Entrade, Environmental Offsetting and Trading

Muddyroads

Member
NFFN Member
Location
Exeter, Devon
My guess is that carbon capture will be the big step change. If carbon can be extracted at point of production, such as from the chimney of a steel works and turned into stable solids, it can be stored for ever more. Maybe it could even be sucked out of the atmosphere?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
My immediate thoughts were much the same. However, being only a simple peasant I might well have totally misunderstood it all!
This year we will see hundreds of businesses set up worldwide to trade in this stuff. Glasgow's climate summit has a lot to do with it.
Unfortunately governments will see it as a way for private sector finance to subsidise agriculture and food production.
As the BPS disappears, a new form of land control will come in, and it will be worse than before because carbon levelsand targets will have to be met at all costs. . . to the farmer
Meanwhile, the big companies financing this stuff will just carry on peddling their consumerism.
How do we value our environmental goods? It would be good to set some high bars nice and early. Before too many sign up piecemeal agreements which then get used as evidence of the market price.
This is definitely coming in a big way.

Be very careful though. Check VERY carefully what you are signing up to. Early adopters may (will?) find that they have tied in to very low payment rates in return for strict contractual restrictions on what they can do with their land for the next 30+ years. I'm seeing carbon offsets trading at £30/t now despite all the players expecting to see £100+/t within a few years and the hi-tech air carbon capture and storage that politicians and Bill Gates think will save us currently costs around £1000/t!

In my opinion we should all run a mile from the "reverse auction" model. If anything we should counter with a proper auction as in "I've got 3 miles of hedgerow and 2000 tonnes a year of spare C sequestration so bid me for it".

The money paid should be high enough to make the buyers think seriously whether to offset or to actually change their model and stop doing the damaging activity instead.
 
Last edited:
I'll say this again for the hard of hearing: this is ballox.

The UK alone manufactures around 25 million tonnes of cement/concrete a year, and we know that each tonne produced emits- near as makes no difference- 1000kg of CO2.

Please explain to me, how, if I was a concrete manufacturer, me paying a farmer for the required miles of hedgerows to 'offset' my emissions, makes a sh1t of difference to the atmosphere given that I'm gonna continue producing the same amount annually, and the farmer's hedge has been there probably since doomsday anyway? No amount of money changing hands has altered the net emissions to atmosphere I'm afraid.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
I'll say this again for the hard of hearing: this is ballox.

The UK alone manufactures around 25 million tonnes of cement/concrete a year, and we know that each tonne produced emits- near as makes no difference- 1000kg of CO2.

Please explain to me, how, if I was a concrete manufacturer, me paying a farmer for the required miles of hedgerows to 'offset' my emissions, makes a sh1t of difference to the atmosphere given that I'm gonna continue producing the same amount annually, and the farmer's hedge has been there probably since doomsday anyway? No amount of money changing hands has altered the net emissions to atmosphere I'm afraid.
Most of these schemes I've looked at require you to change what you're doing so it is new sequestration, that's the point. You are then contractually bound to stay like that for a period of at least 30 years and up to 100 years. If you don't you'll be forced to buy the shortfall yourself from another provider :inpain:.

It IS all very "smoke and mirrors" though but then, if we farmers can milk big business for a change why not?
 
Most of these schemes I've looked at require you to change what you're doing so it is new sequestration, that's the point. You are then contractually bound to stay like that for a period of at least 30 years and up to 100 years. If you don't you'll be forced to buy the shortfall yourself from another provider :inpain:.

It IS all very "smoke and mirrors" though but then, if we farmers can milk big business for a change why not?

As I understand it, concrete production won't be ending any time soon, and neither will the industrial process use to produce it. I guess they could burn waste of some kind in the process and get paid for doing so.

Such a shower in any event.
 

Tubbylew

Member
Location
Herefordshire
As I understand it, concrete production won't be ending any time soon, and neither will the industrial process use to produce it. I guess they could burn waste of some kind in the process and get paid for doing so.

