Authors: Alison Eagle, Jocelyn Lavallee, Renske Hijbeek
Dec. 5 is World Soil Day.
Soil is one of our best allies in tackling climate change, but it’s also one of the most misunderstood. Myths about what soil can (and can’t) do still shape global debates. That’s why scientists from Environmental Defense Fund and Wageningen University dug into the data to bring clarity. Because sound science is the foundation of sound policy.
Why soil matters.
Healthy soils are essential for climate change mitigation and sustainable food production. But while improving soil carbon is part of the solution, it’s not a silver bullet. Real progress requires a whole food-system approach that balances production, consumption, and land use – while cutting emissions across agriculture and beyond.
Five myths about soil carbon – debunked.
Myth 1: It isn’t feasible to measure soil carbon change directly for large-scale monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV)
Fact: Direct soil carbon measurement is still the most reliable way to track changes over time, and it’s becoming increasingly more practical at larger scales.
Collecting soil samples and analysing them in a lab takes time, but studies show it works well at scale. Costs per hectare often drop as projects grow.
These measurements are also vital for improving newer methods like process-based modelling and remote sensing, which rely on ground-truth data for accuracy. To ensure reliable results, it’s crucial to apply consistent protocols and use the same laboratory throughout the project’s lifetime.
Myth 2: Huge climate mitigation potential because there’s so much land.
Fact: Not all farmland is suitable for soil carbon sequestration practices, and many farmers have already adopted improved practices.
Global estimates often assume that nearly all farmers can switch to practices like cover cropping or reduced tillage on all of their cropland. In reality, many already use conservation tillage or cultivate winter crops, and not all production systems – like potatoes or other root crops – are compatible with no-till methods. Suitability varies widely across both Europe and the U.S.
For example,
- EDF research in the U.S. found only about one-third of cropland is suitable for cover crops.
- Wageningen University scientists found less than a quarter of arable land in Germany and the Netherlands can support additional cover cropping.
- Water availability also limits adoption: In Spain, water scarcity makes the cover cropping practices infeasible in many regions.
The takeaway: soil carbon strategies need to be regionally tailored, not one-size-fits-all.
Myth 3: Cost is the biggest barrier for farmers to sequester soil carbon
Fact: Environmental and technical barriers often matter more.
There’s a widespread assumption that if we simply pay farmers enough, soil carbon sequestration will scale up quickly. But research shows the reality is far more complex. Biophysical conditions – like soil type, rainfall, crop rotations – often determine whether practices like cover cropping or reduced tillage are even possible. For example,
- Mediterranean climates: Water scarcity is the single biggest barrier to cover crop cultivation. When water is limited, farmers understandably prioritize main cash crops over cover crops – even if subsidies fully cover the operational costs.
- Atlantic and Continental regions: Heavy autumn rainfall can make fields inaccessible and increase the risk of soil damage from machinery, preventing timely cover crop planting.
- Reduced tillage – another carbon-boosting practice – depends on crop type and seasonal conditions; Farmers growing certain crops may find reduced tillage impractical if this leads to more weeds in their fields, leading to interrupted adoption patterns. These realities mean soil carbon practices can’t always be applied consistently year after year – policies must allow flexibility instead of penalizing farmers.
Financial support matters, but it’s not the silver bullet, Research from the U.S. illustrates this point:
- About 70% of U.S farmers who started growing winter cover crops under multi-year incentive programs continued after payments ended – showing agronomic benefits experienced after transition support can drive persistence following initial adoption.
- However, despite decades of available funding – the U.S. Department of Agriculture has offered payments for winter cover crops since the 1950s – as of 2022, only 5% of U.S. cropland used cover crops by 2022.
The evidence is clear: money alone isn’t enough. Successful soil carbon strategies must account for local agronomic realities and climate variability and combine financial incentives with flexible, science-informed policies that make adoption feasible – not just affordable.
Myth 4: Increasing carbon in soil results in higher crop yield and improved soil quality
Fact: More soil carbon can boost soil health, but yield benefits depend on local conditions.
Adding organic matter, which can increase soil carbon, can improve water retention, soil structure, and nutrients. But these benefits don’t always mean higher yields. Compacted soils may not respond, and certain crops – such as root and tuber varieties – gain more than cereals, which already have deeper root systems.
A Europe-wide study of long-term experiments found that soils under stress (very sandy or very wet) see the most improvement when organic matter is added – but those same soils have lower carbon storage potential, creating trade-offs between productivity and climate change mitigation potential.
Effective carbon farming policies should account for these trade-offs to avoid unintended impacts on food security and land use.
Myth 5: Soil carbon sequestration can offset fossil fuel and other on-farm emissions (example: enteric methane)
Fact: Soil carbon can help, but it can’t cancel out emissions from livestock, fertilizers, or fossil fuels.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) differ in strength and duration: Methane (CH₄), for instance, is around 80 times more potent than CO₂ over 20 years but breaks down after roughly a decade, while CO₂ lingers for centuries.
Because of these differences, comparing soil carbon sequestration to on-farm emissions can be misleading. Rigorous climate modelling shows that storing enough carbon in soil to fully offset emissions is simply not possible. Soil carbon storage also plateaus over time – even if practices continue – while emissions from livestock and fertilizers persist annually.
The takeaway: Cutting emissions directly remains essential, with soil carbon playing a supporting role.
Soil is part of the solution.
Healthy soils are vital to Europe’s climate, biodiversity, and food security. But to harness their potential, we need realistic expectations and robust science.
By grounding agricultural policy in evidence – and understanding farmers’ local realities – Europe can develop solutions that strengthen resilience, support rural livelihoods, and meet climate goals.
Soil is part of the solution, but only as one element of a whole food-system approach to sustainability.