Arla

[farmer on a bike]

They don't legally have to class enteric methane as a scope 3 emission. That's your choice to do so and yours alone.

Anyroad, just dropped in here to ask if an Arla producer could answer the question I have asked in the tofu thread in Agricultural Matters. Ta muchly .

https://www.thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/tofu.407769/#post-9253808

You do if you follow science based initiative (SBI) standards which most large companies do. Although I totally agree it is wrong in this aspect.

In respect of your other comment I think the left and right hand have not been communicating and I will encourage this is rectified. Farmers are encouraged to use sustainable soya or avoid soya, the recipe should at least suggest sustainable soya tofu, but my preference is to replace it with something tasty like cheese!!

 

[delilah]

You do if you follow science based initiative (SBI) standards which most large companies do. Although I totally agree it is wrong in this aspect.

I have been waiting through the whole Post Office debacle for someone with a spine to step forward. Finally happened today, chap was on the radio who was told that he was going to be sacked if he didn't pay the discrepancy. He told them to sack him and he would see them in court. They didn't sack him they quietly pressed a button to make up the discrepancy. That was 2001. The whole thing could have been avoided if others had stood up for themselves.

Tell the cartel to do one. What are they going to do ? Take you to court ? Bring it on. Because at the moment you are dragging us all down, not just your producers but anyone who farms ruminants.

In respect of your other comment I think the left and right hand have not been communicating and I will encourage this is rectified. Farmers are encouraged to use sustainable soya or avoid soya, the recipe should at least suggest sustainable soya tofu, but my preference is to replace it with something tasty like cheese!!

The left hand knows exactly what the right hand is doing. Soya meal is bad. It has to be bad, so that by moving away from it you can be good. Scope 3 emissions box ticked. So much easier than looking to the actual causes of GHG emissions in the food chain.

 

[DaveGrohl]

You do if you follow science based initiative (SBI) standards which most large companies do. Although I totally agree it is wrong in this aspect.

In respect of your other comment I think the left and right hand have not been communicating and I will encourage this is rectified. Farmers are encouraged to use sustainable soya or avoid soya, the recipe should at least suggest sustainable soya tofu, but my preference is to replace it with something tasty like cheese!!

Talk about a contradiction in terms

 

[farmer on a bike]

I have been waiting through the whole Post Office debacle for someone with a spine to step forward. Finally happened today, chap was on the radio who was told that he was going to be sacked if he didn't pay the discrepancy. He told them to sack him and he would see them in court. They didn't sack him they quietly pressed a button to make up the discrepancy. That was 2001. The whole thing could have been avoided if others had stood up for themselves.

Tell the cartel to do one. What are they going to do ? Take you to court ? Bring it on. Because at the moment you are dragging us all down, not just your producers but anyone who farms ruminants.

This is in no way analogous to the horrendous experience of the post masters, trying to link it is ridiculous.

Arla compete for shelf space in our customers with Nestle, Danone, Lactalis, Savencia, Mueller, Unilever, Sodiaal, Glanbia, Saputo as well as other co-ops such as RFC, DoA, Fonterra, and DMK. Putting 2 fingers up to our customers who value our scope 3 data and all follow Science Based Target initiative (SBTi) does not seem a great way to benefit our farmer owners. We work with them, we work with scientists, we get the evidence, we justify, we persuade.

I do not agree with where SBTi sits but I want to engage and get it changed, so not just Arla but all our competitors, customers and stakeholders accept the truth of the cyclicity of ruminant methane.

The left hand knows exactly what the right hand is doing. Soya meal is bad. It has to be bad, so that by moving away from it you can be good. Scope 3 emissions box ticked. So much easier than looking to the actual causes of GHG emissions in the food chain.

People make mistakes not everything is a conspiracy, in fact most things are not a conspiracy, mistakes are much more common place. The key is people own up and correct mistakes when they are pointed out, rather than cover them up which is where a conspiracy may start, and where the analogy with the Post Office/ Fujitsu reaction does make some sense.

 

[delilah]

I do not agree with where SBTi sits but I want to engage and get it changed, so not just Arla but all our competitors, customers and stakeholders accept the truth of the cyclicity of ruminant methane.

