Latest news with #sustainableFarming
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Biden's climate-smart ag program was better than nothing. Trump killed it.
The "Eating the Earth' column explores the connections between the food we eat and the climate we live in. Farms are a huge climate problem, so it was great that the Biden administration made a huge commitment to 'climate-smart agriculture.' But some details of its first $3 billion initiative to make agriculture climate-smarter were not so great. The Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program, launched by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in early 2022, provided generous grants to America's least cash-strapped agribusinesses, including Archer Daniels Midland, JBS, Tyson, Cargill, and PepsiCo, as well as America's most influential farm groups, representing corn, soybeans, cotton, pork, and dairy. A few of its 135 projects actually looked climate-harmful, financing emissions-boosting pseudo-solutions like biofuels, manure digesters, and grass-fed beef. Far too many grants went to scientifically controversial efforts to sequester carbon in farm soils through trendy 'regenerative' practices like planting cover crops and reducing tillage, and not enough flowed to simpler, evidence-backed strategies to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. And the Biden USDA's well-intentioned efforts to make sure a large portion of the grants went to smaller farms, specialty crops, sympathetic nonprofits, and traditionally underserved communities often seemed to take precedence over reducing emissions. I wrote a skeptical column about then-President Joe Biden's climate-smart approach back in 2022, so I had mixed feelings when the Trump administration cancelled the climate-smart commodities program this April. It was clearly a flawed program. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins had a point when she mocked it as slow and bureaucratic. While her primary complaint that it didn't send enough money directly to farmers wasn't my primary complaint — USDA sends plenty of money directly to farmers! — even some Trump-hating advocates of sustainable farming agreed with her critique of its 'sky-high administration fees.' But no one truly believes the program's cancellation had much to do with flaws in its design or execution. Its fatal flaw, from the Trump perspective, was obviously its climate-smart premise; Rollins slagged it as 'largely built to advance the green new scam,' in violation of 'Trump administration priorities.' Those priorities are not a secret: This administration doesn't believe agriculture policy should have anything to do with the climate, which is why it scrubbed the word 'climate' from USDA's website. It doesn't care that agriculture generates one-fourth of all greenhouse gas emissions. Nobody who's concerned about the planet should be happy that an imperfect agricultural program was cancelled for the sin of trying to reduce agricultural emissions. As University of Iowa economist Silvia Secchi, one of the program's harshest critics, puts it, 'Regardless of my opinion of these grants, it makes no sense to kill them before we learn anything.' The Environmental Working Group published an analysis last year attacking Biden's climate-smart approach, but vastly prefers it to Trump's screw-the-climate approach. 'Even if we didn't love where all the money was going, it was better than just giving farmers subsidies,' says the group's Midwest director, Anne Schechinger. When President Donald Trump commits egregious transgressions — deporting a Venezuelan hairdresser to El Salvador or investigating the mayor of Chicago for bragging about his diverse staff — pundits often try to look balanced by criticizing the suboptimal behaviors he uses as excuses: Biden neglected the border; DEI went too far. There's a reluctance to simply say: This is egregious. Well, I spent the last six years reporting a book on how to feed the world without frying it, and I'll say this: Trump's belief that we shouldn't even try is egregious. Biden and his team deserve credit for making climate-smart a priority. Trump's USDA agreed to keep funding some of the climate-smart grants after farm groups protested their cancellation, but it's not calling them climate-smart anymore, and it won't pursue climate-smart investments in the future. It's defiantly climate-dumb. But I've also pointed out that it's boring to harp on the badness of a climate-denial administration doing climate-denial things. And there are lessons we can learn from the politics and substance of the climate-smart partnerships — about mistakes that shouldn't be repeated, and at least one remarkable success story that should be expanded worldwide. In my book, I tell the tale of a big internal Biden administration fight over climate-smart agriculture that never made it into the public eye. On one side was then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who wanted to pay farmers to adopt regenerative practices — like keeping soils covered and minimizing soil disturbance — that he believed would sequester carbon in their soils and help reverse climate change. He loved the idea of fifth-generation Republican dirt farmers who wore John Deere hats and drove Ford F-150s embracing kinder and gentler approaches to their land that would help them earn a premium for sustainably grown commodities and sell soil-carbon credits as an extra crop. On the other side was White House climate aide David Hayes, who thought soil carbon was wildly overhyped — by the United Nations, environmentalists, foundations who seemed to cough up cash whenever they heard the word 'regenerative,' celebrity-studded documentaries like 'Kiss the Ground,' and even Big Ag and Big Food conglomerates eager to claim climate benefits for regenerative practices in their supply chains. Hayes pushed for at least half the climate-smart grants to go to less scientifically controversial efforts to reduce methane and nitrous oxide, which make up more than half of direct farm emissions. Hayes was right about the science. It's extraordinarily difficult to measure soil carbon accurately or ensure it remains underground. It's also extraordinarily difficult to build more soil carbon without adding more nitrogen in the form of fertilizer or manure, which have negative climate impacts of their own. Indigo Ag, a carbon-market leader that announced a plan in 2019 to help regenerative farmers sequester a trillion tons of soil carbon, has gotten less than one one-millionth of the way to that goal. Regenerative agriculture also tends to produce less food per acre, which means it requires more acres to produce the same amount of food, which means it accelerates the global march of farmland into carbon-rich forests and wetlands. 'There's just too much excitement about soil carbon,' Hayes told me. But Vilsack won on the politics. Most of the climate-smart grants promoted regenerative practices designed to move atmospheric carbon underground and help build new markets where farmers could sell soil-carbon credits — and the same was true for another $20 billion steered toward climate-smart agriculture by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Cover crops and no-till were by far the best-funded practices, even though there's at best mixed evidence that they can sequester much carbon. Biden even dropped a prime-time plug for cover crops into his first address to Congress. If USDA's soil-carbon obsession started the program on the wrong track, it strayed even further from its climate-smart mission by insisting that 40% of its grants go to underserved communities, and by promoting regenerative hemp, regenerative sorghum, and dozens of other alternatives to big row-crop commodities. Some of the resulting projects were just weird. One $20 million regenerative grant was divided among small farmers in New York, minority farmers in North Carolina, wine growers in California, and a nonprofit called Nature for Justice, as well as traditional big corn and soy producers in the Midwest and the giant agribusiness Corteva. It was hard to see a coherent strategy behind the grant, beyond spreading money across the country and checking all the Biden team's priority boxes. In any case, the Trump team has cancelled it, along with dozens of other grants that explicitly prioritized equity and diversity. Hayes did pressure USDA to make a serious commitment to verifying actual soil-carbon results, and to his credit, Vilsack agreed, creating a $300 million monitoring fund and steering a variety of grants toward data collection and measurement. Vilsack was excited to document the climate benefits underground, while Hayes suspected the department would learn that soil carbon was mostly a mirage; either way, it would gather valuable information. But the Trump administration is cancelling those data-focused grants, too, part of its push to scrap grants that proposed to send less than 65% of their cash directly to farmers, or had not yet sent any cash to farmers. The measurement grants generally sent more cash to scientists, universities, and companies like Indigo. The Trump team also axed most of the grants focused on large numbers of small farms growing unconventional crops, because they required much more administration. For example, the Pennsylvania group Pasa Sustainable Agriculture lost a $59 million grant because it planned to buy supplies like cover crops and tree seedlings in bulk for 2,000 farms as small as a quarter-acre rather than giving the cash to the farmers and making them buy supplies themselves. The association's director, Hannah Smith-Brubaker, says it was finally ready to ramp up in the field after spending just $2 million of its grant over the first two years, mostly on administration and preparation — and now it won't be spending anything. 'This was supposed to be an experiment,' Smith-Brubaker says. 