Will we be ploughing for re seeding in the future?

delilah · Apr 27, 2021

ollie989898 said:
Consumers already pay for food. Why in the heck should I pay for it twice? Fudge that.

Interesting that @Clive has 'liked' that comment.
These carbon credits that we are all being encouraged to sell. Presumably we will be selling them to the likes of Tesco, to allow them to greenwash their fundamentally unsustainable business model.
And the cost of those carbon credits to Tesco will be passed on to the shopper in the form of higher food prices.
Yes ?

Scholsey · Apr 27, 2021

delilah said:
Interesting that @Clive has 'liked' that comment.
These carbon credits that we are all being encouraged to sell. Presumably we will be selling them to the likes of Tesco, to allow them to greenwash their fundamentally unsustainable business model.
And the cost of those carbon credits to Tesco will be passed on to the shopper in the form of higher food prices.
Yes ?

More likely just plug the hole left by taking away BPS? Making general public pay more for food so ‘rich farmers’ can buy electric range rovers won’t happen, not on any governments or supermarkets watch at least.

delilah · Apr 27, 2021

Scholsey said:
More likely just plug the hole left by taking away BPS? Making general public pay more for food so ‘rich farmers’ can buy electric range rovers won’t happen, not on any governments or supermarkets watch at least.

If we all sell carbon credits to the supermarkets, to plug the BPS hole, it amounts to a highly regressive form of taxation. The poorest members of society spend the greater proportion of their cash on food.
No Government should be allowing that to happen.

Clive · Apr 27, 2021

Ceri said:
By supplying there public feckin good in the form of food........

delilah said:
Interesting that @Clive has 'liked' that comment.
These carbon credits that we are all being encouraged to sell. Presumably we will be selling them to the likes of Tesco, to allow them to greenwash their fundamentally unsustainable business model.
And the cost of those carbon credits to Tesco will be passed on to the shopper in the form of higher food prices.
Yes ?

food should not be subsidised, never should have been imo

doing so has all but destroyed the efficiency and therefore profitability of uk ag - quite possibly beyond a point of no return now

we should sell products - food and natural capital, the more of these things you produce the more money you make ......... business NOT charity

Clive · Apr 27, 2021

delilah said:
If we all sell carbon credits to the supermarkets, to plug the BPS hole, it amounts to a highly regressive form of taxation. The poorest members of society spend the greater proportion of their cash on food.
No Government should be allowing that to happen.

we will see a carbon tax in the future i’m
sure

its the only way businesses and consumers will be incentivised to clean up fast OR pay for others to clean up for them

Farmers should be super excited by this new and lucrative opportunity - finally a product we can sell where denand massively out-strips supply !

delilah · Apr 27, 2021

Clive said:
Farmers should be super excited by this new and lucrative opportunity - finally a product we can sell where denand massively out-strips supply !

If we can be guaranteed that all carbon credits we sell, will be sold to JLR and other producers of non-essential items, then you would have a point. If they are sold to any business in the food chain then they put the price of food up. A regressive tax.
(That is to pretend for a second that the whole carbon trading thing isn't one great big con trick).

Clive · Apr 27, 2021

delilah said:
If we can be guaranteed that all carbon credits we sell, will be sold to JLR and other producers of non-essential items, then you would have a point. If they are sold to any business in the food chain then they put the price of food up. A regressive tax.
(That is to pretend for a second that the whole carbon trading thing isn't one great big con trick).

just like VAT you cam tax different products / services differently

ie there is no vat on food or books etc but there is on stuff JLR sell

carbon trading is not a con - paying to do things that reduce atmospheric carbon is a GOOD thing to do

the only difficult bit / debate right now is how you measure accurately

hally · Apr 27, 2021

I can’t get my head around carbon trading. Is it not asking the higher carbon producing industries to pay someone else to absorb this carbon but surely farmers/ woodland etc would be a absorbing this carbon anyway and it is just a way of these companies feeling better off about their emissions......but they will still keep emitting unhindered. Surely better to invest in technology that actually reduces the emissions in the first place. Or am I missing something?

delilah · Apr 27, 2021

Clive said:
carbon trading is not a con - paying to do things that reduce atmospheric carbon is a GOOD thing to do

the only difficult bit / debate right now is how you measure accurately

On that then, can you help with the below, have asked several times. We must know the answer to this for it all to have got this far, surely ?

delilah said:
Which begs another question:
If you receive an ELMS payment to switch to DD rather than ploughing, for how many years does that soil need to remain unploughed before ploughing it produces a net environmental dis-benefit ?
(accepting, for a second, the premise that DD is better in terms of GHG emissions)
I assume we know the answer to that ? And that ELMS agreements will be legally binding for a time period beyond the answer to the question. Otherwise none of these ELMS options have any substance.

delilah · Apr 27, 2021

Clive said:
just like VAT you cam tax different products / services differently

ie there is no vat on food or books etc but there is on stuff JLR sell

Which is nothing to do with the point I was making.
If carbon credits are sold, by us, to businesses in the food chain, then the price of food to the consumer goes up. Which makes carbon trading a regressive tax.

