Carbon markets were first created decades ago as a means for companies to offset their greenhouse gas emissions by paying to reduce emissions somewhere else. Think: planting trees that hold carbon in South America to balance emissions from a factory in South Carolina. And over the last several years, policymakers, environmental and farm groups, and private companies began hyping the idea that specific markets could be created to pay farmers for adopting practices that could reduce emissions and hold carbon in soil. Congress passed the Growing Climate Solutions Act on a bipartisan basis in an effort to jump-start the markets. The two practices that dominate current marketsno-till and cover crops"require herbicides to succeed in the way they're practiced. Farmers use herbicides to kill weeds that they could otherwise till under and to kill cover crops before planting a cash crop. [Hamilton College researchers raised concerns] that markets would incentivize activities that required heavy chemical inputs, which a farmer would have to purchase from a chemical company. Currently, Bayer, Corteva, and Truterra's markets all pay farmers primarily to adopt no-till systems and to plant cover crops. And there is a long history of companies using those specific practices to market pesticides linked to serious health risks. As far back as the 1970s, Chevron Chemical promoted paraquat ... as a tool to convert to no-till farming.