Sowing Seeds of Innovation with Agriculture Offsets

that at scale could really have a meaningful impact. Direct emissions from the agriculture sector currently make up roughly eleven percent of global totals, with soil management and livestock related activities as the biggest parts. When thinking about solutions, it's going to be the farmers and their farming practices that will reduce emissions. So offsets give them a market and

a bit of inspiration to spur this innovation. Today I get to speak with Kyle Harrison, who leads our sustainability research team at BENF and he spends a lot of time looking at carbon offsets of all kinds. As a quick reminder, b ANF does not provide investment or strategy advice, and we have a complete disclaimer at the end of the show. And now let's jump into our conversation with Kyle about agriculture carbon offsets. Kyle, thanks for coming on

back to the show. Thanks for having me so our favorite topic that you and I discuss when we're on here, which is the wonderful world of offsets, And this time we're going to be talking about agriculture offsets. And so actually, let's just definitionally, Well, that's a mouthful jump right in. Can you explain what an agriculture specific offset actually is? Sure?

And I think maybe taking one step back even further, right, when we talk about a carbon offset, we think about a verified emission reduction certificate or credit that can be bought and sold by various parties. So a corporation can buy one of these offsets and retire it or cancel it from the market, and then they can neutralize their own hard to abate emissions. And generally, when we talk about carbon offsets, we're looking at a couple of specific sectors,

and these are the ones that get most of the love. Right, it's energy generation projects like clean energy, it's avoided deforestation and reforestation, and then there's all the other sectors like clean cookstoves for example. But when we talk about agriculture carbon offsets, we're thinking about avoiding or removing emissions from

any sustainable practice in agriculture. So that can be something like more sustainable management of manure or feeding livestock different food so that their digestion process changes and they emit less methane. But it could also be the way that we change the water usage, for example, for rice cultivation. So there's a whole slew of potential subsectors within agriculture that can avoid or remove emissions and as a result, they can create these carbon offsets that can be bought

by companies. And to further frame this, how much of direct emissions are actually coming from the agricultural sector now, So there's a lot of different estimates on this, and it depends on what subsectors you include, but generally you're looking at a range of around eleven to of global greenhouse gas emissions coming from agriculture, and so there's a huge role to play here by again employing sustainable practices

to reduce those emissions. And we've talked about offsets here in the past, so if people want to go back to even more definitions the things that Kyle just let us into, you know what this voluntary offset space really is, how big is this agriculture offset space that we're going to talk about today in terms of the market, Is this an innovation or is this a big part of the voluntary offset market. It's essentially non existent or tiny today. And there there is an asterisk to that which i'll

which i'll go into a little bit more. But when we talk about the offset markets today and we think about supply of carbon offsets, you're looking at between two and three hundred million carbon offsets being issued on on an annual basis. The record in terms of carbonof set issuance in the agriculture space to date was one point five million carbon offsets in twenty seventeen. That supply has actually dropped year on near since, so a very very

tiny percent of the market on registry comes from agriculture today. However, there is this important part of the agriculture offs at market that makes it quite unique, and that is the fact that there is a thriving what we call off registry ecosystem. And so what that means is that when you buy a carbon offset today, a lot of projects

are listed on a registry. The biggest ones are VERA, there's ones like gold Standard, and then the American Carbon Registry, for example, and there can be quite expensive fees for listing those projects on registry. So what you see in the agriculture spaces a lot of small farmers that are adopting sustainable agriculture practices, they'll sell their offsets on marketplaces

that are off registry. So for example, they'll go through companies like Nori where they bypass that fee for listing their project and then they can sell those offsets directly to customers offer registry. So it's a little bit difficult to say just how big the overall market is. But with the data that we do have, the data that we can analyze is that on registry market and right now it is absolutely tiny, but we don't think it will be that way for long. And there's a number

