atmospheric carbon in the public lands the “highest priority in implementing any climate policy.” In light of the wide scope of climate-related initiatives the federal government is funding, this may at first seem like a radical challenge. But, in light of the points made in the whereas clauses that there is a huge potential for sequestering atmospheric carbon in the public lands, that doing so is highly cost-effective, that it can be rapidly scaled up, that it would better meet the federal government’s stewardship responsibilities, and that it would generate a wide range of social, environmental, health and economic benefits, it is, in reality, a logical and common-sense position.
The clause on line 132 defines a reasonable standard of stewardship for the federal land management agencies. It is of particular interest to those living in the western public lands states because they are most directly affected but it also has national importance since these lands are managed in trust for all Americans.
It is widely understood that in many cases, management of essentially identical land by state, tribal, and private land managers is far superior to federally managed land on virtually every criterion. There are a number of reasons for this, including chronic lack of funding, bureaucratic impediments, ideologically-driven mismanagement, and paralyzing legal action, but there should be no excuses. The public has the right to expect that their lands and resources will be managed to achieve the highest possible levels of ecosystem health and integrity.
The federal government’s failure to meet reasonable stewardship standards exacts a number of costs. Most obvious is the reduction or loss of the many co-benefits outlined above that flow from healthy and high-functioning ecosystems. But, there are clearly climate-related costs as well. As noted, through wildfire and general mismanagement, much of the federal land that had been carbon sinks has instead become carbon emitters. As the superior management of comparable lands shows, even those that continue to be carbon sinks are functioning far below their potential to sequester carbon or to provide these many valuable ecosystem services.
For years, the federal government has determined what constitutes acceptable levels of ecosystem health and integrity for the public lands and then compared its management outcomes to those standards. The potential for creating self-serving standards and other potential conflicts of interest in such a situation is obvious.
In H.C.R. 1, the state cuts through that circular evaluation process by setting a standard that is clearly achievable (because others are achieving it) as the one that the federal government should be expected to meet. Also important is the state’s call for the federal government to report publicly and in detail where and why it is not able to meet this stewardship standard.
The clause starting on line 132 is a more specific recommendation for what to prioritize in the funding effort called for in the first resolved clause. It recognizes the urgency of the forest fire crisis in the West as the area that should receive the highest funding priority on an emergency basis.
It is important to note that in several places the resolution also recognizes the importance and sequestration potential of rangelands. The challenge to prioritize federal funding to enhance carbon sinks in the first resolved clause would presumably also include rangeland protection and enhancement. While rangeland fires are also a major and growing problem, forest fires are probably the more urgent problem to confront.
The clause on line 144 is a response to an initiative that is being undertaken by the Biden Administration and Congress. At the COP 26 climate meeting in Glasgow, Scotland last year, President Biden pledged at least $9 billion to a global effort to reduce deforestation. The next day, the House Majority Leader introduced a bill to do just that.
In light of the huge funding shortfall in adequately managing the public’s lands and resources in this country, resulting in economic damages alone in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, as well as the catastrophic environmental destruction that is also occurring, not to mention the climate impacts. It is totally reasonable to require the federal government to provide the detailed justification the state is calling for before sending tax dollars abroad for a similar purpose.
The test laid out in the clause at line 156 is arguably the most significant in terms of its potential to profoundly reorient the climate policy debate at the national and even international level. It sets out a “social benefits of carbon control” focused cost-benefit analysis for determining the best ways to allocate (always) scarce funding to deal with climate change. It differs somewhat from the traditional cost-benefit analysis often applied to climate policy by expanding the range of benefits that should be considered. As such, it is based on both the recognition of the vast potential of natural sequestration and the value of the associated co-benefits.
Unlike the more commonly used but highly controversial “social cost of carbon” calculations that attempt to compare the present cost of controlling CO2 emissions to the value of projected benefits decades or even a century into the future, this test deals with cost-benefit comparisons in the present or very near term. Focusing on such a shorter time horizon is more likely to sway climate skeptics to support climate expenditures.
Applying this analysis would require determining which expenditure to achieve a specific objective, reducing CO2 emissions, for example, provides for both the most cost-efficient removal and the greatest number of co-benefits (if any). It would seem that performing such an analysis is merely common sense. It is what businesses must do to be successful and what families regularly do at the kitchen table. Sadly, however, common sense is too often lacking in the way government approaches problems. Often, it seems, that any proposal to remove or forego greenhouse gas emissions is seriously considered regardless of its cost-effectiveness or related benefits, if any.
A couple of examples of how applying the “social benefits of carbon control” might work in practice can illustrate the significance of this test.
