Are farmers missing a trick with this scheme debacle cos they could sell their own credits !

[T Hectares]

I think you're confusing carbon and bng, bng credits have to show a net gain, but carbon credits are a unit that will be able to be traded (eventually) as there isn't really a market as such at the moment because there is no standard reliable way of measuring carbon, whereas there is with bng, once you can accurately measure your carbon units you will be able to sell them to anyone

Nope doing both here and you need an improvement over a baseline to generate credits for carbon, the more improvements you make the more credits you generate
That’s how the arable markets work atm, grass pp will come eventually but the theory will rely on changing management (and measuring it) to sequester more than it currently does as keeping the status quo doesn’t increase the amount of carbon being sequestered and therefore “improve” the climate
Woodland Carbon is the same, new trees are planted to sequester “more” carbon, the woodland carbon schemes don’t work for existing woodland thats already stored carbon

 

[banjo]

Yes, but it’s always done that so if you want to get paid you have to do more otherwise the climate stays the same according to the trading matrix

What’s that got to do with it because a tree planted to replace the pasture sequesters no more than the pasture it replaces so the tree is not creating a new source if sequestering, it’s just replacing the pasture that was there doing it all along originally so the farmer according to scientific fact should be paid for removing exactly the same co2 and carbon as the new tree !

 

[banjo]

In a previous life I worked in the waste job. Government introduced a scheme called 'packaging recovery notes', putting a cost/value on each tonne of packaging. You recycle a tonne of paper packaging, you can sell a prn to a firm that produces paper packaging. ie it was a forerunner to carbon credits.

Have taken no interest in any of it for many years, so can't say who has made money out of it and whether it has done any environmental good. However have just had a look, 12 months ago a paper prn was £32.16, last week it was £7.68. So, in a word, volatile. And that's a scheme that has been in place for well over 20 years. And whatever it's faults it actually deals in tangible materials. A tonne is a tonne.

I wouldn't be doing any farm budgeting on carbon credits.

Net zero is the best form of investment for businesses trying to be right on all around the world now and into the future and personally I think the uk ( senedd ) will be trading our own land behind our backs anyway and that is why they are trying to pay farmers peanuts for it now !
investors will be lining up to trade prime sequestering welsh farmland to businesses wanting to help the planet.
if the senedd want to be awkward take them completely out of the running of farms altogether and take away the power over the land.

 

[T Hectares]

What’s that got to do with it because a tree planted to replace the pasture sequesters no more than the pasture it replaces so the tree is not creating a new source if sequestering, it’s just replacing the pasture that was there doing it all along originally so the farmer according to scientific fact should be paid for removing exactly the same co2 and carbon as the new tree !

That’s where the science is at odds with the market, the woodland carbon code works on data from the 60’s it’s well out of date
And that’s why I keep saying this is how the markets work at the moment, they will certainly evolve and who’s knows how it will work in the future, there’s lots of Ai generated algorithms that will surpass what science is currently available
To go back to your first post, there’s a difference between a carbon audit and carbon credits
A Carbon audit is a balance between consumed carbon, ie fert diesel steel etc and sequestration, a statement of where you farm stands each year there’s nothing to trade from an audit, your Gov may want that data to use as a stick to drive net zero targets
Carbon credits are a different scenario, you make improvements to generate credits that can be traded and that’s why the two can sit alongside each other
I’m not arguing about the flaws in science, just explaining how the markets work atm

 

[banjo]

That’s where the science is at odds with the market, the woodland carbon code works on data from the 60’s it’s well out of date
And that’s why I keep saying this is how the markets work at the moment, they will certainly evolve and who’s knows how it will work in the future, there’s lots of Ai generated algorithms that will surpass what science is currently available
To go back to your first post, there’s a difference between a carbon audit and carbon credits
A Carbon audit is a balance between consumed carbon, ie fert diesel steel etc and sequestration, a statement of where you farm stands each year there’s nothing to trade from an audit, your Gov may want that data to use as a stick to drive net zero targets
Carbon credits are a different scenario, you make improvements to generate credits that can be traded and that’s why the two can sit alongside each other
I’m not arguing about the flaws in science, just explaining how the markets work atm

I’m not arguing either my point is this, we all know the tree carbon scheme is a con because it does no more than the pasture it replaces and in reality they have created a new thing to sell to investors that does nothing more at all.
I think we should be getting scientific facts to prove that we are correct about sequestration of original farms pasture etc and force them to prove otherwise because in reality they can’t !
when this reality is used on them all the time on all media platforms the tree sequestration value will drop and be worth no more than the pasture so the pasture can be traded as an equal commodity.

