Pilatus
Member
Perhaps @Felix Wieberneit and his fellow students can give their input into this thread .
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.Our grassland, hedges and woodland have suddenly become very desirable. But as you say, how do you measure?
And as I said on another thread, I have no intention of green washing someone else’s dirty laundry, so that they can carry on as before.
The other thing raising its head, is dairies and meat processors who h@ve producers on contract, using their excess credit rating to offset the company production processes.
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.
Unfortunately if farmers do not jump on this and get control processors/government stealing them is exactly what will happen.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.
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.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.
What I don’t believe is that methane from ruminants is a major driver of climate change.And one that accounts for methane properly.
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)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.
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.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.
And as I said “I don’t….”You don't have to "believe", the actual facts speak for themselves. Ruminant methane is cyclical, I never tire if 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.
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.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.
The BBC seem to be top of the list ,doing as you say at the end of your last sentence.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.
Our industry needs to get accurate on the facts around this this and then we should be taking legal action to force the BBC to reverse its villinisation of livestock farmers.The BBC seem to be top of the list ,doing as you say at the end of your last sentence.
Needs pushing on receptive non-Ag sites to have an effectI 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.
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.Our industry needs to get accurate on the facts around this this and then we should be taking legal action to force the BBC to reverse its villinisation of livestock farmers.
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.Needs pushing on receptive non-Ag sites to have an effect
In practice I don't see it because these organisation seem happy to nod along and agree agriculture is the problem rather than stand ground and say agriculture is not the problem but we are willing to work towards helping provide solutions.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.
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..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.