'We'd spend five years tackling these problems on different types of farms with different practices, and we'd start to get some comprehensive answers about what works. It's such a shame that we won't.' Robert Bonnie, Vilsack's deputy who oversaw the grants, says there was a political strategy behind the grant program: By offering farmers carrots rather than sticks, and helping them develop markets for climate-smart commodities regardless of their personal climate views, USDA could build lasting support for evidence-based innovations in farm country. But he says he underestimated the Trump team's enthusiasm for policy vandalism, for trashing anything it could fit into its culture war against anything Biden-related or climate-related. 'It turns out there are no rules, and nothing matters,' Bonnie told me. Again, it's not the Biden team's fault that the Trump team hates the climate. But just as many climate hawks now wish the Inflation Reduction Act's clean-energy provisions had focused more on getting green stuff built quickly, and less on requiring union labor, American-made components, and other conditions unrelated to the climate, it's tempting to wonder what the climate-smart grants could have achieved before Trump ransacked them if they had focused on delivering quick emissions-reducing results. Actually, we don't have to wonder, because a single grant amounting to just 0.25% of the $3 billion climate-smart commodities program did exactly that. Four years ago, when a 23-year-old finance whiz named Tyler Hull was working for a farmland asset manager in Nashville, Tennessee, he spun off a subsidiary called AgriCapture to exploit the fledgling carbon markets that were starting to reward businesses for reducing emissions. Soil carbon was all the rage, and Hull figured that if he could persuade his firm's tenant cotton and corn farmers to plant cover crops, stop tilling, and adopt other regenerative practices that would sequester carbon underground, they could sell carbon credits and the company's land would get healthier. But once he dug into the science and mechanics of soil carbon capture, Hull concluded it was mostly bogus. He calculated that farmers could at best sequester one-fifth of a ton of carbon underground per acre, so they would earn less selling credits than they would spend on seeds for cover crops — and since tilling the soil in the future would release the sequestered carbon, the carbon-credit agreements would prohibit any tillage on the land for decades. 'It just didn't work,' Hull recalls. 'We had to pivot.' Hull soon stumbled across an emissions-reduction opportunity that wasn't bogus at all: reducing methane from rice fields through better water management. Methane-producing microbes that thrive in flooded rice fields are responsible for 10% of the world's agricultural emissions, but reducing the duration of flooding through practices like 'alternative wetting and drying' and 'furrow irrigation' can cut those emissions in half — the equivalent of up to two tons per acre, with no drag on yield and no restrictions on future land management. AgriCapture received a $7.5 million climate-smart grant in 2022, and it was the only project to start sending money to farmers that first year. It used remote sensing to document 30,000 tons of methane reductions on 25,000 acres, then sold the credits to an international bank. It also saved 9 billion gallons of fresh water without any loss of yield. This year, it's enrolling 150,000 acres, about 5% of U.S. rice production. The Trump administration is allowing the project to continue because it's already used most of its grant, and Hull says it will be able to keep expanding without additional federal subsidies. If rice farmers worldwide all adopted these practices, they could eliminate enough emissions to offset half the aviation industry. 'This can become the new normal,' Hull says. 'It's practical and profitable, and even if you don't care about global warming, it's saving water and creating a new export market for American farmers: carbon credits you can trust.' Regenerative agriculture is sexy and popular, with support from Al Gore, Joe Rogan, Rosario Dawson, the Indian mystic Sadhguru, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but its ability to move a lot of carbon from sky to soil remains speculative at best. By contrast, AgriCapture's effort to reduce methane by reducing flooding on rice fields is simple, effective, and potentially lucrative. There are also proven strategies to reduce methane from cow burps with feed additives, reduce nitrous oxide emissions by using fertilizer more efficiently, and store carbon above ground by planting trees and shrubs in pastures and fields — with climate benefits that are relatively easy to measure and monetize. The Biden team could have made an international splash by bringing those strategies to scale, if it hadn't been so excited about its soil-carbon experiment. Now that experiment is over, and that's Trump's fault. But in the future, if policymakers who do care about climate progress want to make climate action more popular with the public, they might want to focus on actions they know will help the climate. And if those actions can create measurable environmental benefits that farmers can get paid for, they might even be popular in farm country.