 

[britishblue]

I think I should take grass parks for my suckler herd this spring,plough up all my permanent pasture and then I will can show improvement from arable to PP going forward. What a load of rubbish!

 

[soapsud]

I’m not arguing either my point is this, we all know the tree carbon scheme is a con because it does no more than the pasture it replaces and in reality they have created a new thing to sell to investors that does nothing more at all.
I think we should be getting scientific facts to prove that we are correct about sequestration of original farms pasture etc and force them to prove otherwise because in reality they can’t !
when this reality is used on them all the time on all media platforms the tree sequestration value will drop and be worth no more than the pasture so the pasture can be traded as an equal commodity.

There's a strong likelihood the Welsh farmers reps have got to show the Labour-voting Valleys why the push for tree planting needs redrafting. Get them on side and the politicians will have to change their Ag policies.

Pictures tell it in a glance. Carbon cycle explanations are too wordy.

Here's two well known simple ideas (I can't draw but it's easy to find someone who can):
1.
Rearing animals and exporting their meat exports the carbon that the WA want to plant and stay put. Why? because a livestock body is 30%-50% carbon. So sending Welsh lamb and beef to the EU is better for Wales because it feeds people and creates more jobs. More trees don't mean more tourists.
2.
Residual grassroot sequestration-depletion-re-storage is important providing grazing animals are used on rotation. The analogy everyone can relate to is money. Carbon storage is like savings for a rainy day like nanna's cash in her biscuit tin. The WAG want Welsh farmers to slow down their working, to earn less and spend now what they should be saving for the future. This makes them indebted to finance, more dependent on State handouts, and reducing the national character of Wales.

The GE24 will be v important for yous all!

 

[banjo]

There's a strong likelihood the Welsh farmers reps have got to show the Labour-voting Valleys why the push for tree planting needs redrafting. Get them on side and the politicians will have to change their Ag policies.

Pictures tell it in a glance. Carbon cycle explanations are too wordy.

Here's two well known simple ideas (I can't draw but it's easy to find someone who can):
1.
Rearing animals and exporting their meat exports the carbon that the WA want to plant and stay put. Why? because a livestock body is 30%-50% carbon. So sending Welsh lamb and beef to the EU is better for Wales because it feeds people and creates more jobs. More trees don't mean more tourists.
2.
Residual grassroot sequestration-depletion-re-storage is important providing grazing animals are used on rotation. The analogy everyone can relate to is money. Carbon storage is like savings for a rainy day like nanna's cash in her biscuit tin. The WAG want Welsh farmers to slow down their working, to earn less and spend now what they should be saving for the future. This makes them indebted to finance, more dependent on State handouts, and reducing the national character of Wales.

The GE24 will be v important for yous all!

Now here’s a simple way to sort it all out, the science fact says that everything that grows stores carbon but the argument is how much, now i think the science says that all plants, grass, trees, etc no matter what they are is sequestering the same amount of carbon as each other per acre and the methane produced through the cow or sheep is the same methane that is produced by the plants when they rot down, it’s the same methane.
methane tuns into water vapour and co2 after ten years so is not an ever increasing gas it’s just a stable amount due to the nearly constant same amount of animals in the u.k.
my mystery is why aren’t the farming press, Nfu, etc just doing constant cover stories showing the science facts above and investigate why the lies and falsehoods are being told by the senedd and other conservationist groups, because that is exactly what it is.

 

[theboytheboy]

I think I should take grass parks for my suckler herd this spring,plough up all my permanent pasture and then I will can show improvement from arable to PP going forward. What a load of rubbish!

We are about to start ploughing up land that has been grassed down for 40 years or more. (Has had fertiliser, spray, lime, etc ) but still seems the way to go to get bthe best out of sfi or future bng and carbon credits. The aim is to get all of our small patch back to "arable" in the next two years.