Carbon footprint /offset

puppet · Dec 20, 2021

You can come and do my audit next time with your nice calculator.
If you look at the other thread on carbon credits the Soil Capital guy admits they cannot deal with livestock farmers as the calculations show us to be massive polluters.

grainfarmer · Dec 21, 2021

Soil Capital said:
Apologies for the delay in replying.

Correct - I got to around 15 minutes in but had other commitments but didn't want to leave without reply. I have now listened to it all whilst driving and watched the second half on the computer.

The model which we use is based on the latest IPCC emission factors; I want to stress that we do take into account N2O emissions, and the certificates which we generate are derived from CO2 equivalents, which takes into account methane and nitrogen emissions balanced against carbon sequestration. The driving factors behind nitrous oxide emissions highlighed in the video you shared are taken into account in our tool; soil type, organic matter, drainage, pH levels, fertiliser inputs, organic manure inputs and so on. We have a simulation calculator on our website which is entirely free to use, if you would like to see some of the factors we take into account - https://soilcapital.com/.

The drivers which lead to increased carbon sequestration are linked to those that reduce nitrous oxide emission; increased use of legumes, reduced use of nitrogen fertilisers, nitrification inhibitors and so on. Our progamme does not have the aim of moving one carbon storage area to another area.

I really can't answer this accurately. The type of farm which we can take onto our programme (the type of farm that our calculator has the ability to calculate) are arable farms and the potential for some livestock. We don't take into account hedgerow sequestration or permanent forests (we do take into account agroforestry). A regional baseline of carbon emissions which we use is 0.25t of emissions per hectare per year (read; similar farms in the area we have assessed are emitting 0.25t per hectare per annum).

Your second point about having carbon credits available to sell, isnt that straight forward. In a programme such as ours you don't need to be carbon negative to produce carbon certificates.

Our programme works by assessing (calculating) a farms carbon baseline; be it sequestering or emitting, and generating carbon certificates based on improvements or maintenance of current ability to sequester.

If your baseline assessment shows that you are already sequestering carbon overall, your annual GHG balance will be compared to a fixed regional reference (+250kg CO2e/ha for regions assessed so far) and the difference between your annual performance and this regional reference will be translated into certificates. For example, if your farm is sequestering 1t of carbon per hectare, you can generate 1.25 certificates (1t = 1 certificate).

If your baseline assessment shows that you are a net emitter of GHGs, your annual GHG balance will be compared to your own baseline assessment and you will therefore have to improve your practices to create a differential that will be translated into a number of certificates. For example, if you are emitting carbon at a rate of 1t per hectare, but you choose to reduce inputs and plant a cover crop resulting in a 0.8t/ha improvement, you will still be emitting 0.2t/ha, but will be able to generate and sell 0.8 certificates per hectare on completion of the next full harvest year, based on your improvement from 1t of emissions.

You cannot join the programme and immediately have certficates to sell, even if you are carbon negative, a full completion of the next harvest year is required.

Yes, we are a business and we don't hide the fact. The movement of money is towards the farmer from a different business in the supply chain e.g. processor to farmer. As you outlined, we are paid as a commission or, as an upfront cost (£980 per year, drop out at any time); and of course our value to the farmer comes from using our platform, support (agronomist and technical), certificate generation and handling the sales process.

Certainly, the buyers of the certificate may use it for marketing purposes, many of them will. However certificate generation is based on change. To be able to generate certificates (sequester carbon or reduce emission) relies on changes being made to farming practice. A step towards reducing tillage, starting cover cropping or reducing tillage are strong drivers for carbon sequestration - and this is what you can be paid to do.

Our programme is not for everyone, but the option is there. Our aim is not for people to shift their entire focus to carbon; but to add it as a consideration. If a farmer is thinking of making a step to a more regenerative practice, a programme such as ours can help remove some of the financial risk; or reward those early adopters.

@Soil Capital - Companies that pay for those credits can claim carbon neutrality only when there's real change in existing emissions/sequestration. All farms that happen to be better or below the regional average, get credits without changes - Is this not missing a key requirement of "additionality"? Credits for free, no practice change needed?

Soil Capital · Dec 21, 2021

Muddyroads said:
So given all of the above, which is very well written, what’s the point of it all?

The post was just me putting my hands up saying dont shoot. No, I just wanted to say to yourself or anyone following that we don't set any rules, we just follow those set by the voluntary carbon market (regarding your response about not needing to be carbon negative to produce certificates).

puppet said:
If you buy a Ryanair ticket to Barcelona then for an extra €4-28 it will be carbon neutral. That sounds like green washing.
My carbon audit shows GHG emissions are 75% related to enteric fermentation and slurry management. 3% fuel, 1% electricity, 10% fertiliser, 10% bought-in feed.
An arable farm will have huge % of fuel and energy compared to me yet seem to have a positive balance of 0.25t/ha?

