- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
30 years minimum is written in to the DEFRA biodiversity offsetting for development rules.
The Woodland Carbon Code expects 100 years minimum.
Nobody has produced, let alone agreed, a code for soil carbon yet.
Entrade, Environmental Offsetting and Trading
- Thread starter sahara
- Start date
The Woodland Carbon Code expects 100 years minimum.
Nobody has produced, let alone agreed, a code for soil carbon yet.
So as a 59 yr old tenant, I’m hardly likely to be allowed to sign up by my landlords.
what were your results
ollie989898
Member
I want to see a no-nonsense think tank actually tell me that a zero carbon UK is actually feasible by 2050 before we cut out our own throats trying to achieve that goal. Doing this is going to harm our economy big time.
Or more robustly described as fannying around while doing sweet FA about the actual problem.
I would doubt you actually think this is possible anyway Ollie. We are going to have to come up with some sort of scientific innovation/invention to actually truly tackle the problem. In the meantime all we can hope for is to slow the INCREASE in emissions to a trickle (which I'm hugely sceptical about anyway).
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Did you see the approximate figures Lord Stern put on the economic impacts of NOT preventing excessive climate change? It made the things we are talking about look cheap.
For example, you can write the whole of Hull off as its below sea level and that's just for starters.
We need a different mindset. A few carbon offsets won't scratch the surface......
I always understood that the Dutch did all the flood control and management things that they did because there is just so much of their country that is vulnerable and could be lost, so that rather concentrates the mind.
In the UK, is not London getting a bit close to the water mark too? I know there is the flood barrier, but that wont help a general rise in sea levels. Given that so much of the wealth of the UK is London centred I'm surprised that there is not more noise made about protecting it. (no doubt at the expense of the rest of the UK!)
In the UK, is not London getting a bit close to the water mark too? I know there is the flood barrier, but that wont help a general rise in sea levels. Given that so much of the wealth of the UK is London centred I'm surprised that there is not more noise made about protecting it. (no doubt at the expense of the rest of the UK!)
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Current predictions are around 1 metre of sea level rise by 2100. The Thames Barrier can cope with almost 2m. It's the defences downstream on both banks that can't so it's places like Rainham, Canvey Island and Thamesmead that are in the firing (or flooding) line. The TE2100 project is aimed at addressing that.
The damages from a temporary flood of central London were assessed at £16Bn in the 1980's thus justifying the Thames Barrier. They haven't been updated since as that figure works to justify anything recommended so far.
Losing central London permanently would cost substantially more than that. It's also generate the biggest internal refugee crisis the UK has ever seen by a long way, just at the time that most of our coastal cities were also lost. As @Brisel says above we'd also lose most of the Fens and gain Cambridge by Sea.
The cost to the UK of 2m of sea level rise simply cannot be grasped.
- Location
- Glen Clova, Angus, DD8 4RD
Agreed. But we persist in planning new development on land below 10M above sea level
Yet humans claim to be the most intelligent species on earth
Jumping in on this topic; we just did the farm carbon toolkit thingy and it surprised me. I know there will be some inaccuracies in the figures but we came out better than I had expected. We only have 100 acres and its all permanent pasture and we operate as cheap as possible because we have to. Results were that we emit 173 tons but sequester 7500 tons.( using figures supplied on their website for grassland) I'm just trying to find out who to sell the extra to and at how much
. One thing that let us down was that we used 30 m3 of logs in heating the house, they were all off the farm so don't understand why they rated so badly. All the timber was trees blown over or from hedge laying.Probably an exercise worth doing just out of interest if nothing else. How have others fared when doing it?
Oops, we made an error in the calculations. We are actually only at break even point.Jumping in on this topic; we just did the farm carbon toolkit thingy and it surprised me. I know there will be some inaccuracies in the figures but we came out better than I had expected. We only have 100 acres and its all permanent pasture and we operate as cheap as possible because we have to. Results were that we emit 173 tons but sequester 7500 tons.( using figures supplied on their website for grassland) I'm just trying to find out who to sell the extra to and at how much
Probably an exercise worth doing just out of interest if nothing else. How have others fared when doing it?