Then you will have submitted evidence to this :

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8304/

If you could share your evidence on here, folks can use it to make their own submission, the more people who get the message across the more likely we are to see change. Thanks

 

[delilah]

The call for evidence. My highlights.

Background​

Methane is a powerful but short-lived greenhouse gas. Its concentration in the atmosphere is increasing globally and it is responsible for a third of the climate warming since the start of the industrial revolution.[1] A significant reduction in methane emissions is a component of all mitigation pathways set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for limiting the increase in global average temperatures to well below 2ºC and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.[2]

At COP26 in 2021, the UK signed the Global Methane Pledge, the stated aim of which is “to keep a 1.5°C future within reach”.[3] As one of 155 countries signatory to the pledge, the UK has agreed to take voluntary actions to reduce global methane emissions by 30 percent compared to 2020 levels by 2030. Achieving this target would limit warming while also delivering benefits to human and ecosystem health.[4]

Methane emissions constituted 14% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2022.[5] Since 1990, the UK has seen a 62.5% reduction in methane emissions, although the rate of reduction has slowed in recent years.[6] The Climate Change Committee’s 2023 Progress report to Parliament set out the UK’s methane emissions by sector. The agriculture sector represents the largest contribution to methane emissions in the UK (49.2% of total UK methane emissions in 2022), followed by the waste (29.9%) and fuel supply sectors (8.3%).[7]

QUESTIONS​

Overview​

• What is the impact of methane on climate change and warming, and how does it differ from other greenhouse gases?
• What are the main benefits of delivering methane reduction targets?
• What trade-offs are there, if any, in tackling methane vs. CO or other greenhouse gases?

International commitments​

1) What role could methane emissions reduction play in meeting the UK’s domestic and international climate change targets?

2) What is your assessment of the Global Methane Pledge: is the UK on track to meet it? If not, how could this be accelerated?

3) What are the implications of the separate Global Methane Pledge for overall UK efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

4) Given UK progress in methane reduction in recent years (with notable reductions before 2020) what are the cost/ benefit implications of meeting the pledge?

5) How significant are UK methane emissions when compared to global emissions? What impact could UK efforts on reducing methane emissions have on total emissions?

6) What is the UK doing to lead and facilitate international action on methane reduction? Could this be enhanced?

7) What lessons could the UK learn from abroad?

Data, measurement and monitoring​

8) What is the status of methane accounting, monitoring and reporting in the UK at present and how does it compare internationally? Is UK accounting and reporting considered to be accurate and robust? What improvements, if any, are possible and what benefits would these deliver?

9) What progress is being made on methane monitoring and data collection in the UK using technologies such as satellite data and drones?

10) Are there significant methane leakages in the UK, and if so where do they usually occur?

11) What are the advantages and disadvantages of available metrics used to report and compare methane emissions including GWP100 and GWP*?

UK Methane emissions and sectors​

12) What progress has the UK made on reducing methane emissions and where is there room for improvement?

13) Which sectors are most promising for achieving further methane emissions reductions? And which are likely to be at least relative cost?

14) Are there sources that could be mitigated quickly and easily in the short term, and which would take longer or be more complex?

15) To what extent is there existing regulation in each emitting sector to mitigate methane emissions, and how well is this working?

Agriculture​

16) Are there emerging technologies, such as methane suppressant feed products or approaches to slurry management, that could aid with methane emissions reduction in agriculture? What impact could they deliver?

17) How effective are existing policies and incentives, such as Slurry Infrastructure Grants, in driving methane reduction?

18) What other policy tools, frameworks or incentives could be employed in agriculture to drive methane reduction?

19) How can efforts to mitigate methane emissions in agriculture be integrated into broader approaches to facilitate and incentivise climate and nature-friendly farming practices?

20) How can efforts to reduce methane reduction be balanced against other important considerations in the agricultural sector, including food security?

Waste and waste management​

21) What further progress could be made in the waste and waste management sector on reducing methane emissions? Are there interventions and/or technologies that could bring emissions down?

22) Given the regulations already in place for methane reduction in the waste sector, why are emissions from the waste sector static over recent years? Are existing regulations monitored and enforced?

23) Is the UK on track to meet the Government’s deadline of all local authorities collecting food waste separately from landfill by March 2026?