Yes, but Ryanair can't buy a farmers carbon certificates for compliance reasons. Ryanairs carbon offset sources are here: https://corporate.ryanair.com/environment/ - energy efficient cookstoves, wind power etc.

Regarding your point about the arable farm vs your livestock farm; thats the frustrating part and we don't believe it to be the case, or certainly not to such an extent. We're testing and trying to find calculators that give a better representation of livestock farms sequestration abilities (to include rotational grazing, mob grazing, holistic management etc) and more accuracy on their emissions.

Muddyroads · Dec 21, 2021

Soil Capital said:
The post was just me putting my hands up saying dont shoot. No, I just wanted to say to yourself or anyone following that we don't set any rules, we just follow those set by the voluntary carbon market (regarding your response about not needing to be carbon negative to produce certificates).

Yes, but Ryanair can't buy a farmers carbon certificates for compliance reasons. Ryanairs carbon offset sources are here: https://corporate.ryanair.com/environment/ - energy efficient cookstoves, wind power etc.

Regarding your point about the arable farm vs your livestock farm; thats the frustrating part and we don't believe it to be the case, or certainly not to such an extent. We're testing and trying to find calculators that give a better representation of livestock farms sequestration abilities (to include rotational grazing, mob grazing, holistic management etc) and more accuracy on their emissions.

Thanks for your reply. I hate to appear to be shooting the messenger and I appreciate you having the balls to put your head above the parapet here. As you’ll gather I’m extremely cynical about the whole thing and don’t believe it achieves anything positive other than lining the pockets of a few. In fact I think the system is likely to simply confuse and mislead the public.
If a taxi firm traded all its diesel cabs in for a fleet of electric cars, could they sell their “carbon credits“? After all, they will have reduced their emissions too.

yellowbelly · Dec 21, 2021

Soil Capital said:
Yes, but Ryanair can't buy a farmers carbon certificates for compliance reasons. Ryanairs carbon offset sources are here: https://corporate.ryanair.com/environment/ - energy efficient cookstoves, wind power etc.

So the whole thing is based on stopping doing something that's seen as bad (cooking on an open fire, I guess) and replacing it with something thay's seen as good (using an 'energy efficient' cookstove - that needed a whole sh!t load of energy to manufacture it and fly it out to Uganda in the first place).
No CO2 was harmed in the whole process.

That enables Ryanair to keep burning aviation fuel with a clear conscience.
I, like @Muddyroads, was cynical before. Now I'm just even more sure the whole thing is b@llocks.

holwellcourtfarm · Dec 21, 2021

yellowbelly said:
So the whole thing is based on stopping doing something that's seen as bad (cooking on an open fire, I guess) and replacing it with something thay's seen as good (using an 'energy efficient' cookstove - that needed a whole sh!t load of energy to manufacture it and fly it out to Uganda in the first place).
No CO2 was harmed in the whole process.

That enables Ryanair to keep burning aviation fuel with a clear conscience.
I, like @Muddyroads, was cynical before. Now I'm just even more sure the whole thing is b@llocks.

Net ZERO aviation is a unicorn, aided and abetted by governments around the world because politicians are lovers of air travel themselves and deeply funded by others whose lives revolve around aviation.

DaveGrohl · Dec 22, 2021

Soil Capital said:
Apologies for the delay in replying.

Correct - I got to around 15 minutes in but had other commitments but didn't want to leave without reply. I have now listened to it all whilst driving and watched the second half on the computer.

The model which we use is based on the latest IPCC emission factors; I want to stress that we do take into account N2O emissions, and the certificates which we generate are derived from CO2 equivalents, which takes into account methane and nitrogen emissions balanced against carbon sequestration. The driving factors behind nitrous oxide emissions highlighed in the video you shared are taken into account in our tool; soil type, organic matter, drainage, pH levels, fertiliser inputs, organic manure inputs and so on. We have a simulation calculator on our website which is entirely free to use, if you would like to see some of the factors we take into account - https://soilcapital.com/.

The drivers which lead to increased carbon sequestration are linked to those that reduce nitrous oxide emission; increased use of legumes, reduced use of nitrogen fertilisers, nitrification inhibitors and so on. Our progamme does not have the aim of moving one carbon storage area to another area.