A practice generally labeled “regenerative agriculture” is a proven way to sequester large amounts of carbon long-term by restoring and protecting healthy soil. This is accomplished by a number of techniques such as employing cover crops and no-till planting. In addition to achieving the same or in many cases higher crop yields than conventional methods, regenerative agriculture increases soil moisture-holding capacity, improves nutrient cycling, and increases the water use efficiency of crops. This can increase drought resiliency, thus serving a role in both climate mitigation and climate adaptation.
One hallmark is that regenerative agricultural practices greatly reduce or eliminate the use of artificial nitrogen fertilizer and other agrichemical inputs. The savings in input costs per acre significantly increase profitability for the producer. This has the additional benefit of strengthening often struggling rural economies and may help lower food prices. The environmental advantages of reduced pesticide and herbicide use are obvious.
Even based on this short list of advantages it is clear that supporting the expansion of regenerative agricultural practices would score very high on a social benefits of carbon control test. (In fact, we think it should be one of the top couple funding priorities.) But looking in more detail at just the beneficial results for the climate and environment from reducing or eliminating nitrogen fertilizer use brings its value into sharper focus.
It is estimated that the production of artificial nitrogen fertilizer accounts for between 2% and 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation and application of this fertilizer generate additional emissions. It is also estimated that plants utilize only between 15% to 35% of the nitrogen fertilizer that is being applied in conventional agricultural practices. The remainder can cause a number of problems. Some of it becomes nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas with about 300 times the heat-trapping potential of CO2. Some of it leaches into groundwater, causing nitrate pollution, a growing drinking water problem in many areas. In conventional agricultural practices, some of it runs off into streams and lakes, increasing water treatment costs and promoting algae blooms and ocean dead zones that adversely affect freshwater and marine habitats among other problems.
Yet, our atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen and Mother Nature has been supplying adequate nitrogen for vigorous plant growth for hundreds of millions of years before the invention of artificial nitrogen fertilizers. The key to providing nitrogen naturally is found in healthy soil communities, specifically varieties of bacteria that can “fix” atmospheric nitrogen and make it available for plant growth.
It is estimated that the just the production of artificial nitrogen fertilizer accounts for a little over 1% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. The transportation and application of this fertilizer generate additional emissions. It is also estimated that plants utilize only between 15% to 35% of the nitrogen fertilizer that is being applied in conventional agricultural practices. The remainder can cause a number of problems. Some of it becomes nitrous oxide, an air pollutant and a greenhouse gas with about 300 times the heat-trapping potential of CO2. It also depletes the ozone layer. Some of the nitrogen leaches into groundwater, causing nitrate pollution, a growing drinking water problem in many areas. In conventional agricultural practices, some of it runs off into streams and lakes, increasing water treatment costs and promoting algae blooms and ocean dead zones that adversely affect freshwater and marine habitats among other problems. In total, it is estimated that fertilizer production and use accounts for about 2.5% of total global greenhouse emissions.
Also important from a climate perspective is that, as with enhancing other carbon sinks, the regenerative agriculture approach is immediately and easily scalable. Plants begin sequestering carbon as soon as they begin photosynthesizing as seedlings and significant sequestration can occur in the first growing season.
There are similar multiple advantages to employing related techniques, such as holistically planned grazing, adaptive multi-paddock grazing or intercropping to rangelands and adopting sustainable forestry practices. All of them can sequester large amounts of carbon while also generating a wide range of co-benefits. In fact, we believe that concentration on these approaches to sequestering carbon in natural systems is probably the only economically and politically feasible way in the short to mid-term to achieve the significant control of atmospheric carbon levels that most climate scientists say is critical.
Since reducing catastrophic wildfires is a particular focus of this resolution it is useful to consider an example of how applying the social benefits of carbon control analysis in this area might work. In recent years in the U.S., we have burned an average of 8 million acres of forests, much of it on federally-managed land. The federal government estimates the economic cost of these wildfires to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars annually, not even considering near-term climate impacts and the long-term environmental and recreation harm.
Recently, the Forest Service issued a plan to deal with the wildfire problem. Aptly titled “Confronting the Wildfire Crisis,” it proposed a ten-year, $50 billion program to reduce the risk of wildfire through a number of pre-suppression activities such as reducing fuel loads. The goal would be to treat up to 20 million acres of federally managed forest and support treatment on an additional 30 million acres of other, non-federally managed land.
Virtually everyone agrees that even if Congress appropriates this level of funding (and decades of inadequate appropriations are a major reason we are facing the current wildfire crisis) this proposal is still woefully inadequate to deal with the size and urgency of the problem. There appears to be a consensus that at least three times this amount would be necessary to even begin to address it.
