Despite the profound impact climate change is already having on farmers and food production, governments have been slow to address escalating climate risks. Too often, climate policies such as carbon markets treat agriculture narrowly as an offset for polluters. A number of new policies take a more comprehensive and holistic approach to the climate and agriculture challenge. This year we’ll be tracking a number of recently passed climate policies at the state, national and international level that attempt to respond to the risks climate change poses for our food system.
Climate-driven transitions for energy and transportation have proven tough going, but record-setting renewable energy production reflects important progress. The concepts and principles of a just transition, one that treats workers and affected communities fairly, are well developed for other sectors. Now, similar principles are taking shape for a just transition for food systems — where climate goals intersect with nutrition and hunger, rural economies, fair markets for farmers, workers and consumers, clean water, cultural respect and biodiversity preservation. Below are a few climate-focused policies we will follow in 2025. We hope they represent a new focus by governments on a just transition that builds climate resilience and reduces emissions in our food system.
Denmark Targets Agriculture Emissions
In fall 2024, Denmark’s Parliament approved an “Agreement for Green Denmark” that included a tax on livestock methane emissions (starting in 2030), resources for farmers to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use (a major source of nitrous oxide emissions and water pollution) and to transition animals onto pasture, coupled with public investments for farmers to plant trees and restore peatlands and new training for food system workers (WRI has a good summary). The multi-track policy was developed by bringing farm, climate, business and labor groups together to hash out a compromise each constituency could live with. The result is not perfect. Some Danish civil society organizations, such as the Council for Green Transition and Greenpeace Denmark, question how well the new policy will reduce emissions. The plan includes more subsidies for industrial farming systems than organic or agroecological farmers. There are questions about whether the tax will be high enough to spur changes on the farm that reduce emissions, and the policy does not address so-called carbon leakage, when companies evade taxes by moving production to another country and then exporting the goods back into Denmark. Despite these weaknesses, Denmark has moved the ball on climate and agriculture policy and we’ll be tracking its implementation.
Climate Change and the U.S. Farm Bill
Congress has failed to pass the five-year U.S. Farm Bill for nearly two years now. In December, Congress approved an emergency Farm Bill extension, setting a Sept. 30, 2025, deadline. One of the key sticking points between the two parties is how to handle the additional resources from the Inflation Reduction Act going into existing Farm Bill conservation programs. These programs are enormously popular. Conservation programs support farmers in a host of climate-resilient practices, such as building soil health, better livestock management, diversifying cropping systems, putting in buffers to better manage water, and strategies to reduce nitrogen fertilizer use. Even with the additional IRA funding available in 2023, our research found that three out of four farmer applicants were denied for the most popular farm conservation programs. While a portion of the additional IRA conservation dollars have been spent, Congress still has an opportunity in 2025 to insert the remaining IRA funding into the next Farm Bill to increase the conservation spending baseline. This would boost the baseline spending on conservation programs in all future Farm Bills as well. Meanwhile, additional conservation funding is getting to farmers at a record-level — along with more evidence for policymakers that a major expansion is needed.
Europe’s Strategic Dialogue and a Just Transition
In 2024, in response to farmer protests throughout Europe, the European Commission launched a Strategic Dialogue for the Future of EU Agriculture (read our analysis). The outcome is a series of recommendations to European policymakers to ensure a “transition [is] designed in such a way that it leads to agrifood systems that are more resilient, sustainable, competitive, profitable, and just.” The scope of recommendations is broad, from addressing unfair trade practices (when a buyer exploits their market power to persistently set farmgate prices below the cost of sustainable production), to supporting the next generation of farmers, to making the sustainable choice the easy one for consumers. Three recommendations stand out: 1) Develop transition plans for industrial livestock production; 2) Establish an Agri-food Just Transition Fund to support those plans; 3) Reform the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to support farmers who need it most and protect the environment. In March 2025, the new EU Agriculture Commissioner is expected to propose policies to implement the Strategic Dialogue recommendations, and later in the year to make recommendations for CAP reform.
