Committee on Climate Change Report The Future For Farming And Land Use

I have just been sent the report by the CCC on future land use to achieve carbon net zero by 2050. It is embargoed until tomorrow morning and I have been sent it as I have been asked to comment on it by Sky news in the morning.

I would suggest that every farmer reads this tomorrow as I believe it shows where we will be heading in the next 30 years and gives a guide to how agricultural support will be positioned.
I have not read all 123 pages yet, but just the executive summary is very clear on what will be the direction that we will be pushed in. I would make the initial comment though that for many of us it is not as bad as we might have feared. Livestock numbers will need to be cut by 10% between now and 2050 (numbers have already decreased by 20% in the last 20 years) and tree planting will have to increase by 30,000 ha every year from now on. However to put that into context it will only increase woodland from 17% to 19% of the land cover in the British Isles. It is planned to compensate farmers while this woodland is being established.

Fertilizer will have to be slow release and a big increase in bio fuels is planned. There are also comments on reducing food waste and making efficiencies in livestock production through health schemes.
From a farmers and laymans point of view I would say it is a very fair report and makes clear views that any reduction in home grown production must not be from imported food that is not produced to the same environmental standards.

I believe this report will form the basis for the agriculture bill and the environment bill so is essential reading.
 

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
I have just been sent the report by the CCC on future land use to achieve carbon net zero by 2050. It is embargoed until tomorrow morning and I have been sent it as I have been asked to comment on it by Sky news in the morning.

I would suggest that every farmer reads this tomorrow as I believe it shows where we will be heading in the next 30 years and gives a guide to how agricultural support will be positioned.
I have not read all 123 pages yet, but just the executive summary is very clear on what will be the direction that we will be pushed in. I would make the initial comment though that for many of us it is not as bad as we might have feared. Livestock numbers will need to be cut by 10% between now and 2050 (numbers have already decreased by 20% in the last 20 years) and tree planting will have to increase by 30,000 ha every year from now on. However to put that into context it will only increase woodland from 17% to 19% of the land cover in the British Isles. It is planned to compensate farmers while this woodland is being established.

Fertilizer will have to be slow release and a big increase in bio fuels is planned. There are also comments on reducing food waste and making efficiencies in livestock production through health schemes.
From a farmers and laymans point of view I would say it is a very fair report and makes clear views that any reduction in home grown production must not be from imported food that is not produced to the same environmental standards.

I believe this report will form the basis for the agriculture bill and the environment bill so is essential reading.
And if it doesn't work?
 
I’ve just read the summary in the online edition of the Telegraph.
Says that red meat consumption should drop 20%.
The tree planting sounds rather a lot.
Not much mention (in the summary) of the real potential to sequester carbon in the soil if Farming is steered in the right direction.
It could have been worse, Packham or Monbiot could have been asked to write it.
 

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
The greatest danger is that we can try to make it work but the rest of the world fails to do their bit. We spend the money, reduce production and gain nothing.
Population growth is the issue, how do we reduce the population!
A large part of the world has already expressed their disinterest as noted on another thread. It's all a bit pointless a few countries in the west getting all smug thinking they are achieving something while the greater part of humanity hardly gives a flying fig. We used carbon fuels in our development so what right have we to deny countries following on behind? Developed countries have a lower birth rate after all.
 

Scribus

Member
Location
Central Atlantic
I’ve just read the summary in the online edition of the Telegraph.
Says that red meat consumption should drop 20%.
The tree planting sounds rather a lot.
Not much mention (in the summary) of the real potential to sequester carbon in the soil if Farming is steered in the right direction.
It could have been worse, Packham or Monbiot could have been asked to write it.
Sub clinical fascism.
 

egbert

Member
Well done Frank.

A change for the CCC from the sound of it.
If this steers nelms, then it mightn't be so bad.

On reflection, the 10% reduction in livestock (which doesn't quite match a 20% reduction in red meat consumption mind....) looks like it'll happen sooner rather than later.
The pending gap twixt HLS going and NELMS arriving, as BPS equivalent is being wound down is going to strain a lot of businesses in the hills.
The cows hereabouts will have to be cut.
 

egbert

Member
Bbc Scotland are running this story as we need to eat 20% less beef and lamb. And plant more trees to save 6millon tons of co2 over 30 years..... how much co2 do planes produce in 30 years?

If the quoted '30,000 hec per year' of new planting is correct, each new plantation might be grabbing something like 100,000-200,000 tonnes of carbon (dry weight of timber) per year.
So the maths could equal......
But.... only while they're young and growing. 100 years later...where is all that carbon?
Meantime, new runways still being built.

The headlines are that maybe we farmers aren't going to be too bent out of shape,
but the whole house of cards is still built on no foundations whatsoever.

with the US able to elect Trumpty, what hope is there?
 

Surgery

Member
Location
Oxford
The greatest danger is that we can try to make it work but the rest of the world fails to do their bit. We spend the money, reduce production and gain nothing.
Population growth is the issue, how do we reduce the population!
Totally agree but it would be something we would all do , and should be happy to do so , given that imports of foods are limited from countries doing likewise.

population part is a lot more difficult , looking at the virus in China I dare say Mother Nature might , unfortunately , give a hand.
 

Muddyroads

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Exeter, Devon
If the quoted '30,000 hec per year' of new planting is correct, each new plantation might be grabbing something like 100,000-200,000 tonnes of carbon (dry weight of timber) per year.
Surely that’s great, until the timber is burnt and all that carbon is released back into the atmosphere.
How much carbon could that 30,000 Ha store per year if it’s carefully managed grassland producing food and all the associated benefits that go with it? The associated stock will produce methane, but that will be reabsorbed in around 10 years.
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 33 16.2%
  • Sage

    Votes: 20 9.8%
  • Xero

    Votes: 95 46.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 56 27.5%

Man fined £300 for bonfire-related waste offences

  • 221
  • 0
Written by William Kellett from Agriland

court-640x360.jpg
A man has pleaded guilty at Newtownards Magistrates’ Court to waste offences relating to a bonfire next to the electrical sub-station on the Circular Road in Newtownards, Co. Down.

Gareth Gill (51) of Abbot’s Walk, Newtownards pleaded guilty to two charges under the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, for which he was fined £150 each and ordered to pay a £15 offender’s levy

On June 25, 2018, PSNI officers went to Gill’s yard, where they found a large amount of waste consisting of scrap wood, pallets, carpet and underlay.

Discussion with Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officers confirmed the site...
Top