Such a shower in any event.
Thats the thing though isn't it, ryan air have no plans to stop flights, ikea aren't going to stop selling disposable furniture, and car manufacturers have no plans to stop selling cars regardless of how they are powered, I could go on. It'll add a bit to the price of everything so mr and mrs jones of number 32 can stop feeling guilty about their new telly/car/phone/holiday/trainers/insert consumer goods here. Problem solved eh. thank f**k for that.
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Thats the thing though isn't it, ryan air have no plans to stop flights, ikea aren't going to stop selling disposable furniture, and car manufacturers have no plans to stop selling cars regardless of how they are powered, I could go on. It'll add a bit to the price of everything so mr and mrs jones of number 32 can stop feeling guilty about their new telly/car/phone/holiday/trainers/insert consumer goods here. Problem solved eh. thank fudge for that.
... or not, if they have to pay £500/t for carbon offsets doubling or tripling the price of their car/ flight/ phone.....
 

DRC

Member
Most of these schemes I've looked at require you to change what you're doing so it is new sequestration, that's the point. You are then contractually bound to stay like that for a period of at least 30 years and up to 100 years. If you don't you'll be forced to buy the shortfall yourself from another provider :inpain:.

It IS all very "smoke and mirrors" though but then, if we farmers can milk big business for a change why not?
So tenants will be unlikely to have access to any of this .
We are stumped all round , as not allowed to diversify .
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
Are Entrade still doing the reverse auction for their options? It sets farmer against farmer in a race to the lowest value. I was part of a focus group run by a PhD student that @Red Fred attended a couple of years ago where there was a heated discussion about this. He and I weren’t in the Poole Harbour catchment at the time so we sat back and listened with interest at the other farmers complaining about selling their souls for cash...
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Are Entrade still doing the reverse auction for their options? It sets farmer against farmer in a race to the lowest value. I was part of a focus group run by a PhD student that @Red Fred attended a couple of years ago where there was a heated discussion about this. He and I weren’t in the Poole Harbour catchment at the time so we sat back and listened with interest at the other farmers complaining about selling their souls for cash...
Like the arguments about leaving Red Tractor, we need to stick together on this one to avoid being shafted from the outset IMHO.

I strongly believe that the only beneficiaries of a reverse auction approach are the buyers.
 

N.Yorks.

Member
I'll say this again for the hard of hearing: this is ballox.

The UK alone manufactures around 25 million tonnes of cement/concrete a year, and we know that each tonne produced emits- near as makes no difference- 1000kg of CO2.

Please explain to me, how, if I was a concrete manufacturer, me paying a farmer for the required miles of hedgerows to 'offset' my emissions, makes a sh1t of difference to the atmosphere given that I'm gonna continue producing the same amount annually, and the farmer's hedge has been there probably since doomsday anyway? No amount of money changing hands has altered the net emissions to atmosphere I'm afraid.

Well if the 1000t CO2 emitted is roughly 300 kg of carbon and if the market price for carbon was £30/tonne that tonne of cement just got £9000/t more expensive to make, so concrete will be used less and other construction material like timber etc will be used instead, or other products used. If you use lime instead of cement in mortar it grabs CO2 as it cures therefore fixing C again (C was released during manufacture).

So this will reduce demand for concrete except in situations where it can't be substituted......

Perhaps you'll plant trees not only for biodiversity, flood mitigation and C capture but also as a future building material. I'm just planning a 4ha end of field that never earnt a penny in cereals and it's got a large proportion of Oaks in the species mix and the hope is they will be big enough in 40-50 ish years to be processed as construction beams and columns. I'm registering it with the woodland carbon code so I can trade the C and return me an income in yrs 5,15,25,35 etc

That woodland will help offset that C which can't easily be erased from the farm system, then the rest can be traded........

So to your original question, it won't be business as usual for concrete their additional cost will reduce demend for it and they will have to compete with steel makers (at the moment), quarries, airlines, builders, water companies and the list is endless for carbon to offset until the whole economy rejigs to next to no carbon emmissions.

It will be the cost of the carbon that will drive the change...........away from emitting it. It'll probably be 10's of years to shift so c trading initially will drive the change.

To be honest it's taken me about a year to get the whole thing straight in my own mind so initial scepticism etc is totally normal.
 