Khaleej Times
28-05-2025
- Health
- Khaleej Times
Will UAE grow its own rice soon? Trials underway to test survival in arid climate
The UAE has long relied on rice imports to meet the demands of its diverse culinary culture. However, that dependency may soon shift, as a team of researchers in Al Ain is working on a project to genetically modify rice plants, enabling them to thrive in the UAE's arid climate and strengthen the nation's food security. Trials are underway using rice varieties sourced from the Philippines, the United States, and India. These samples are being grown and evaluated under local UAE conditions to determine which strains can best tolerate the region's extreme heat, high soil salinity, and limited water availability. 'We brought in a variety of rice samples from around the world and planted them in different environments across the UAE,' said Maryam Al-Naimi, Laboratory Specialist at the Khalifa Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (KCGEB). 'After assessing which ones survived and performed best, we selected the top strains and began crossbreeding them to enhance resilience and yield.' Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels. Al-Naimi explained that many staple crops, like wheat, barley, lentils, and especially rice, have historically been absent from Emirati farms due to climate incompatibility. That's now changing. These advancements were a key highlight at the Emirates Agriculture Conference and Exhibition 2025 running from May 28 to May 31, the country's foremost event on sustainable farming. Held under the patronage of Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Vice President of the UAE and Chairman of the Presidential Court, the event convened over 20 sessions, 54 expert speakers, and placed a strong focus on agri-tech, youth engagement, and national food sovereignty. She noted that the wheat showcased at the agriculture exhibition is one such success story — an early product of these experiments, which have been underway for the past two years. Before any crop is approved for local cultivation, it must pass regulatory review, but the vision is clear — to one day see Emirati-grown rice and wheat, born through science and selective hybridisation, on every table. But rice isn't the only focus. At the core of KCGEB's research is a study of how native plants survive the UAE's harsh climate. One standout example is the Ghaf tree, a desert plant renowned for its ability to endure extreme heat and drought year-round. 'We looked into the Ghaf plant to find out what makes it so tough,' said Al-Naimi. 'By identifying the genes that help it survive, we can transfer those same traits into other crops, making them more suitable for local farming.' This technique has already delivered success. Scientists used Ghaf DNA to develop a drought-resistant creeping grass, which grows shorter than traditional grass and requires less water and maintenance. While not a food crop, it's ideal for landscaping streets and homes, offering a glimpse into sustainable urban greening. KCGEB's work also extends to adapting grapevines to local conditions. In one experiment, scientists grafted international grape varieties onto native rootstocks like the Arabian almond and Ghaf. The result showed that high-quality grapes were capable of thriving in Emirati soil, paving the way for a potential locally grown fruit market. Meanwhile, the centre is tackling a major agricultural threat — the red palm weevil, a destructive pest that endangers palm trees across the region. Hashim ibn Hariz, another Laboratory Specialist at KCGEB, presented a promising genetic project. 'We're working to genetically alter the weevil's olfactory receptors — essentially disrupting their sense of smell so they can't track pheromones,' explained Ibn Hariz. 'This could limit their reproduction and movement, offering a long-term solution to a widespread agricultural issue.'
The Guardian
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Can trade in soil carbon credits help farmers – and the climate?
On a blustery spring day, Thomas Gent is walking through a field of winter wheat on his family's farm, which straddles the Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire border. Some of the green shoots reach his knees, while the ground between the plants is covered with clover. Sinking a spade into the soil, Gent grins as he points to the freshly dug clod of earth on the blade. 'Look at the root structure,' he says. 'It rained 20mm last night. The water has drained down because the soil structure is in the right format.' Unlike the vast majority of farmed fields in the UK, this one has not been ploughed for 17 years, ever since Gent's family switched to regenerative agricultural methods designed to increase soil carbon stores. Such practices are not just good for the environment; they are now becoming big business. Companies are springing up that evaluate existing carbon stocks in soil and track their improvement, allowing farmers to earn – and sell – carbon credits, which can provide them with an alternative income stream. Much of modern agriculture has damaged the earth's soils through repeated cultivation of the same crops and use of fertilisers. Regenerative methods include: tilling the soil less or not at all; growing cover crops such as clover; reducing the use of ammonia-based fertiliser to restore soil health; and keeping organic matter in the soil to help crops grow and sequester carbon. Back in 2008, when Thomas was just a boy, the Gent family