24) To what extent will improved methane captured at landfill sites, remain necessary to reduce methane emissions after this date?

Fossil fuels​

25) Are there further methane reductions that could be made in the UK fossil fuels sector (e.g., oil, gas or other fossil fuels), or at a faster pace?

26) How can we ensure that reducing methane emissions in the oil and gas sector are not at the expense of reducing CO₂ emissions?

27) What impact would bringing forward the ban on flaring and venting have on both emissions and the industry?

 

[delilah]

People make mistakes not everything is a conspiracy, in fact most things are not a conspiracy, mistakes are much more common place. The key is people own up and correct mistakes when they are pointed out, rather than cover them up which is where a conspiracy may start, and where the analogy with the Post Office/ Fujitsu reaction does make some sense.

Blaming the primary producer for climate change is neither a mistake nor a conspiracy. It is a clearly thought out strategy, and is all out in the open. Read the threads on here referencing the WWF basket.

 

[delilah]

You do if you follow science based initiative (SBI) standards

https://sciencebasedtargets.org/how-it-works

At COP 24, CDP, the Gold Standard, WRI, and WWF will be launching a compendium of best practices in addressing scope 3 GHG emissions. For more information contact [email protected].

Your science based targets are a crock of sh!t. It isn't science, it is the cartel bribing WWF to load the blame for climate change on to the primary producer.

 

[farmer on a bike]

Then you will have submitted evidence to this :

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8304/

If you could share your evidence on here, folks can use it to make their own submission, the more people who get the message across the more likely we are to see change. Thanks

I have submitted, however the rules for submission state:
"Your submission should not have been published anywhere already. This includes blogs, newspaper articles, websites and journals, for example".
I do totally agree with you that the more people submit views the better, I would particularly encourage anyone with evidence of soil sequestration on their own farms to submit information relating to that under question 19, and obviously to point out the nonsense of treating biogenic methane as comparable to fossil methane.

 

[farmer on a bike]

https://sciencebasedtargets.org/how-it-works

At COP 24, CDP, the Gold Standard, WRI, and WWF will be launching a compendium of best practices in addressing scope 3 GHG emissions. For more information contact [email protected].

Your science based targets are a crock of sh!t. It isn't science, it is the cartel bribing WWF to load the blame for climate change on to the primary producer.

Your?

SBTi uses the green house gas (GHG) protocols which whilst using GWP100 (so totally ignoring the difference of biogenic methane) does allow scientifically verified carbon sequestration to be included, an area we need to get sorted ASAP.

 

[delilah]

I have submitted, however the rules for submission state:
"Your submission should not have been published anywhere already. This includes blogs, newspaper articles, websites and journals, for example".

Yes, sorry, when I said you I was meaning Arla. If Arla wish to see GWP* adopted they must have made a detailed submission to this enquiry.

The 'previously published' thing doesn't prevent Arla with providing producer members with a template submission, and/or bullet points to help members put something together. The industry should be burying this enquiry under submissions.

Deadline is next Monday.

 

[farmer on a bike]

Yes, sorry, when I said you I was meaning Arla. If Arla wish to see GWP* adopted they must have made a detailed submission to this enquiry.

The 'previously published' thing doesn't prevent Arla with providing producer members with a template submission, and/or bullet points to help members put something together. The industry should be burying this enquiry under submissions.

Deadline is next Monday.

I expect Arla will have contributed, they have a parliamentary advisor/lobbyist who picks up these things. The policy group normally consider at least a dozen or more parliamentary committees and consultations important to contribute to each year and generally the view is that continually suggesting owners contribute will get very little reaction. Templates are generally recognised to be generally ignored by politicians. I will check Arla have contributed.

Whilst I think GWP* is better, unfortunately GWP* is not the perfect answer, it has some unintended consequences. Yes it treats biogenic methane more correctly but seems to have issues on a business basis where they are expanding. Also as I understand it, where fossil fuel methane is leaking, a reduction in that leak could be counted as a huge reduction in carbon footprint using the same multiple as used with a reduction in biogenic methane, which seems very wrong as the real methane polluters could benefit significantly. I stand to be corrected on this if I am wrong, but I believe I have understood this correctly.