I really can't answer this accurately. The type of farm which we can take onto our programme (the type of farm that our calculator has the ability to calculate) are arable farms and the potential for some livestock. We don't take into account hedgerow sequestration or permanent forests (we do take into account agroforestry). A regional baseline of carbon emissions which we use is 0.25t of emissions per hectare per year (read; similar farms in the area we have assessed are emitting 0.25t per hectare per annum).

Your second point about having carbon credits available to sell, isnt that straight forward. In a programme such as ours you don't need to be carbon negative to produce carbon certificates.

Our programme works by assessing (calculating) a farms carbon baseline; be it sequestering or emitting, and generating carbon certificates based on improvements or maintenance of current ability to sequester.

If your baseline assessment shows that you are already sequestering carbon overall, your annual GHG balance will be compared to a fixed regional reference (+250kg CO2e/ha for regions assessed so far) and the difference between your annual performance and this regional reference will be translated into certificates. For example, if your farm is sequestering 1t of carbon per hectare, you can generate 1.25 certificates (1t = 1 certificate).

If your baseline assessment shows that you are a net emitter of GHGs, your annual GHG balance will be compared to your own baseline assessment and you will therefore have to improve your practices to create a differential that will be translated into a number of certificates. For example, if you are emitting carbon at a rate of 1t per hectare, but you choose to reduce inputs and plant a cover crop resulting in a 0.8t/ha improvement, you will still be emitting 0.2t/ha, but will be able to generate and sell 0.8 certificates per hectare on completion of the next full harvest year, based on your improvement from 1t of emissions.

You cannot join the programme and immediately have certficates to sell, even if you are carbon negative, a full completion of the next harvest year is required.

Yes, we are a business and we don't hide the fact. The movement of money is towards the farmer from a different business in the supply chain e.g. processor to farmer. As you outlined, we are paid as a commission or, as an upfront cost (£980 per year, drop out at any time); and of course our value to the farmer comes from using our platform, support (agronomist and technical), certificate generation and handling the sales process.

Certainly, the buyers of the certificate may use it for marketing purposes, many of them will. However certificate generation is based on change. To be able to generate certificates (sequester carbon or reduce emission) relies on changes being made to farming practice. A step towards reducing tillage, starting cover cropping or reducing tillage are strong drivers for carbon sequestration - and this is what you can be paid to do.

Our programme is not for everyone, but the option is there. Our aim is not for people to shift their entire focus to carbon; but to add it as a consideration. If a farmer is thinking of making a step to a more regenerative practice, a programme such as ours can help remove some of the financial risk; or reward those early adopters.

Given your comment about "latest IPCC emission factors" can I ask if you use GWP* for assessing methane specifically? Or are you using GWP100? I suspect I know the answer already, in which case your numbers are woefully negligent. Are you happy to be perpetuating a massive fraud? Hiding behind "we don't set the basis" just doesn't cut it.

The fact that all of this carbon trading is utterly risible is merely obvious to anyone with half a brain. ALL about the money.

holwellcourtfarm · Dec 22, 2021

DaveGrohl said:
Given your comment about "latest IPCC emission factors" can I ask if you use GWP* for assessing methane specifically? Or are you using GWP100? I suspect I know the answer already, in which case your numbers are woefully negligent. Are you happy to be perpetuating a massive fraud? Hiding behind "we don't set the basis" just doesn't cut it.

The fact that all of this carbon trading is utterly risible is merely obvious to anyone with half a brain. ALL about the money.

It's the carbon equivalent of Commodity Trading; huge sums of money changing hands with huge profits skimmed off by traders resulting in dangerous distortion of the price of essential items.

yellowbelly · Dec 22, 2021

holwellcourtfarm said:
It's the carbon equivalent of Commodity Trading; huge sums of money changing hands with huge profits skimmed off by traders resulting in dangerous distortion of the price of essential items.

Yep

For everybody that makes a load of money there has to be somebody that looses the same amount ( with a deduction for the 'trader's' commission of course).

Soil Capital · Dec 22, 2021

Muddyroads said:
Thanks for your reply. I hate to appear to be shooting the messenger and I appreciate you having the balls to put your head above the parapet here. As you’ll gather I’m extremely cynical about the whole thing and don’t believe it achieves anything positive other than lining the pockets of a few. In fact I think the system is likely to simply confuse and mislead the public.
If a taxi firm traded all its diesel cabs in for a fleet of electric cars, could they sell their “carbon credits“? After all, they will have reduced their emissions too.

Likewise. I understand the cynicism and fully expect to come up against more - but we had to join the discussion at some point.