of different reasons for that. Well, and the reason I asked you to come on today isn't because this is a huge space that you know is unavoidable. It's more that this is part of the solution finding space within agriculture, which is complicated, super fragmented, and we at b NF do really like to think about, well, what are the potential solutions and what could scale. So you mentioned the off registry offset space being potentially really appealing to some

of the smaller farmers out there. I guess then that makes a question what's in it for them? What's in it for a farmer to even be an on registry listing for an offset, and how lucrative is this for them. There's a few different ways to think about this, and one of them is kind of the classic corporate sustainability strategy, right, which is by adopting sustainable practices in a lot of cases, you're saving on resources. So maybe we can use that

example of rice cultivation. Like I mentioned before, when someone cultivates rice or grows rice, typically they do that in a rice patty, and what they do is that they drown that patty and water in order to go ahead and produce that rice. For starters, that's using a ton of water resources, right, and that water needs to be pumped and transported from point A to point B. At the same time, though, what you're actually doing is you're

drowning the crop and you're actually drowning the soil. And what that does is it creates special bacteria that emits things like methane and nitrous oxide. One of the ways that you can go ahead and mitigate some of these emissions, um is just by simply reducing your water usage, so

using water much more strategically on rice patties. So again you're reducing your emissions because you're not drowning out those patties in the same way that you would, but you're also reducing your usage of water, right, So that saves a farmer purely from a natural resource standpoint, quite a bit of money. So there's that one angle to it.

The other one, which we thought about a little bit when we were trying to estimate the long term cost of carbon offsets from this space is the opportunity to produce sustainable agriculture produced sustainable food and crops. So foods with an organic label, for example, typically sell for quite a large premium compared to traditional methods, so farmers as results, they can go ahead and sell their food for more and long term that can lead to a more revenue

for a farmer. So there are definitely benefits to the farmer. Presumably there's innovation here and there are certain things that they need to do in order to be able to qualify for these on registry ones. But actually before we

even get into that the off registry ones. There's this whole verification process that we have discussed in the past in other shows, and there's is kind of somewhat dubious world of non certified voluntary offsets and whether or not we can take them seriously and whether or not we can actually see those as additional Do you think that there's a risk for the off registry listings to potentially be something that people could exploit and you know, don't

end up giving the benefit to the companies that are actually buying these offsets. It's a complicated topic, but I think it's absolutely something that any stakeholder in the sector should be asking themselves. When you think about the role of a registry, what it should be doing is it should be that kind of first line of defense in verifying the quality of a project. They should have that methodology laid out on the registry to go ahead and work with an independent third party to verify that a

project actually is avoiding or removing emissions. But the issue is, and what we've seen even on Registry over the past few months and years, is that there's quite a few projects that do make that on registry cut that aren't

considered high quality. So what you're seeing is is almost this eroding level of faith in the registries and the role that they're going to play in this market personally, and I think overall these registries will play an important role, and they are working with other third party groups to further verify quality. So there's a group that we've definitely mentioned previously on this podcast data it's called the Integrity

Council on Voluntary Carbon Markets. They're creating what are called their Core Carbon Principles, and that is a set of thresholds that a project needs to meet to be considered high quality. And while that technically is separate from the work that the registries are doing, there was quite a bit of collaboration between those two parties, and the registries are actually intimately involved when the work that the Integrity

Council is doing. So I do think that overall, moving forward, registries will play in very important part in this market. And so if you are operating off registry, you are kind of betting against the overall momentum of the market here. However, I do go back to the at financial issue that I talked about earlier. It's very expensive for a small farmer to go ahead and pay the fee to list

a project on one of these registries. A lot of these farmers already operated at a loss, regardless of whether or not they're using sustainable practices or they're creating offsets. So if you remove that financial incentive or you give this huge financial fee, that's going to remove any incentive that a farmer would have to generate carbon offsets. And a lot of this supply that we would see in the market over the coming decades that we're very bullish

on at b an EF that's going to evaporate. Right. So what this does, this off registry market is it does in many ways empower the small farmer and it gives them that option to monetize or create new revenue streams by adopting more sustainable practices. So it's it's a tough one. I know it didn't give you the perfect answer here, but I do think that there are some major risks with operating off registry. However, I do think that there's some you know, really important positives to that

side of the market as well. So you just reference the farmers that are operating at a loss, and I know this is a space that you know, because food is so important to human beings, right, this is a space where policymakers have gotten very involved in who's producing and who receives subsidies to in some circumstances not produced.