 

[delilah]

I expect Arla will have contributed, they have a parliamentary advisor/lobbyist who picks up these things. The policy group normally consider at least a dozen or more parliamentary committees and consultations important to contribute to each year and generally the view is that continually suggesting owners contribute will get very little reaction. Templates are generally recognised to be generally ignored by politicians. I will check Arla have contributed.

A tenner to RABI says Arla haven't made a submission. Because it is Arla policy to allow cows to take the blame for climate change. 'Retailer led' as you put it.

 

[Happy hillbily]

A bit disappointed we won't be receiving a hamper this year. Out of the 9 product coupons we have been given, there's only the costello, lurpack, and anchor products that would be any good here.
The bottles of cravendale, yeo valley organic and bob products, are no use, as we have a tank full of unmolested milk.
The skyr, and protein products I don't like, and less I say about Starbucks the better.
Am I just being a grumpy old git ? I would just like some cheese.

 

[Cows 'n grass]

I can't remember if it was milk link or when we were with OMSCo when we the tanker driver would just leave out a block of cheddar as big as your leg. That was much better.

 

[Eronce]

A bit disappointed we won't be receiving a hamper this year. Out of the 9 product coupons we have been given, there's only the costello, lurpack, and anchor products that would be any good here.
The bottles of cravendale, yeo valley organic and bob products, are no use, as we have a tank full of unmolested milk.
The skyr, and protein products I don't like, and less I say about Starbucks the better.
Am I just being a grumpy old git ? I would just like some cheese.

Totally agree the hamper was a nice personal touch and it got delivered, rather than having to go round specific shops to spend the coupons.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Your?

SBTi uses the green house gas (GHG) protocols which whilst using GWP100 (so totally ignoring the difference of biogenic methane) does allow scientifically verified carbon sequestration to be included, an area we need to get sorted ASAP.

SBTi you say?
They can‘t even agree amongst themselves, never mind what the actual valid "science" is.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/companies-get-green-light-use-offsets-supply-chain-emissions-2024-04-10/R

 

[DaveGrohl]

I expect Arla will have contributed, they have a parliamentary advisor/lobbyist who picks up these things. The policy group normally consider at least a dozen or more parliamentary committees and consultations important to contribute to each year and generally the view is that continually suggesting owners contribute will get very little reaction. Templates are generally recognised to be generally ignored by politicians. I will check Arla have contributed.

Whilst I think GWP* is better, unfortunately GWP* is not the perfect answer, it has some unintended consequences. Yes it treats biogenic methane more correctly but seems to have issues on a business basis where they are expanding. Also as I understand it, where fossil fuel methane is leaking, a reduction in that leak could be counted as a huge reduction in carbon footprint using the same multiple as used with a reduction in biogenic methane, which seems very wrong as the real methane polluters could benefit significantly. I stand to be corrected on this if I am wrong, but I believe I have understood this correctly.

Odd use of the words unintended and issues. It’s simply a far better way to measure actual warming impact rather than "emissions" which does no such thing, it’s a proxy which doesn’t actually work as such. You perhaps meant to phrase that better?

I see what you’re saying about fossil methane, although fossil and biogenic methane have different warming values which take into account where the CO2 ends up. The AHDB eventually managed to do some calculations after an almighty prod from some of us, and created a monster doing what you‘re pointing to. They showed that fossil and landfill reductions have massively reduced our national footprint, creating idiotic numbers. They were supposed to show how benign UK ruminants are but completely ballsed it up.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Here you go. Final table completely misses the point that every single carbon atom dug up will increase warming, which simply isn’t the case with cattle methane.

 

[crashbox]

A bit disappointed we won't be receiving a hamper this year. Out of the 9 product coupons we have been given, there's only the costello, lurpack, and anchor products that would be any good here.
The bottles of cravendale, yeo valley organic and bob products, are no use, as we have a tank full of unmolested milk.
The skyr, and protein products I don't like, and less I say about Starbucks the better.
Am I just being a grumpy old git ? I would just like some cheese.

Apparently it was disproportionately expensive.

I'd rather the co-op is prudent with it's spending, so pretty relaxed about it.

The fundamental for me is that they return members better than the market average.