Negotiators from around the world met at The Hague last month to further negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. While participants didn’t agree on much, most governments, including the United States, have for one reason or another come to accept the necessity of addressing greenhouse gas emissions. But central to any successful effort will be a re-consideration of how we produce food from the farm to the fork.

The Environmental Protection Agency reports that agriculture is responsible for about 7 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions. Yet this represents just emissions directly from the farm. This does not include emissions from the production of fertilizers, chemicals, machinery, or the rest of the food chain. And even more significantly, this does not include emissions from the transportation, marketing, processing and packaging of food. A new report from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy finds that, when all the components of the food system are included, the food chain – from farm to retail -- is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for the US to reduce greenhouse gases to 7 percent below 1990 levels. Yet we are currently way above 1990 levels. The liberalization of agricultural trade through the World Trade Organization (WTO) has exacerbated the problem. Although no solid data exists, evidence suggests that the distance our food travels has increased dramatically in the past 20 years. Global trade has opened up our borders to the transport of food like never before. It has also increased our food-associated energy demands like never before, particularly in transportation, processing, and marketing. Farmers are dependent on subsidized fossil fuels and government bailouts to maintain rock-bottom prices.

Proponents of globalization argue that these environmental costs are a small price to pay to keep our farmers viable and food prices low. But is the system really working? USDA data shows that, since 1984, the real price of a market basket of food has increased 2.8 percent, while the farm cost for that food has decreased 35.7 percent. Instead of benefiting farmers and consumers, the current system of global economic arrangements seems to be simply providing more market power to the middlemen – the traders, processors, and transporters. Our food may be cheaper here in the US than in other countries, but we pay a heavy price. We are by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gas, soil and water pollution are rampant, the family farm is disappearing, and rural communities are struggling to survive.

There is another way. Farmers and the environment can mutually benefit from addressing climate change. First, good farming practices like no-till can actually reverse greenhouse gas emissions, putting carbon dioxide back into the soil. As legislators gear up for another debate on farm legislation, we should make sure that these practices are rewarded. Second, agriculture should start reducing its dependence on fossil fuels and shift toward becoming a producer of energy. Through wind farms and the production of energy crops, agriculture can become a major supplier of energy. Third, subsidized fossil fuels have encouraged a shift to long distance transport of food, often destroying the social fabric of farming communities. Rediscovering high value local markets could help regenerate the rural countryside.

Unfortunately, US negotiators want to have it both ways. They want to reduce global greenhouse gases, while continuing full speed ahead with economic globalization policies enforced by the WTO. At the Hague, US negotiators pushed for schemes that would allow the US to buy emission credits from other countries, accomplishing little toward reducing our rampant consumption of fossil fuels at home. The bottom line is that we will not be successful in reducing greenhouse gases until we make major changes in our food production stream.

WTO policies, which dictate the international distribution of food, should not be allowed to undermine global efforts to address climate change. Trade negotiations should not be blind to environmental consequences and other international commitments. Rather, the grave consequences that climate change will have on our children and grandchildren needs to be the international negotiators’ number one priority. Upcoming WTO negotiations and Kyoto Protocol conferences offer a real opportunity to integrate environmental and economic policies in a mutually supportive way.