I really don't know about your taxi firm example and how the transport industry works with regards to carbon. We haven't been involved with anything outside of agriculture/agrononmy.

DaveGrohl said:
Given your comment about "latest IPCC emission factors" can I ask if you use GWP* for assessing methane specifically? Or are you using GWP100? I suspect I know the answer already, in which case your numbers are woefully negligent. Are you happy to be perpetuating a massive fraud? Hiding behind "we don't set the basis" just doesn't cut it.

The fact that all of this carbon trading is utterly risible is merely obvious to anyone with half a brain. ALL about the money.

We use the Cool Farm Tool for our carbon calculations, we aren't soil or climate scientists and its a difficult subject to choose which evidence to follow. We recognise the complex and evolving nature of this space (such as the potential transition from GWP100 to GWP* as you point out). Thats why we defer to IPCC science; international consensus driven science and by its nature, conservative. The framework outlined by the CFT is what we align outselves with.

grainfarmer said:
All farms that happen to be better or below the regional average, get credits without changes - Is this not missing a key requirement of "additionality"? Credits for free, no practice change needed?

The payments for an emitter are associated with improving practice (against its own baseline), the payments for a sequester are associated with maintaining or improving good practice compared to a regional baseline. To do otherwise would penalise the early adopters of sustainable/regen/conservation/carbon sequestering agriculture. You're correct in that additionality is the tricky one, we have to avoid a farmer degrading their soil on purpose in order to provide additionality for the following years. Payments to maintain provide a degree of permanence to avoid the degradation of soils (and therefore release of carbon) to gain eligiblity. I'll check my response on this with others in the company and adjust it if I am incorrect.

Ffermer Bach · Dec 22, 2021

NewFarm said:
Planting trees here. Native species for coppicing use on farm into margins, or fruit and nut trees into old orchards.

The above isn't funded by any grant or scheme, I aim to plant 100-200 trees each winter.

Interestingly most farm tenancy agreements in pre-industrial times mandated that tenants plant a number of trees per year, encouraged the production of timber trees, and also controlled frequency of harvesting (typically pollarding) trees for fuel.

Comments above re:grassland sequestration of carbon, I'd agree that grassland soils store huge amounts not carbon. Most will have higher soil OM over than most arable fields, however, unless you are managing the land in such a way that the soil OM is increasing year on year, there is no real sequestration of carbon.

but, if that grassland were planted with trees, all that sequestered carbon would be released into the atmosphere, then over the next 20 to 30 years it would be re sequestered into the wood, great, unless that wood is either burned (in Drax) or allowed to rot down! And if that grassland is ploughed for arable, all that sequestered carbon is released too!

Ideal is farm in a way that continues to sequester more carbon, but even doing nothing with permanent pasture that is set stocked is "holding" a vast amount of carbon.

DaveGrohl · Dec 22, 2021

Soil Capital said:
Likewise. I understand the cynicism and fully expect to come up against more - but we had to join the discussion at some point.

I really don't know about your taxi firm example and how the transport industry works with regards to carbon. We haven't been involved with anything outside of agriculture/agrononmy.

We use the Cool Farm Tool for our carbon calculations, we aren't soil or climate scientists and its a difficult subject to choose which evidence to follow. We recognise the complex and evolving nature of this space (such as the potential transition from GWP100 to GWP* as you point out). Thats why we defer to IPCC science; international consensus driven science and by its nature, conservative. The framework outlined by the CFT is what we align outselves with.

The payments for an emitter are associated with improving practice (against its own baseline), the payments for a sequester are associated with maintaining or improving good practice compared to a regional baseline. To do otherwise would penalise the early adopters of sustainable/regen/conservation/carbon sequestering agriculture. You're correct in that additionality is the tricky one, we have to avoid a farmer degrading their soil on purpose in order to provide additionality for the following years. Payments to maintain provide a degree of permanence to avoid the degradation of soils (and therefore release of carbon) to gain eligiblity. I'll check my response on this with others in the company and adjust it if I am incorrect.

"Consensus driven" says it all. We've just had COP26. What a disastrous waste of everyone's time that has proved in the pursuit of consensus. Consensus is a massive part of the problem. Just look at the state of dietary recommendations for evidence of how that can be an anti science thing.

At least you sound as if you realise GWP100 isn't fit for purpose for short lived climate pollutants. Maybe you want to actually do something useful and drive change here rather than perpetuating bad science? You'd certainly gain a little sympathy on here if you tried.

holwellcourtfarm · Dec 22, 2021

Ffermer Bach said:
but, if that grassland were planted with trees, all that sequestered carbon would be released into the atmosphere, then over the next 20 to 30 years it would be re sequestered into the wood, great, unless that wood is either burned (in Drax) or allowed to rot down! And if that grassland is ploughed for arable, all that sequestered carbon is released too!

