To incentivize farmers to adopt environmentally beneficial practices, carbon credits are awarded to those who demonstrate practices that draw more carbon into the soil from the atmosphere. However, there is currently a lack of confidence that soil organic carbon credits represent real climate benefits. A research project led by Eric Potash and the Agroecosystem Sustainability Center at the University of Illinois, has shown that a more rigorous approach to soil carbon quantification is possible, one which promises to build confidence in credits representing real climate benefits.
Currently the most common approach to quantifying these soil carbon credits is called “measure-and-model.” In this approach a soil carbon project developer will measure the carbon stocks on their farms before they begin changing the practice, then they will run models on a computer to estimate the change over time.
By contrast, in the “measure-and-remeasure” approach studied by Potash and co-authors, developers measure those carbon stocks before the practice and then go back a few years later to remeasure stocks. This empirical approach can provide more reliable quantification of soil carbon accrual. Yet voluntary carbon markets and other carbon accounting approaches, including national-level greenhouse gas accounting, rely primarily on measure-and-model because of an assumption that the direct measurement approach is too expensive at landscape and regional scales.
Potash along with co-authors Mark Bradford from the Yale School of the Environment, Emily Oldfield from the Environmental Defense Fund, and ASC Director Kaiyu Guan show that measure-and-remeasure can be economically feasible for carbon crediting when a project is scaled up. The team has developed a web app, where developers can plug in a number of variables to determine how much it would cost to implement measure-and-remeasure in their projects and how profitable they can be selling carbon credits.
Instead of using biogeochemical modeling as in the measure-and-model approach, Potash and co-authors use a multilevel statistical model to estimate the costs and benefits of measure-and-remeasure. In this approach, the group estimated how much sampling would need to be done under the more rigorous measure-and-remeasure to precisely quantify the overall effect of climate-smart practices across a large number of fields. Prior academic work on soil carbon measurement hasn’t considered projects on the scale of thousands or tens of thousands of fields that occur in the voluntary carbon market.
Prior to this work, there was a perception of an inherent trade-off between rigor and economic feasibility that led most developers to take up the cheaper but less rigorous measure-and-model. In this research, Potash and co-authors have provided a framework that factors in a host of variables (all the costs and all the benefits), and shows that larger projects can be developed under the measure-and-remeasure approach and still be quite profitable. The web app enables users to interactively explore how these variables affect the economics of their specific SOC projects. Small projects can also use the app to efficiently design soil carbon measurement efforts, though they may not be profitable in the carbon market.
“Ultimately the goal is to incentivise these practices,” Potash said. “There is a huge perceived opportunity to reduce carbon emissions from agriculture and build the health of soils. At the moment, projects are being developed with measure-and-model, but we aren’t confident in their benefits. Before this research, it felt like we didn’t have another option. However, we found that there is a better way forward. Measure-and-remeasure can be economical. We think it will help to build confidence in soil carbon accounting more generally, and not just for carbon markets.”
Primary media contacts: Kaiyu Guan (kaiyug@illinois.edu), Eric Potash (epotash@illinois.edu)
Measure-and-remeasure as an economically feasible approach to crediting soil organic carbon at scale.
E Potash, M Bradford, E Oldfield, and K Guan. Environmental Research Letters. 20 (2025) 024025