were viewed as trailblazers for wanting to move away from conventional systems on their 800-hectare farm, where they grow cereals and other crops. Such an approach remains rare in the sector, yet the now 27-year-old youngest Gent believes that the movement's time has come. Given that food systems produce a third of human-caused global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, he believes that regenerative agriculture has a significant role to play in tackling the climate crisis while benefiting farmers financially. He also works for a Danish startup, Agreena, which aims to grow the regenerative movement as it develops what it describes as the 'largest soil carbon programme in Europe', building a model to produce credits that could be bought by companies for their climate change programmes. Agreena is one of a host of firms – including Soil Capital, Trinity Natural Capital Group and the largest global player, the US-based Indigo – who are trying to grab a slice of the voluntary carbon offsets market through soil carbon trading. Research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggests that net soil carbon sequestration on agricultural land 'could offset 4% of annual global human-induced GHG emissions over the rest of the century'. However, even as the market grows rapidly, so does the scepticism around it. Much in the world of soil carbon is disputed, and scientists question whether regenerative practices actually increase the amount of carbon stored in soil, while others query the robustness of the data on which the market is based. The total voluntary offsets market was valued at nearly $2bn (£1.6bn) at its peak in 2022. However, it is estimated to have dropped to $723m in 2023, following a series of scientific and media reports that found many offsetting schemes did little to mitigate the climate crisis and biodiversity loss. Soil carbon projects are estimated to represent a small but growing part of the voluntary carbon market, according to Tommy Ricketts, co-founder of the carbon credit rating agency BeZero Carbon. 'If you include peatland, we estimate the value of soil credits issued to the market is upwards of $100m, or roughly 5%-10% of the global traded market,' Ricketts says. 'If you factor in the current project pipeline and growth of compliance demand, even at today's prices of $10-$20 per credit, we expect it to grow significantly to hundreds of millions of dollars, and billions by the mid-2030s.' While Agreena is yet to issue credits, it has secured its position as one of Europe's best-funded 'agritech' firms after raising €46m (£39m) in Series B funding in 2023, and plans to seek more funding in future. Simon Haldrup, Agreena's chief executive and a former banker who is not from a farming background, considers regenerative agriculture 'such a potent solution model, both in terms of climate change, but also all the other nature-related risks such as biodiversity and water quality'. When he helped to found Agreena in 2018, Haldrup says he realised there were 'millions and millions of farmers that literally have to change behaviour for [this] to scale'. It can take a significant period of time – often years – for farmers to transition away from conventional farming practices, including using nitrogen fertilisers, while crop yield and their profit can take a hit, at least in the short term. Agreena's plan is to help farmers by measuring and verifying their current soil carbon stores, calculating their carbon credits, and selling them to companies in sectors including food, transport and technology. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion Crop growers who sign a group of their fields up with Agreena are required to do so for 10 years. At the start, the company has to work out the soil's existing carbon stocks, using the MRV (measurement, reporting and verification) process favoured for calculating, tracking and verifying the amount of greenhouse gas emissions reduced by specific mitigation activities. Agreena's project is verified by Verra, a non-profit organisation that operates the world's leading carbon standard, which has previously been criticised for some of its own schemes. The way Agreena measures and models soil carbon stores differs from the standard methods of taking large numbers of soil samples across fields. 'We take a certain number of soil samples that statistically makes sense,' says the company's climate lead, Kanika Chandaria. 'We then use remote sensing and satellite imagery to understand from the aerial level, and specifically to each individual field, what is happening.' Farmers can keep their credits from such schemes, but many choose to sell. Haldrup says farmers can earn on average €20 to €50 per hectare, although this varies, depending on their baseline soil carbon levels and how many regenerative practices they follow. Agreena aims to take a 15% cut on the deal, with 85% going to the farmer. The company has large expansion plans. Already operating in 20 countries across Europe, it is working with 2,500 farmers to transition 4.5m hectares of land to regenerative agriculture and plans to take its operation global. Advocates of soil carbon trading say this market linking up corporates with cash-strapped farmers combines capitalism and environmentalism, tackling greenhouse gas emissions and allowing businesses to meet green targets. However, some soil scientists do not believe enough is known about how soil carbon stores are increased, or released, to accurately track improvements and generate carbon credits. Soil carbon methodologies are now being assessed by the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, a body that establishes and maintains standards for the global voluntary carbon market. The British Society of Soil Science (BSSS), a membership organisation for the study of soil, warns in a guidance note that 'there is limited UK evidence' on how soil carbon stocks can be changed through reducing tillage and planting 'cover crops', such as clover. Whether soil carbon levels can be forecast through modelling, Dr David Tompkins, a member of the society's board who co-authored the guidance note, says: 'That is the trillion-dollar question, and my one word answer is 'no'. 