Ideal is farm in a way that continues to sequester more carbon, but even doing nothing with permanent pasture that is set stocked is "holding" a vast amount of carbon.

It was recognised many decades ago that ploughing out established grassland releases huge amounts of N, some as leached nitrate and some as N2O. The longer established, the worse the loss. This must be another big deal for cultivating grassland before planting trees.

Still Farming · Jan 24, 2022

https://www.facebook.com/100051971389604/posts/469566478119061

Still Farming · Feb 9, 2022

How Taxpayer-Funded Forests In Mid Wales Inflate Carbon Targets - Before Being Logged For Profit -

Reading Time: 3 minutes • voice.wales has found that new forests being planted by large private companies using Welsh Government cash are set to chop them for profit shortly after the net zero by 2050 goal.• Woodland Investment Grants rules and regs mention specifically that officials will allow...

www.voice.wales

DaveGrohl · Feb 9, 2022

Still Farming said:
How Taxpayer-Funded Forests In Mid Wales Inflate Carbon Targets - Before Being Logged For Profit -

Reading Time: 3 minutes • voice.wales has found that new forests being planted by large private companies using Welsh Government cash are set to chop them for profit shortly after the net zero by 2050 goal.• Woodland Investment Grants rules and regs mention specifically that officials will allow...

www.voice.wales

Not really a surprise is it? Follow the money. It’s not as if anyone has actually come up with an end idea for all this tree-planting anyway is it? The Emperor has several new dept stores full of clothes. Who’d have guessed that identifying a target (like eg 2050) would end up with contorted mental results?

I’m not sure the world can actually get any madder…….

Goweresque · Feb 19, 2022

Soil Capital said:
I can't emphasise enough that carbon certificates do not allow pollution companies to offset their emissions to claim they are carbon neutral. Mr airline or manufacturer cannot buy a carbon certificate on the voluntary market and claim carbon neutrality.

Carbon Credits and How They Can Offset Your Carbon Footprint

A carbon credit, or carbon offset, is a permit allowing the holder to emit a limited amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.

www.investopedia.com

Quote:

What Is a Carbon Credit?
A carbon credit is a permit that allows the company that holds it to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. One credit permits the emission of a mass equal to one ton of carbon dioxide.

Clive · Feb 19, 2022

yellowbelly said:
None whatsoever - unless you count the fact that a third party take 10%

i love how farmers expect development and facilitation of a new markets or services that offers to pay them money they would be never have had ……… for free

yet the same farmers are happy to pay land agents and auction commissions, 30% plus on their crop protection and fert inputs etc and let grain merchants take a % on every sale they make

crazy times

Clive · Feb 19, 2022

puppet said:
If you buy a Ryanair ticket to Barcelona then for an extra €4-28 it will be carbon neutral. That sounds like green washing.
My carbon audit shows GHG emissions are 75% related to enteric fermentation and slurry management. 3% fuel, 1% electricity, 10% fertiliser, 10% bought-in feed.
An arable farm will have huge % of fuel and energy compared to me yet seem to have a positive balance of 0.25t/ha?

if the extra € 4-28 is spent on facilitation of positive change it‘s not greenwash imo

an airline will never be carbon neutral through cutting emissions so the next best contribution they can make is to spend profits on helping sequestration

fuel and fertilisers can be massively reduced on arable farms IF farming via certain systems is viable - cash from Carbon sales is what could make that viable for more

puppet · Feb 19, 2022

Goweresque said:
Carbon Credits and How They Can Offset Your Carbon Footprint

A carbon credit, or carbon offset, is a permit allowing the holder to emit a limited amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.

www.investopedia.com

Quote:

What Is a Carbon Credit?
A carbon credit is a permit that allows the company that holds it to emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. One credit permits the emission of a mass equal to one ton of carbon dioxide.

Explain the difference between a carbon credit and a carbon certificate? Apart from certificates usually involve a fee.
By the current carbon calculator used for livestock farmers in Scotland I am penalised for inputs such as feed and straw. Does that mean that I am effectively paying arable farmers for their carbon 'sequestration' in cereals?
If it is then how is there any carbon left for the arable farmer to trade?

Carbon footprint /offset

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

What Is a Carbon Credit?​

Staff Member

Staff Member

Member

What Is a Carbon Credit?​

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page

What Is a Carbon Credit?

What Is a Carbon Credit?