Are there countries and policy makers and governments that are looking at this offset space as a potential opportunity for them, not just in terms of driving down the emissions for maybe they're stated at zero goals as a country, but also as a way to potentially create other revenue streams for the farming sector. Absolutely will be found is that there's twenty seven countries now that have a specific carve out for soil in their nationally determined contribution, so that's

their paras aligned climate goal. They are specifically going to be looking at abatement from soil carbon, so actually, you know, strengthening soil and using soil to further store carbon. There

are a lot of count trees that are prioritizing this. However, I think as you think about it in terms of the offset market, there's definitely a way that you can think about this as potentially adversarial, right, and so what I mean by that is in general, when you think about the total amount of abatement that can come from soil carbon and from sustainable agriculture practices in general. Theoretically, each ton of that abatement should only be used for

one thing. Right It's either used for abatement by a country to reach their nationally determined contribution, or it's being exported as a carbon offset, either to a company within

that same country or two companies elsewhere in the world. Right. So, one of the challenges and one of the kind of exercises that we did when we did this long term outlook, as we said, well, let's look at the countries that are also prioritizing soil carbon in their climate goals, and let's see if they met a small portion of their nationally determined contribution with soil carbon, how much of the

offset supply in the market would that into. And so we took an eleven percent figure, which is kind of goes back to what I mentioned earlier about how around eleven or a little bit more of global greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture, and we assume that eleven percent of that country's emissions are met with abatement from agriculture, and what that potentially does is it wipes carbon offsets supply from some major agriculture companies entirely off the map.

So what that means is that they no longer have any supply to export two companies elsewhere in the world, and they're using all of that supply for their own domestic abatement goal. And this is something that I think policymakers, but also anyone that's buying carbon offsets, traders, suppliers of carbon offsets, they all need to start thinking about this. And increasingly we're starting to see this from countries around

the world. So India recently went ahead and they announced that they will not export any carbon offsets until they use the necessary abatement to meet their own climate targets. If you start to get major other agriculture societies, so I'm thinking about countries like the United States, like China, like Brazil, if they start to make similar types of pledges,

that's going to eat into carbon offsets supply significantly. So as a buyer of a carbon offset, a lot of that potential supply that I would be tapping into in this market is going to evaporate, and I need to think of alternative routes to market as a result. That is a really interesting perspective in making sure that we're not double counting. So you mentioned the countries that are looking at this most kind of actively right now. How

about companies. Is it the usual players in the agricultural supply chain or is it other companies looking at, you know, creative ways to offset their business activities. I think there's two points of the agriculture offset value chain that are worth highlighting here. And when we talk about any sector in carbon offsets, whether it is energy generation or forestry or cookstoves or agriculture, you do have kind of three main players that are involved in the space or ford

depending on how you look at it. You have your developers, so you have the companies that are creating the carbon offset projects. You have the registries that these projects are getting listed on. Typically, then you have a broker, so typically a company that is an independent third party consultant that will either just advise a buyer on how they should purchase offsets or they'll actually be the one buying the offsets and then selling those onto a customer somewhere

along the value chain. So brokers play very important role here. And then of course you have the buyers. What makes the agriculture offset value chain. Very unique is you also have a number of what we call aggregators that operate in this market. So I mentioned before the opportunities in this sector to empower the small farmer, to get them to start adopting sustainable practices and monetizing carbon offsets as

a way to finance those activities. What you have in a lot of cases is companies playing the role of what we call an aggregator. And typically these are large agriculture companies like Kellogg for example, like Cargill, like General Mills. What they'll do is they'll work actually with small farmers, and as the name would imply, they will aggregate a bunch of carbon op set supply from those small farmers.