At the same time, we are confronting the wildfire crisis, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a wide-ranging climate bill that, among other things, includes $4.1 billion to subsidize the purchase of electric bikes as a way to reduce CO2 emissions. With the massive federal budget deficits we are running, there clearly is not enough money to do everything that everyone is proposing to deal with climate change. Common sense would dictate applying some kind of comparison of the value returned for money invested, like the social benefits of carbon control the state is urging the federal government to incorporate.
The primary claimed benefit of subsidizing electric bikes is reducing CO2 emissions. There seem to be very few if any co-benefits. Reducing the risk of forest fires, on the other hand, also reduces not only CO2 but also a range of other emissions, including “black carbon” which has a heat-trapping potential more than 4,000 times greater than CO2. If we can prevent a forest from burning, not only does the carbon in the forest biomass continue to stay locked away from the atmosphere but a healthy forest also continues to sequester additional carbon every year as the trees grow. In addition, as noted above healthy forests produce a number of other co-benefits, including protecting watersheds, providing wood products, grazing, wildlife habitat, and recreational activities among others.
Applying a simple social benefits of carbon control test to the two potential federal expenditures strongly indicates that putting the $4.1 billion towards protecting forests instead of subsidizing electric bikes would be far more beneficial from both a climate and co-benefits perspective. That is not to say that wider use of electric bikes could not be beneficial in controlling emissions. Rather, it recognizes the fundamental public interest principle that scarce tax dollars should be spent in the most efficient and effective way possible.
Based on just these two simple examples, it should be clear that applying this test across the board would provide an entirely new perspective on many of the climate control policies currently being proposed. It would–and should–dramatically adjust spending priorities and strategies.
The clause on line 156 is a sensible call for the Government Accountability Office and some relevant professional associations to “ analyze the potential capabilities of federal land management agencies to protect, enhance, and expand carbon sinks on federally-managed land in response to a maximum effort directive and estimate the annual costs of doing so,”
The clause on line 166 urges all Utah state agencies that have land management responsibilities to increase natural carbon sequestration. Significantly, it also urges state agencies to encourage private landowners, who presumably would probably be mostly farmers and ranchers, to also sequester carbon.
Summary
While H.C.R. focuses largely on federal lands problems and policies the solutions and recommendations it calls for are based on research, demonstrations, and logic that have wide applicability to the broad national and even international climate policy debate. It is a landmark legislation in several respects.
The resolution recognizes that the primary goal of all climate policy is to eliminate and/or reduce atmospheric loadings of greenhouse cases. But it also recognizes that there are multiple ways that this can be accomplished. This connection is often missing in the larger climate debate.
The resolution also recognizes that while a large amount of money is being and will be spent on climate-related policies and proposals this funding is not unlimited. It lays out a mechanism to allocate available funding in a way that is both the most cost-effective and generates the greatest amount of co-benefits, a modified cost-benefit test. This “social benefits of carbon control” analysis are applicable to all climate expenditures, not just those in the natural resources area that is the focus of the resolution.
It is especially significant that H.C.R.1 recognizes the true potential for sequestration of carbon long-term in natural systems. We believe that it is the first governmental entity to do this. The significance of that recognition is underscored by also recognizing both the relatively low cost of this approach to controlling carbon emissions and the many co-benefits it generates. Finally, based on these facts, it makes specific policy recommendations for dramatically changing federal climate policy priorities and funding.
This same framework for identifying the best policy and funding options is applicable in all aspects of climate policy. Doing so would have profound implications nationally and even internationally. For example, it demonstrates that we could sequester enough atmospheric carbon in soil and natural systems to “buy” a number of decades of time in which to make a more orderly and economically-sensible transition to a post-carbon future. It would allow us to make that transition in a more responsible, economical, measured, efficient, just, equitable, and overall smarter way than will likely occur otherwise, all while also achieving and maintaining net-zero and even net-negative CO2 emissions into the mid-term.
In the narrow scope of public lands management, the resolution also makes important contributions. It suggests a reasonable standard of stewardship for federal agencies and for holding them accountable when they do not attain it. It also provides for independent professional review of their efforts.
Finally, and certainly not least important, the unanimous adoption of this resolution demonstrates that it is possible to achieve a significant win-win outcome in the divisive climate policy arena. As such, it is a landmark accomplishment in its own right. It should provide a guide to achieving similar consensus on climate nationally and internationally.
We commend Rep. Kevin Stratton, the primary author of H.C.R. 1, and Sen. David Hinkins, the Senate sponsor for their leadership and insight on this issue. Great credit is also due to the entire legislature and Governor Spencer Cox.
Win/Win CO2 Solutions Alliance worked closely with Rep. Stratton in developing this bill and strongly supported it in the legislature. We will be working to further promote it as a truly win-win approach to dealing with the climate change issue.