Carbon Offsetting??Please show me the theory in practice.

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
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.
Also, the BBC are wrong in this instance, a court of law would highlight this. An actual court case would be a fantastic result. Their lawyers would advise them to instantly back down however thereby avoiding any case and avoiding an embarrassing episode.
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
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..
'Hoping someone else will', is just a flash way of saying 'I hope I don't have to' do it, sometimes...

I reckon we're better at representing us than anyone else, even if we get some stuff wrong in the delivery

I mean yes there was a storm about a few of us on here "not being represenative of us" when we made a group submission but is that reason to not say anything ?
Because of a few damp pizzles ?

Don't wait for a leader, just go be one 👍
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
"Offsetting" was a clever invention of the deal makers at Paris to try to keep the whole show on the road when it became clear that to genuinely avoid 2°C of GMSL temperature rise meant urgent, massive and increasing, cuts to fossil fuel use which would collapse the global economy. Politicians and policy advisers leapt on it as a workable interim solution without any real idea of the exit strategy. High emitting business (which includes most major companies these days) then grabbed it with glee as a way to "be seen to be doing something" while not actually having to change their (economically) valuable business model.

Then the scientific evidence of the issue got even more alarming and the notion of "overshoot" came into play whereby the policy leaders accept that we will exceed the temperature target, probably around 2030, but can then remove enough C from the atmosphere to return back below 2°C by 2050 using CCS, CCUS and BECCS alongside offsetting. The smoke and mirrors continues.

Note:

CCS = Carbon Capture and Storage. Can be adding trees, increasing soil OM or air source capture and permanent deep storage. Only 2 of these are currently scaleable and economically viable.

CCUS = Carbon Capture, Utilisation or Storage. Carbon is captured and then used for another purpose, typically either processing into a new fuel (For example; "sustainable aviation fuel") or pumping into existing oil weeks to help squeeze the pool out faster. Currently the darling of big business because it's more affordable (because the captured carbon is saleable) but does nothing to actually reduce atmospheric carbon levels so is a red herring.

BECCS = Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage. Darling of the UK government and CCC. Growing biofuel cross then capturing the carbon emissions and storing them away as per CCS, resulting in cheaper capture of the carbon than straight CCS but still using large amounts of energy to catch, prices and deposit the resulting carbon. Almost as unaffordable as straight CCS.

The choice is either climate "indulgences" that don't solve the problem or real solutions that cost so much that the economy is fundamentally hugely contracted by them.
 

Overby

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
South West
There is evidence out there that the secret 'New World Order' or whoever you want to call them (those who actually call the shots, behind the scenes) have been slowly implementing their plan for decades.There's a document somewhere, the minutes of a meeting from the 90s that shows the global plan is to split industry around the world ie farming - US, heavy industry China and the East, Finance Europe / UK. The tool put forward for doing this : climate change.

I don't wear a tinfoil hat but you do sometimes have to wonder.
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
At the moment it appears the IPCC have the ball, and they say cattle produce methane that is compounding global warming. They do touch slightly on which cattle, and differentiate between grazing (grass) and lot fed (grain). It is very finite, and as time progresses, we should see much better auditing and figures that paint a more accurate figure.

Rice production is a big player as are wetlands and bogs. The oil industry, landfills and waste treatment also play a major role.

Reducing meat consumption is a low hanging fruit, easy to point the guns at, rice is not as easy, if you don't eat rice, what do you eat ? Re-wilding and the current gallop to increase wetlands and sphagnum moss appear a little contradictory, they do absorb CO2, but also produce methane ?

Methane is worse than CO2 for global warming (allegedly) but hangs around for a much shorter period, so for now it is the easy target, as it's the one that may show some results in the next 10-20 years..

So we have to consider both CO2 and CH4.

To know our own carbon footprint is a good place to start, there is a calculator here:


But even then, it's only half the story.

The marketeers and analyst's will always look at ways and means to make money from anything.
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria

Fill yer boots....

Well the truth hurts, and I think in our heart of hearts we know getting to 1.5 degrees is impossible, this confirms that worry, as well as creating others, 'geoengineering ' sounds almost apocalyptic !
 

farmerm

Member
Location
Shropshire
its not even a
At the moment it appears the IPCC have the ball, and they say cattle produce methane that is compounding global warming. They do touch slightly on which cattle, and differentiate between grazing (grass) and lot fed (grain). It is very finite, and as time progresses, we should see much better auditing and figures that paint a more accurate figure.

Rice production is a big player as are wetlands and bogs. The oil industry, landfills and waste treatment also play a major role.

Reducing meat consumption is a low hanging fruit, easy to point the guns at, rice is not as easy, if you don't eat rice, what do you eat ? Re-wilding and the current gallop to increase wetlands and sphagnum moss appear a little contradictory, they do absorb CO2, but also produce methane ?

Methane is worse than CO2 for global warming (allegedly) but hangs around for a much shorter period, so for now it is the easy target, as it's the one that may show some results in the next 10-20 years..