They'll pay the fees, they'll handle all the technical aspects of developing that project, and then they'll actually be the ones to take ownership of those offsets in exchange for a small fee of the farmer. So a lot of the risks that would come with developing this project, both physically and financially, the small farmer no longer has to bear those The aggregator takes that type of responsibility. So I think that's a really unique kind of corporate player

in the offset value chain. That's important to note. But then danta to your original question. In terms of buyers, it's a whole slew of buyers right, ranging from technology companies like Microsoft, two banks like Barclays and JP Morgan, all the way to e commerce companies like Shopify for example. There's a whole range of these companies that are getting

very active in this space. And in general, we think the value of an agriculture offset, and we can definitely go into more detail on this mean is that it's going to be very desirable as a supply source for any type of corporate fire for ones that want to emphasize quality especially, they're all going to be looking towards agriculture offsets as a source of supply now for a very short break stay with us. So, of course there's the quality of the offset that the companies are looking at,

but then there's price. So are these price competitive within

the range of other voluntary carbon offsets. So in terms of how we actually went ahead and tried to estimate cost, I got into this a little bit earlier, but what we tried to think about is what is the premium that a form would be selling, for example, an organic product for compared to a regular version of that product, and can of carbon offset finance the gap in producing that organic product because again, in a lot of cases, it involves changing the way that you're producing these crops,

and a lot of cases it involves an upfront cost. So what we said is can you use an office to finance those activities and in turn sell you know, higher quality food at a higher price or a premium. And in general, what we found as a result of that is that you have a huge range in terms of costs of these carbon offsets depending on the market that you operate in, but also depending on the type

of crop that you're producing. And so what we found is that there's a slew of projects that can sell carbon offsets in the agriculture space for less than five dollars a ton. And there's some major agriculture countries that fall into this category. That is inexpensive, is it not,

that's very inexpensive, that's too cheap. So, for example, there's countries like India and Canada and Kazakhstan that do have quite large agriculture industries that can sell a carbon ops that we estimate in from agriculture for less than five dollars ton. However, this is quite a steep supply curve and there are a number of countries that would be selling these agriculture opsets for a lot more expensive in

the price. So we estimate that the US would be selling it around twenty two a ton, Brazil let around thirty dollars a ton, all the way up to Australia at around sixty dollars a ton. And again, what this comes down to is what is the major crop that these countries are producing, and then what is the premium that it would take for them to sell or the premium that they would charge to sell an organic version

of that crop. Right, So, if you think about a market like Australia, for example, a lot of their agriculture industry is focused on beef production, so selling organic beef often goes for much higher a premium compared to traditional beef.

But the practices that need to go into producing that, like feed additives, more sustainable livestock management, all that costs money upfront, right, and so the gap that you would need, the price that you need to sell those offsets at to bridge the gap between those two practices is a lot higher. In general, I think this does kind of

match what we've seen with other offset sectors. If you look at other nature based solution like reforestation and avoidant deforestation, for example, we use a different methodology to estimate cost, So in those cases we look primarily at what we call opportunity cost, So how would that land be used otherwise if it wasn't for protecting those trees? And what we found with that exercise and analysis is that you

also have a huge range in costs. So there's a lot of countries that can sell reforestation offsets for less than five dollars a ton, and then again there's countries like Australia that are selling them at much higher prices that over a hundred dollars a ton. So I think, in general, what we've seen with other sectors, and you know, if anything, it's actually kind of a middle ground. You don't have the highs of other sectors and the lows. You know, while they are similar, they might not be

quite as pronounced. I mean, they seem to be cost competitive with the compliance markets like the EU E t S here in Europe. Long term, I think yes, right now, and this is a you know, We've talked about this before. This is an ongoing challenge with the voluntary market is that carbon offsets are are far too cheap right now.

