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

[Frank-the-Wool]

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.

 

[milkloss]

What time are you on Frank?

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

What time are you on Frank?

6.45 apparently

 

[Scribus]

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?

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

And if it doesn't work?

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!

 

[Suffolk Serf]

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.

 

[GeorgeK]

George Monbiot says the report contains “feeble half-measures”.
So there's some positive outcomes

 

[Scribus]

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]

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.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Very Good . You should have a regular spot as a farming spokesperson

 

[Sonoftheheir]

Why is food production always bearing the brunt of all this climate stuff? Why are they not focusing on stuff that people don’t really need such as holidays on aeroplanes, and all consumer goods. Food is a necessity, surely better to cut back on all this plastic crap made in China?

 

[Frank-the-Wool]

Very Good . You should have a regular spot as a farming spokesperson

I have had some practice over the years but unfortunately the media don't usually like a good news story. I was on regional TV last night!!

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Was it Minette on R4 Today programme this morning before 7?
I thought she spoke well, (sounded like she'd been listening to some of @delilah 's points on here) and presenter even agreed with some of her points about considering the impact of the alternatives and eating local, whole foods.

 

[Suffolk Serf]

Was it Minette on R4 Today programme this morning before 7?
I thought she spoke well, (sounded like she'd been listening to some of @delilah 's points on here) and presenter even agreed with some of her points about considering the impact of the alternatives and eating local, whole foods.

Yes, she did a good job.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

I have had some practice over the years but unfortunately the media don't usually like a good news story. I was on regional TV last night!!

You came over as understandable, made good points and friendly

 

[Andrew1983]

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?

 

[egbert]

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]

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]

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]

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.