So we have to consider both CO2 and CH4.

To know our own carbon footprint is a good place to start, there is a calculator here:


But even then, it's only half the story.

The marketeers and analyst's will always look at ways and means to make money from anything.
In the past 30 years or more global cattle numbers have not increased so methane from cattle can not have increased whilst emissions from all those other sources you mention certainly have increased, not to mention the additional 2.5bn farting humans! Ruminants are being villainised for increasing methane levels yet ruminants have played no part in this increase.
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
🙂
Screenshot_20211119-010102_Chrome.jpg

Hard work being green @holwellcourtfarm
it'll be better next year
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
its not even a

In the past 30 years or more global cattle numbers have not increased so methane from cattle can not have increased whilst emissions from all those other sources you mention certainly have increased, not to mention the additional 2.5bn farting humans! Ruminants are being villainised for increasing methane levels yet ruminants have played no part in this increase.
No one is arguing that they have, but the three key issues are: 1) Cattle are on of the biggest producers, and 2) we are topping up what is already their, it's not an annual total it's a rolling accumulation. 3) Cattle are the low hanging fruit.

In most developed regions cattle numbers are falling, however in developing areas (Africa, Asia) they are sky rocketing. (and pigs)
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Looks like we need to stimulate a few volcanic eruptions:



"We know from large volcanic eruptions that particles injected at high altitude cool the planet. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines is the best recent example. It is estimated that more than 10m tonnes of sulphur dioxide were propelled into the high atmosphere and it quickly formed tiny droplets of sulphuric acid (yes, the same stuff found in acid rain) which reflected sunlight and caused global cooling. For about a year after Pinatubo the Earth cooled by around 0.4℃ and then temperatures reverted to normal."
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Well the truth hurts, and I think in our heart of hearts we know getting to 1.5 degrees is impossible, this confirms that worry, as well as creating others, 'geoengineering ' sounds almost apocalyptic !
Achieveing 1.5°C is not yet (quite) impossible, it's just the economic impact is considered apocolyptic by most economists, politicians and business leaders.
 

thesilentone

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
Cumbria
Sums it up well.

"The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over."
 

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
At the moment it appears the IPCC have the ball, and they say cattle produce methane that is compounding global warming. They do touch slightly on which cattle, and differentiate between grazing (grass) and lot fed (grain). It is very finite, and as time progresses, we should see much better auditing and figures that paint a more accurate figure.

Rice production is a big player as are wetlands and bogs. The oil industry, landfills and waste treatment also play a major role.

Reducing meat consumption is a low hanging fruit, easy to point the guns at, rice is not as easy, if you don't eat rice, what do you eat ? Re-wilding and the current gallop to increase wetlands and sphagnum moss appear a little contradictory, they do absorb CO2, but also produce methane ?

Methane is worse than CO2 for global warming (allegedly) but hangs around for a much shorter period, so for now it is the easy target, as it's the one that may show some results in the next 10-20 years..

So we have to consider both CO2 and CH4.

To know our own carbon footprint is a good place to start, there is a calculator here:


But even then, it's only half the story.

The marketeers and analyst's will always look at ways and means to make money from anything.
I haven't a clue about the ins and outs of rice, but I'm assuming rice methane is the same as ruminant methane, ie cyclical. Anyone any idea? I have no issue treating rice the same as ruminants for this purpose,, Everything else on your list isn't cyclical in the same sense.
 
Last edited:

DaveGrohl

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Cumbria
No one is arguing that they have, but the three key issues are:

2) we are topping up what is already their, it's not an annual total it's a rolling accumulation.

In most developed regions cattle numbers are falling, however in developing areas (Africa, Asia) they are sky rocketing. (and pigs)
Nope, if cattle numbers aren't rising then it ISN'T accumulation.

If we are taking on the problems of the world then your final point is relevant to point 2 and perfectly valid.

If we are only bothered about this country (and that is plainly obvious - politicians, politicians, politicians), then your final point doesn't count.
 

Kiwi Pete

Member
Livestock Farmer
I'd love to see the info behind that Pete. (y) :rolleyes:
Easy enough to fill in that one I've used 250 litres of fuel, bought 5km of waterpipe, and the soil OM to .75m keeps chugging away 🙂

you should see the stuff the uni people want to know, I can assure you it isn't a 5 minute job
I haven't a clue about the ins and outs of rice, but I'm assuming rice methane is the same as ruminant methane, ie cyclical. Anyone any idea? I have no issue treating rice the same as ruminants for this purpose,, Everything else on your list isn't cyclical.
Yes, it will be cyclical. Basically if you have a reliable methane source, then you will have a reliable food supply for your methanotrophs which will soon consume it, or at least some of it

As I said when we were discussing blind scientists upthread, nature doesn't leave anything behind
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 77 43.5%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 62 35.0%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 28 15.8%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.3%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,284
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top