If you look at the e U e T s, right the cost of carbon to the price of carbon is covering in some cases at some periods around hundred euros a ton, and then you compare that to the voluntary space, it's far too cheap for an offset today. And what that means is that it doesn't incentivize any change within an actual company. So what that means is that they'll use carbon offsets is a blanket or band aid solution to achieving a net zero carbon neutral goal.

They won't actually try to change their practices internally. And so what you need to see is there's more of those higher costs in order to incentivize change. Yeah, the higher costs than driving adoption of best available technologies. But then here within the agriculture space, if I had to really summarize it, what you're saying to me is what you're essentially doing when you're buying an agriculture focused offset is your funding innovation and it's about bridging that gap.

As you were saying in the agricultural practices today, but essentially trying to drive down costs maybe for different innovations in the long term. Now, I know some of these are not innovations. Some of these are just as you were mentioning organic farming. These are practices and there are associated rules with it. But what are some of the other innovations that maybe will be less expensive and scalable

in the longer run. That's a great question. You're absolutely right when you think about an offset for some of these more nasson sectors. An offset is your financing vehicle, right. It's the same thing with something like direct air capture. It's the same when it comes to nasson sectors like blue carbon so help or allergae based sequestration. Your offset is your way that you get financing, similar to a

power purchase agreement for clean energy for example. So our tech and innovation team has done some really good work at looking specifically at innovation in the agriculture sector, and what they've found specifically is that precision farming startups so companies that use data to for example, improve a farm efficiency but also crop yield. These companies have raised over a billion dollars in terms of funding from BC private

equity firms over the past couple of years. So they'll use things, for example, like sensors and software to better measure carbon sequestration within soil. But then they'll also use that data to adopt again and improve the efficiency of farmland to improve yields. So there's a lot of exciting work happening there. For example, I briefly mentioned this before, but there's also areas like feed additives. So a huge chunk of carbon emissions from the agriculture space today come

from a process that we call enteric fermentation. I'm not going to go into the weeds of what that means, but effectively, when a cow or various cattle digests the food that they eat, it produces methane and an example in the United States and terek fermentation makes up roughly around of emissions that come from the agriculture space a lot. Yeah, it's a huge part of this. So live stock and you know, even the manure that comes from livestock is a huge part of the emissions here, and that's a

huge opportunity of course for carbon offset creation. So there's a lot of investment also going into areas like feed additives, So can we feed cattle more sustainable foods that limits the climate impact of that enteric fermentation process. So there's a lot of really cool investment going into areas like that as well. So yes, there's no slew of really cool and exciting technologies on the horizon. The carbon off sets can fund to further improve again crop yields, but

also emission reductions. So you talked about, I guess a number of different applications. So we've been here with an enteric fermentation Okay that that didn't quite roll off my tongue, but essentially dealing with the methane that comes from cows. You have talked about rice patties and what we do about water use and then associated emissions with that. You've talked about different fertilizer practices. If you had to kind of quickly summarize them, what are the different areas that

these offsets are looking to target within agriculture. Well, we did a long term outlook. We specifically looked at seven major areas in terms of abatement potential and maybe just kind of going down the list in terms of the largest areas for abatement. All of this goes back to the soil, right, So the soil is actually where most

of the carbon sequestration happens on a farm. So for example, if you are tearing up crops, or you have livestock walking through crop lands, or you have various physical climate related impacts like storms or flooding, all of that disrupts the structure of the soil. And what that means is it not only releases carbon dioxide and other emissions, it also weakens the future potential for that soil to go

ahead and store carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions. So a lot of the potential abatement goes into strengthening soil. And so there's a couple of areas where you can think about this. One of them, for example, is planting trees and agriculture lands. So what that does is it further builds up the amount of roots underground that can store oil. But it also prevents runoff. So trees will block a lot of the for example, fertilizer runoff, but a lot of just natural water runoff when it comes