Climate Disclosure for Agribusiness
Government policies that require corporations to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and climate risk are gaining traction in the U.S. and around the world. Mandatory emission reporting, with agreed upon standards, is critical in the face of widespread corporate greenwashing linked to climate action. For agribusiness and food companies, up to 90% of their emissions come from their supply chain, including from the factory farm system of animal production and nitrogen fertilizer use. A dozen countries, including the European Commission, are moving forward with mandatory climate emission reporting (see our analysis). While the Trump Administration is expected to halt proposed climate disclosure rules at the Security Exchange Commission (SEC), California (the world’s fifth largest economy) has approved even stronger climate disclosure rules, and New York (the world’s tenth largest economy) is expected to pass new rules in 2025. Strong climate disclosure rules improve accountability for agribusiness and food companies to reduce their emissions.
Climate Superfund and Farming
In 2024, Vermont and New York became the first states to pass what is being characterized as a climate superfund law, where historical polluters pay into a fund to help states pay for the damage caused by climate-related disasters. This approach, which targets fossil fuel polluters who knew they were contributing to the climate crisis for decades, will generate new funding for two states that have experienced severe climate-related events in recent years. A key challenge for climate and agriculture policy at the state level has been funding. For farmers, some climate adaptation strategies such as building soil health or wetlands restoration can also reduce emissions. The climate superfund approach follows the “polluter pays” principle, while avoiding the multitude of flaws that have plagued carbon markets. Other states are looking to follow New York and Vermont’s lead as the Trump Administration is expected to retreat from climate policy. Legal challenges from the fossil fuel industry will likely follow, but the climate superfund approach could bring much needed state-level resources to farmers and rural communities to respond to climate change.
State-level Climate Action
As a response to the first Trump Administration’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, the U.S. Climate Alliance was formed. The alliance now represents 24 U.S. state governors who are committed to reducing emissions and maintaining international commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement. In 2025, Minnesota will update its Climate Strategy Framework, focusing on reaching its 2030 target to reduce emissions by 50% (from 2005 levels). For agriculture, the Minnesota framework identifies primary emission sources as nitrogen fertilizer (linked to corn production) and industrial livestock emissions. Other states are expected to also update and strengthen their climate policies over the next few years.
Deforestation and Climate Tariffs
Countries have been slow to reform trade agreements that increase climate emissions and undermine domestic climate policy. The European Union has been out front, passing the EU Deforestation Regulation which limits imports of commodities tied to deforestation, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which places import tariffs on certain commodities (fertilizer being one of them) that don’t meet EU climate standards. Both EU policies have faced pushback, including at the World Trade Organization, for taking unilateral actions without the involvement of developing countries that undermine global cooperation. But both policies have launched a vital discussion about carbon leakage and GHG accounting, including an examination of the question: what is the importing country’s responsibility for emissions in another country? A recent report examined emissions embedded within imported products going to G-20 countries. How can countries prevent imports from undermining domestic climate policy? And how can developed countries support developing countries to reach higher climate standards? Look for these debates to continue in 2025 and beyond.
The risk of waiting too long to chart a new course for climate and agriculture policy is enormous. Climate change itself is already driving changes, reducing cattle herds, shifting growing patterns, and disrupting markets. The climate-related costs are enormous as disaster aid and crop insurance payouts rise. And governments have thus far been reluctant to address agriculture’s emissions, particularly livestock emissions from the potent, but short-lived greenhouse gas methane. Denmark’s combination of livestock taxes and funding for farmers to reduce emissions, improve resilience and enhance biodiversity is an important start. Smart policies can help farmers and food systems to become more resilient and reduce emissions, while ensuring market fairness. Bad climate policies, like the stubborn allegiance of some policymakers to failed carbon markets or investments in factory farm gas, delay the important policy debates about a just transition for food and agriculture that we urgently need.
