Perhaps @Felix Wieberneit and his fellow students can give their input into this thread .
Carbon Offsetting??Please show me the theory in practice.
- Thread starter Pilatus
- Start date
- Location
- Devon
I do agree with the general sentiment on this thread that carbon offsetting is rubbish, no extra co2 is being sequestered, you are just claiming ownership of a bit.
but.....
it could/should be a way of monetising and protecting natural landscapes.
It won't stop climate change but it could prevent things getting worse buy putting a value on all those areas which are economically 'worthless' but environmentally priceless.
but.....
it could/should be a way of monetising and protecting natural landscapes.
It won't stop climate change but it could prevent things getting worse buy putting a value on all those areas which are economically 'worthless' but environmentally priceless.
tullah
Member
- Location
- Linconshire
As long as we are paid handsomely for washing their dirty laundry then I don't mind. But I object to them stealing our carbon credits.
- Location
- Owaka, New Zealand
It is that, I mean landowners own titles to land and owning credits to carbon is just as "real" as that isIt’s all down to perception.
We know already that acres of farmland are being hoovered up to ‘offset’ polluter‘s emissions. Will that alter total emissions or reduce them? Nope.
But I’ll use a hedge splasher, if you insist. And cut silage with a scythe aka Poldark
That’s how hollow the whole Berluddy thing is.
realising what "a construct" is can help you to see where you fit into a construct, and can also show you how much people are prepared to pay on the pretence that "ownership" exists in reality
Unfortunately if farmers do not jump on this and get control processors/government stealing them is exactly what will happen.
Carbon offset does appear to be a thing that is happening world wide and whether you agree with it or not ethically it is a massive opportunity for farmers but could easily and most probably will slip through our fingers.
This kind of where I'm at on this. It is utterly flawed as a concept if the title is "carbon ofsetting" and scandalous amongst other things, but call it something else and apportion responsibility correctly and it has legs. How you get from the current situation to the correct situation however is beyond the likes of me. Currently the world is obsessed with the scandalous option.
Last edited:
Foxhollow
Member
- Location
- Bury St Edmunds
I do not understand how all this carbon offsetting is allowed to happen as its not actually adding new carbon absorbing elements as all they are doing is paying for something that is already there. So carbon off setting will not actually help. So offsetting for an existing pasture or wood is just irrelevant to providing any change. It is different if the carbon off setting is actually to provide something that will add additional carbon capture but there again when will it come on stream. Planting a new wood will only add benefit in ten years or even more so does not actually help in the short to medium term.
Courier
Member
- Location
- M62 - M1 - M18 triangle
What I don’t believe is that methane from ruminants is a major driver of climate change.
There are no more ruminant animals on this planet than there were 30 years ago and were those animals not to be partially fed on the by-products of brewing, distilling and other human food processes then those otherwise (waste) by-products would be sent to landfill and still produce methane which would pollute the atmosphere.
Well quite. What would actually help would be reversal of desertification usning ruminants to build the soil but that would require the world to give itself a collective slap. (As well as ending deforestation but that's a complicated issue all of its own)
You don't have to "believe", the actual facts speak for themselves. Ruminant methane is cyclical, I never tire of saying this, and therefore has zero additional warming effect. It's warming effect that is important not bloody carbon dioxide equivalents based on GWP100. The "scientists" are only just waking up to the fact the methodology they've been using up til now is beyond dopey. Trouble is, it's going to take years for them to row back on their previous ballsups and actually admit they were incredibly stupid.
Last edited:
Courier
Member
- Location
- M62 - M1 - M18 triangle
And as I said “I don’t….”
But I will attempt to relay the facts on other non-agricultural sites.
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
I have been shouting this on these threads! Methane does not persist in the atmosphere more than 8-10 years. As far as I can find the data there has been no increase in the number of farmed ruminants in the past 30 years. Todays livestock can not contribute to an increase in global methane then can only be responsibly for maintaining what was already there. Industrial methane emmissions have gone up massively in the same period... livestock are very clearly not responsible for driving an increase in atmospheric methane, it is a slanderous lie being driven by those with an anti-meat agenda.
The BBC seem to be top of the list ,doing as you say at the end of your last sentence.
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
Courier
Member
- Location
- M62 - M1 - M18 triangle
Needs pushing on receptive non-Ag sites to have an effect
In practice I don’t see that happening as the BBC has such financial resources to fight against any court case that could be raised against them for broadcasting misconstrued information, by farming organisations ,unless the CLA , NFU,TFA, sheep,pig and beef organisations all joined together to finance such a case. Others may beg to differ.
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
AHDB take our levies they should be taking the fight up and not just nodding along and saying yes we are bad, its our fault, we are the ones that must reduce our livestock methane emissions. This needs a professional well researched PR campaign with a clear public message.
farmerm
Member
- Location
- Shropshire
I utterly despair at these organisations. They don't appear to have anyone who can get their head round this relatively simple science. The media don't know the facts because no one is telling them. All of these organisations should be shouting from the rooftops that the accepted narrative is utterly wrong on this and tell them why. Some of the media will listen if they would only make a start. But they're idiots so don't even know they are missing a massive open goal here. Best of luck waiting for these organisations to come to our rescue..