Last edited:

N.Yorks.

Member
So tenants will be unlikely to have access to any of this .
We are stumped all round , as not allowed to diversify .
Depends if the landowner can be bothered to do it for himself...... bit like the farming bit which they didn't want to do in the first place........?

Maybe the tenant has a joint venture with the landlord..... framed in a different way to current tenancies?
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
I'll say this again for the hard of hearing: this is ballox.

The UK alone manufactures around 25 million tonnes of cement/concrete a year, and we know that each tonne produced emits- near as makes no difference- 1000kg of CO2.

Please explain to me, how, if I was a concrete manufacturer, me paying a farmer for the required miles of hedgerows to 'offset' my emissions, makes a sh1t of difference to the atmosphere given that I'm gonna continue producing the same amount annually, and the farmer's hedge has been there probably since doomsday anyway? No amount of money changing hands has altered the net emissions to atmosphere I'm afraid.

Yes, it is a load of rubbish, but it is also an opportunity for farmers to cash in on the soon-to-be legislated requirement to offset. The ethical market will also push corporate social responsibility towards this virtue signalling. Some good may come of it regarding polluting practices - Yara & CF will use different techniques to produce green ammonia for fertiliser production (electrolysis of water instead of reducing natural gas). Is the cost of production cheaper? Is the carbon footprint smaller? They claim it to be so. Is this just another way of attacking urea? Yep.

Screenshot 2021-02-20 at 10.31.05.png
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Maybe the tenant has a joint venture with the landlord..... framed in a different way to current tenancies?
I was discussing this the other day. It will be very complicated to work through and the solution will differ for each person but it might end up with joint venture agreements between landlords and tenants to jointly enter agreements to sell ES. It would work for AHA tenancies but be hard for FBT's (minimum agreement lengths for some of these are 30 years so a JV just wouldn't work for a 3 or 5 year FBT).

It'll depend really on:
a) How much money is on offer
b) How willing both landlord and tenant are to make it work (y)
c) Trust between all parties :nailbiting:

and, especially

d) What rules are finally adopted for ELMS (ie do they preclude or complicate such additional private agreements) :banghead:
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
Yara & CF will use different techniques to produce green ammonia: Is the carbon footprint smaller? They claim it to be so. Is this just another way of attacking urea?
A paper last year produced evidence that fertiliser manufacture has been emmitting many times more GHG emissions than they had been self-reporting so don't hold your breath on that one....

#Caughtwithyourpantsdown
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
A paper last year produced evidence that fertiliser manufacture has been emmitting many times more GHG emissions than they had been self-reporting so don't hold your breath on that one....

#Caughtwithyourpantsdown

A change to this kind of production process won't be cheap. I would have thought that they had done their sums pretty well before making this kind of investment, wouldn't you? Perhaps it's just one model factory for PR when the rest is produced the traditional way with natural gas?
 

Brisel

Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Midlands
d) What rules are finally adopted for ELMS (ie do they preclude or complicate such additional private agreements) :banghead:

All DEFRA have to do is offer roughly the same as industry for EG, and arguably a bit less if ELM becomes exclusive i.e. you can't get double funding. What is the alternative funding stream going to be, other than the owner's benign largesse to improve the view & their consciences?
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
Livestock Farmer
A change to this kind of production process won't be cheap. I would have thought that they had done their sums pretty well before making this kind of investment, wouldn't you? Perhaps it's just one model factory for PR when the rest is produced the traditional way with natural gas?
Much like all the talk, not least from governments, of "net zero aircraft fuels" based on biofuel. It's more about PR spin to sustain the current buisness model than actually addressing the underlying causes it seems to me. Governments are still promoting aviation growth whilst declaring climate emergencies!

What area of biofuels would be necessary to keep the full aviation industry in the air and what other land use would it push out? It has the potential for huge unforseen consequences like when the USA paid to use maize in ethanol plants and Mexico went hungry because the supply of affordable cornflour for tortillias dried up. :facepalm:
 
Last edited:

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 78 42.9%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.6%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.5%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 5 2.7%

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

  • 1,286
  • 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