'Soil carbon levels can be predicted with models, where sufficiently robust, but the BSSS would encourage anyone approached with a view to monetising their soil carbon to take a good hard look at the evidence.' Some farming groups are also concerned about how long growers will be bound to an offsetting scheme, and what would happen if flooding or the sale of the farm left them unable to fulfil their contract. 'We understand that farmers are looking for alternative income streams,' says Liz Bowles, chief executive of Farm Carbon Toolkit, created by farmers to help them better understand greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture. 'However, it's perfectly possible for a farmer to be quite a high greenhouse gas-emitting business but still sell carbon offsets – we don't think that's a sensible way forward.' Haldrup rebuffs such criticism, saying Agreena has so far collected more than 400,000 samples to inform a model that follows international carbon market standards. 'We have a solid enough foundation that will improve over time as the science improves further. I don't think we should let perfect get in the way of good,' Haldrup says. 'I think we are well beyond good enough.'
The Guardian
13-05-2025
- General
- The Guardian
What's the real beef over sustainable cattle farming?
George Monbiot refers to FAI Farms' work on regenerative beef farming, selectively critiquing one metric from our comprehensive report on adaptive multi-paddock grazing, while ignoring 54 others (New reports tell us cattle and sheep farming can be sustainable – don't believe them, it's all bull, 7 May). He focuses solely on the methodology behind our net zero carbon-balance estimation. This was calculated to be beyond net zero (-49.7t of CO2 equivalent) for our farm, based on modelling using the Sandy 'natural capital navigator', a Defra-recognised, scientifically robust platform. Mr Monbiot dismisses it as 'a right old mess', but his comment wrongly assumes that laboratory soil tests collected and described in the report were used to draw this conclusion. Instead, they provided a baseline and additional helpful analysis of soil health. Focusing on the carbon impact alone is also missing the point about what it takes to achieve sustainable beef production. Beyond carbon, our report's findings demonstrate broad benefits, including improved biodiversity, reduced reliance on inputs, enhanced water infiltration and healthier soils. Together, these outcomes outline a more resilient food system. Øistein ThorsenCEO, FAI Farms In attempting to blame sheep and cattle grazing for wildfires, George Monbiot resorts to prehistory to turn reality on its head. The major increase in such fires is a 21st-century phenomenon, which is the result of a major decline in traditional grazing and vegetation management by upland communities. A large proportion of the 40% decline in UK cattle numbers and 30% in sheep flocks during recent decades has been in upland landscapes, which also comprise most of our national parks. It is only logical that if the vegetative carbon biomass that was previously converted via lamb and beef into (non-combustible) human biomass is now left to die and dry out, it will create a major fire hazard in hot, dry weather. Such summer wildfires represent a 21st-century failure in land Harrison Morpeth, Northumberland George Monbiot is offering the choice between two dystopias. One is fully industrial farming, controlled by ever fewer players. This is where we have been heading in the quest for cheap and plentiful food for all since the privations of the second world war. As a proportion of income, we spend relatively little on food, and cheap food comes at the cost of our health and that of our planet. His second dystopia is based on lab-grown food and rewilding. The issues are complex, but agriculture is a part of a malfunctioning political and economic system; while there is blame to be laid at the door of the current system, the answer lies in reconnecting people to a better understanding of the natural world in which we are less exploitative. Can you really imagine abolishing all farmers and eating 'food' supplied by mega-corporations? There is a third way. It requires adjustments to our methods and is inclusive, and would result in greater health for people and planet. We run an organic flour mill. Currently, wheat and barley grown for animal feed in the UK uses 40% of its arable land and half of the annual wheat harvest. Freeing up land from animal feed production would allow us to farm a higher acreage organically and regeneratively, sequestering carbon very effectively as we do so. Nelly TrevelyanYorkshire Organic Millers Do you have a photograph you'd like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers' best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