to flooding for example. There's also, like I mentioned before, improved rice cultivation, so using practices that use less water and don't actually drown the rice patties with water. There's things like avoided grassland conversion. There's things like what'll we call grazing lagoons, so that means planting certain crops on the soil that have the sole intention of strengthening the roots underground within the soil. And then there's also things

like nutrient management. All of these we think can play a huge role in terms of the abatement potential when it comes to agriculture and as a whole. There's a number of third party sources that estimate that in total, these practices can lead to around between four to five gigatons of potential carbon ambatement on an annual basis. So

there's a lot of really exciting opportunity here. So when I'm thinking about the different offsets that could potentially be taking place in the agriculture, I'm thinking of, Okay, there's the emissions that maybe the methane emissions that maybe aren't coming from the cows because of different additives given to the cow to begin with. So, you know, put very similarly in the energy sector, which we know very well at B and F. You know, it's kind of the

renewable energy versus the coal fired power station. But then I think about a lot of the stuff I've been looking at lately talks about potentially, you know, burying different captured carbon underground, and then I also think about all of the stored carbon. So even then, I was reading something the other day about how big whales are and actually how they fall to the bottom of the ocean after they die and essentially become a form of carbon sequestration.

Are there technologies and are there ways were essentially the carbon coming from some of these projects is actually keeping it in the ground or is it then just coming out with plants that we then eat and going through the cycle. I think you get at a really important point when you think about agriculture offsets, And like I mentioned again, pretty much all of this comes down to the strength of the soil, right and the sequestration of

carbon that occurs in the soil itself. So when you you know, for example, when you have a growing season, but then you're you know, taking all these crops out of the ground, a lot of that carbon does get released into the atmosphere. But what it also does is it weakens the overall integrity of the soil underneath. It, and it means that in future kind of crop yields,

it's not storing as much carbon. The exciting thing about a lot of these kind of activities that I just talked to you about is that they're classified as removal, right, rather than avoidance like you mentioned before. So when you, for example, when you build a clean energy project, that carbon is not being sucked out of the air and storing it somewhere like you mentioned, Dana, you're just avoiding emissions that might have come from a coal plant or

a gas plant. And that dicotto me between removal and avoidance is very important. It might be the hottest topic in the carbon off set market today. So there's a lot of groups, like the Science Based Targets Initiative, for example, that acknowledge the importance of removal. In order for us to achieve our Paris goals, we can't just cut off emissions at the level they are today, right. We need to reduce our emissions back down to levels that we

saw at previous times in history. In order to do that, we need removal. And so the perceived value of any type of project that can offer carbon removal is much higher overall than something that would avoid carbon emissions. So things like reforestation, for example, you're planting new trees in the ground, you're strengthening the soil, and you're leading to

further carbon sequestration. Conversely, something like avoided deforestation, you're just protecting a tree and allowing it to continue storing or sequestering carbon that it would have otherwise if it wasn't

under threat for example. So a lot of these agriculture activities, the nature of them being classified as removal is really important because that's going to give a fresh new injection in the coming years of removal carbonop sets supply into the market that's going to keep supply and demand in equilibrium. So in our long term carbonops that outlook that came out earlier this year, we did rene removal only scenario.

We said, what happens if companies can only buy carbon offsets that remove or sequester carbon in order to achieve their net zero targets for example, And what we found is that the market becomes undersupplied a couple of years from now, and so around the late the market becomes undersupplied because there's so much demand coming from companies with net zero goals and as a result, the price of a carbon opos at skyrockets to what we estimate would be over two dollars a ton, far too expensive for

pretty much any company to buy. If you add in an additional nine million metric tons of supply, which is what we forecast could come from the agriculture space into this room mo will only scenario, it might not prevent the market from becoming undersupplied, but what it does do is it pushes that timeline back where you reach that

equilibrium point by maybe a decade for example. So that's going to play a huge role in keeping costs at a level that are affordable for companies to go ahead and buy these offsets, but also to keep a liquid and more dynamic market occurring. So it's a very important question that you ask. I'm also super intrigued by the whale carbon sequestration. I need to look into that a little bit more. I've never heard of that. Yeah, it's

not quite agriculture, but within the nature based solutions. I think the clickbait headline that brought me in was the world needs more whales because they'll sequester carbon. So I wonder if you can even group that into like blue carbon technically maybe I'll have to I mean, I think seaweed is probably a better parallel. Um Well, okay, So then this brings me to I think another question that

it relates very much to the current times. So this is a small part of the overall carbon offset space right now, has the potential to not only scale better agricultural from more sustainable agricultural practices in the longer term and also become an increasingly large proportion of the offset space.