Humble Village Farmer · Apr 27, 2021

delilah said:
On that then, can you help with the below, have asked several times. We must know the answer to this for it all to have got this far, surely ?

Wouldn't it be an annual thing? Maybe after 5 or 10 years you would go up a notch

Clive · Apr 27, 2021

delilah said:
On that then, can you help with the below, have asked several times. We must know the answer to this for it all to have got this far, surely ?

as soon as tillage stops you are oxidising less carbon and you are using less fuel so benefit is from year 1

bigger question imo is how do you ensure that after say 10 yrs of selling C You don’t then plough it up ? same for planting a tree ........ great until you cut it down and burn the logs !

Clive · Apr 27, 2021

delilah said:
Which is nothing to do with the point I was making.
If carbon credits are sold, by us, to businesses in the food chain, then the price of food to the consumer goes up. Which makes carbon trading a regressive tax.

food chain business wont buy if food production carbon isn’t taxed - like its not vatted

i suspect carbon tax will get slapped on airlines, car manufacturers, consumers goods manufacturers etc and not food/ education and other essentials

milkloss · Apr 27, 2021

T Hectares said:
Is it really that difficult to understand that oxidising organic matter releases CO2 ??

Farming News - 20 per cent of world’s CO2 from ploughing – soil scientist

Farming online news 20 per cent of world’s CO2 from ploughing – soil scientist

farming.co.uk

less movement = less CO2 simples

what sort of a headline is that? I found this on the International energy agency (quick Google result, I have no idea who they are) and I think looks far more realistic than 20%.

delilah · Apr 27, 2021

Clive said:
bigger question imo is how do you ensure that after say 10 yrs of selling C You don’t then plough it up ?

Yes, that's what I am getting at. How can ELMS have got this far down the line without us knowing the answer to that question ?
And who says it needs to be 10 years before there is a net dis-benefit ? It may be 5, or 100 ?

delilah · Apr 27, 2021

Clive said:
i suspect carbon tac will get slsoped on airlines, car manufacturers, consumers goods manufacturers etc and not food/ education and other essential

But we're not talking about a carbon tax.
We're talking about these carbon credits we are all going to be selling.
What is in place to stop them being sold to essential elements of society, principally food ?

Bill the Bass · Apr 27, 2021

Clive said:
as soon as tillage stops you are oxidising less carbon and you are using less fuel so benefit is from year 1

bigger question imo is how do you ensure that after say 10 yrs of selling C You don’t then plough it up ? same for planting a tree ........ great until you cut it down and burn the logs !

South west water paid farmers to make improvements for water quality with the condition they entered into 25 year covenants. Carbon ‘brokers’ would need to have some measure/control of such covenants to ensure landuse wasn’t changed to the detriment of carbon storage.

But I’m with @hally it’s all smoke and mirrors, I have read the stuff from that tit dieter helm on green bonds and he is yet to explain how they would work. Just another academic theorist with no grasp of the real world.

Clive · Apr 27, 2021

delilah said:
Yes, that's what I am getting at. How can ELMS have got this far down the line without us knowing the answer to that question ?
And who says it needs to be 10 years before there is a net dis-benefit ? It may be 5, or 100 ?

its got nothing to do with elms - elms os about natural capital / ecosystem not carbon

the pricate sector carbon markets that are emerging will have to solve the long term issues - maybe via contracts / penalty to pay back etc if you “go positive” in the future

I’m sure there are solutions, the market is very young and evolving almost daily

Clive · Apr 27, 2021

delilah said:
But we're not talking about a carbon tax.
We're talking about these carbon credits we are all going to be selling.
What is in place to stop them being sold to essential elements of society, principally food ?

i keep saying it ! Government can choose to NOT tax food chain carbon

it can choose to tax airline / car carbon etc

we see this differentiation in taxation already in our VAT system

government rarely taxes any essentials

delilah · Apr 27, 2021

Clive said:
its got nothing to do with elms - elms os about natural capital / ecosystem not carbon

It has everything to do with ELMS. The payment to 'reduce tillage' is in there on the basis that it will deliver a public good in the form of reduced UK GHG emissions.
Without a stipulation on how long the ground has to remain undisturbed for, how do we know that the public good has been delivered ?

Will we be ploughing for re seeding in the future?

Member

Member

Member

Staff Member

Staff Member

Member

Staff Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Staff Member

Staff Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Staff Member

Staff Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page