Emperors new clothes.... No dairy farm has the capacity to provide sufficient carbon capture services to offset their own carbon emissions and the manufacture and transport of the inputs such as nitrogen, machinery, transport, concrete on which they depend. Those that sell the carbon capture services notion conveniently ignore the truth that you need to offset not only your own emissions but also take on board those of your suppliers before you have any carbon storage surplus to sell to other industries. Its nothing more than greenwash and wealth redistribution.
Well it works like this... either our industry offsets our suppliers emissions first or we pay more for the products which we consume in order that our suppliers can make the investments to cut or offset their emissions elsewhere. One way or another the burden of carbon reduction costs will fall on the back of the consumer buying the product be that flights and TVs or products like nitrogen, ag chemicals, steel or concrete....Why should we have to offset all our suppliers emissions?
Well it works like this... either our industry offsets our suppliers emissions first or we pay more for the products which we consume in order that our suppliers can make the investments to cut or offset their emissions elsewhere. One way or another the burden of carbon reduction costs will fall on the back of the consumer buying the product be that flights and TVs or products like nitrogen, ag chemicals, steel or concrete....
Ultimately the consumer has to pay.Surely the consumer will have to stand 100% of the cost of everything they consume then which isnt going to happen. We hold alot of the assets industry is going to need to offset carbon in the future but farmers need to tread very carefully as we are likely going to get rolled over and stuffed as usual if we get it wrong.
We don’t have sufficient assets to offset the emissions from other industries! If we are honest in our calculations we can barely offset those carbon emissions directly related to food production!Surely the consumer will have to stand 100% of the cost of everything they consume then which isnt going to happen. We hold alot of the assets industry is going to need to offset carbon in the future but farmers need to tread very carefully as we are likely going to get rolled over and stuffed as usual if we get it wrong.
We don’t have sufficient assets to offset the emissions from other industries! If we are honest in our calculations we can barely offset those carbon emissions directly related to food production!
Of course it has merit, we are all responsible as individuals and businesses for our own direct emissions and the emissions in producing the goods and services which we consume. Any cost to business for reducing or offsetting emissions ultimately works down the line into the price paid for the good or service consumed.There was a thread a month or so ago where Clive was selling his.
Not ofsetting, just the sequestration of the growing crop.
I think the notion that we are responsible for our own carbon and that of our suppliers has merit unfortunately
There is also a dairy or 2 that pay a bonus for reducing your carbon footprint YOY.
So has methane increased?Yesterday's report flagging up methane won't help.
There is also a dairy or 2 that pay a bonus for reducing your carbon footprint YOY.
I agree with your cycle and minimal nett impact.So has methane increased?
Answer: No, it’s part of a closed loop within the carbon cycle. If memory serves me right 12 years.
Another bit of pointless rubbish from climate change turkeys with an agenda.
As I said on another thread, if the government pay me £400 cow per year over the next 10 years I will shut all the gates and let nature take the job on.I agree with your cycle and minimal nett impact.
The serious thing that has happened this week is that it's been decided that since methane is so bad if we can reduce that significantly there is more room left for co2 to grow.
It maybe a case that nett zero for dairy may no longer be good enough.
The potential plus side is a methane credit should be worth 28-34 times the value of a co2 credit for the next 100years.
So reducing your cows output by culling them and then using the land to capture carbon might become profitable.
If we culled all the cows in the UK , it wouldn’t have the slightest effect, most methane comes from wetlands, perhaps they’re going to cap those over as well, oh almost forgot, all the rubbish landfill as well!I agree with your cycle and minimal nett impact.
The serious thing that has happened this week is that it's been decided that since methane is so bad if we can reduce that significantly there is more room left for co2 to grow.
It maybe a case that nett zero for dairy may no longer be good enough.
The potential plus side is a methane credit should be worth 28-34 times the value of a co2 credit for the next 100years.
So reducing your cows output by culling them and then using the land to capture carbon might become profitable.