But we are also headed into our first period without the Ukraine as a fairly large producer of grains for several parts of the world, but particularly Africa, So we're looking at, you know, some real crunch there, and I am wondering if, in times of you know, strain in the agricultural supply chain world, if there will be enough supply for offsets, and if these practices will essentially be thrown to the wayside for potentially quicker, faster, you know,

other ways of making money in this space. That's absolutely a very big concern, and I think broadly the agriculture offset and market is very much at the whim of various macroeconomic factors. So in March of this year, the u n f a O Food Price Index reached an all time high, right, so food is in general very expensive. But at the same time, as you mentioned Danta, you lose a huge source of supply from the Russia and Ukraine in terms of things like wheat. That means two things.

One of them means that countries domestically are going to need to ramp up their own supply to make up for the loss that comes from those countries like Russia and Ukraine. So it's a lot of these countries are going to need to start using more and more land for agriculture practices, and in general that just hurts the offset market. Right beyond agriculture offsets, when you think about, for example, protecting trees at risk, a lot of that land for forest today is going to be need to

be used for agriculture for example. At the same time, if it becomes more expensive to produce food and there's more of a immediate need to produce it, that's also going to hurt the incentive for those all farmers and even large farmers as well to go ahead and adopt sustainable practices because again they're gonna be thinking much more about the financials and climate and emission reductions for example, will come to the back burner. So I think that

that's absolutely a huge concern here. But more broadly, right as we think about climate disasters, as we think about supply chain bottlenecks, both of these things very much real concerns as well. Beyond the rush of Ukraine War, all of these things could plain uncontrollable role in agriculture offset supply, but I think more so in this space than pretty much any other sector that you're looking at for carbon offsets,

So it's very important to keep tabs on. Okay, So, Kyle, this one caught my eye and you recently wrote this outlook on the agriculture offset space, and this is something I don't think I've seen before. So can you just discuss whether or not this is something we're going to be able to continually check in on, and whether or not if this space grows, you'll be keeping your finger on the pulse for it or is it a one off.

We will absolutely be keeping our finger on the pulse in this market, and the plan long term is to integrate this into our long term carbon offsets outlook. So the next iteration of that report will come out early next year, most likely January. I mean in the previous version, agriculture was not one of the supply sources that we

looked at when forecasting the price of carbon offsets. So the plan is to integrate this long term offsets, this agriculture outlook into our our broader long term offsets outlook. But then, as you mentioned, continue to keep tabs on some of these macroeconomic factors that we discussed, new innovative ways of sustainable agriculture that could produce offsets, and just in general, what does buyer appetite look like for offsets like this. So a lot of future plans here and

a lot of exciting things on the horizon. Well, Kyle, thank you for joining today. I certainly am interested in all things that are technologies to scale and things that we think will look dramatically different potentially and certainly in twenty five. So thank you for coming and talking about the space and laying it out for us today. Yeah, thanks as always, Danna. Today's episode of Switched On was

edited by Rex Warner of gray Stoke Media. Bloomberg An e f A is a service provided by Bloomberg Finance LP and its affiliates. This recording does not constitute, nor should it be construed as investment advice, investment recommendations, or recommendation as to an investment or other strategy. Bloomberg an F should not be considered as information sufficient upon which

to base an investment decision. Neither Bloomberg Finance LP nor any of its affiliates makes any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this recording, and any liability of this recording is expressly disclaimed.