I was going to say 7500tons! Everyone I know is minus 1000 plus
- Location
- Derbyshire
Can you please show your working out, then hopefully we won't make the same mistake.
However, you do still get some credits for showing your calcs
Can you please show your working out, then hopefully we won't make the same mistake.
However, you do still get some credits for showing your calcs
The calculations are done by the site we were using so I can't show them. The mistake we made was in multiplying up the figure that was given for carbon sequestered by grassland. I googled everywhere for figures but found none. My wife eventually found it on the same site (farmcarbontoolkit) but it was given as a figure for a piece of land 100 metres by 2 metres. A mistake was made in converting this to 45 hectares by a nameless worker
.For us it was relatively easy because we are a small and simple farm so my wife could look up inputs etc almost as quick as I could go through the process but I can imagine that for a big farm with multiple enterprises it could take a long time and I suspect that the bigger you are the more inaccurate the final result would be. Of course I take the results with a big pinch of salt and as others have already said unless we can do something to reduce our emissions and especially if the big polluters do nothing to reduce theirs then the exercise is in vain.
However I do believe that all of us making even small efforts can make a big difference. An example is that my wife gets really p----d off at the amount of rubbish dropped in our locality so she started taking a rubbish bag with her when walking and picking everything up. I have to say that a lot of it is farmer waste; feed bags sucked out of the bag of land rovers, silage wrap dumped wherever it was taken off the bale when feeding sheep and more bits of bale wrap blown around because it was never tidied up on in field stacks. Plus the usual McDonalds stuff and cans and bottles. But after year of doing this the amount is decreasing partly I suspect because people have seen her doing it and maybe have changed their habits a bit.
You have to be the change you want to see.
I actually have some small woods me and my dad planted, just because 30 years ago, all on scraps of land, a steep bank about 0.5 of an acre, another little wood about 1acre, a 4 acre field that a tenant had in set aside, now it’s back to us, that is now a self generated woodland, we have some very strong land in a valley bottom the only things they are good for are trees and grass.
We have never had a penny from them in any form. We just did them out of our own sweat and money.
No scheme so far has even allowed us to claim even greening points or ELS points for any of them.
When I look around nearly every hedge and tree in our area is ours, the only exception are ones planted with grant money. Where a few local small farmers planted new hedges.
But as you said planting now and they can make them technically useless to you, which we have personally already seen in the past.
I know the world is utterly obsessed with the carbon issue but I get far angrier about the plastic issue. I watched a Simon Reeve programme last night, there was quite a few bits of it focussing on plastic pollution even though the main gist of it was climate change around the world. Climate will do its thing and always has done no matter what man's influence is but what we're doing to nature with plastic is beyond disgustingThe calculations are done by the site we were using so I can't show them. The mistake we made was in multiplying up the figure that was given for carbon sequestered by grassland. I googled everywhere for figures but found none. My wife eventually found it on the same site (farmcarbontoolkit) but it was given as a figure for a piece of land 100 metres by 2 metres. A mistake was made in converting this to 45 hectares by a nameless worker
For us it was relatively easy because we are a small and simple farm so my wife could look up inputs etc almost as quick as I could go through the process but I can imagine that for a big farm with multiple enterprises it could take a long time and I suspect that the bigger you are the more inaccurate the final result would be. Of course I take the results with a big pinch of salt and as others have already said unless we can do something to reduce our emissions and especially if the big polluters do nothing to reduce theirs then the exercise is in vain.
However I do believe that all of us making even small efforts can make a big difference. An example is that my wife gets really p----d off at the amount of rubbish dropped in our locality so she started taking a rubbish bag with her when walking and picking everything up. I have to say that a lot of it is farmer waste; feed bags sucked out of the bag of land rovers, silage wrap dumped wherever it was taken off the bale when feeding sheep and more bits of bale wrap blown around because it was never tidied up on in field stacks. Plus the usual McDonalds stuff and cans and bottles. But after year of doing this the amount is decreasing partly I suspect because people have seen her doing it and maybe have changed their habits a bit.
You have to be the change you want to see.
- Location
- Exeter, Devon
We did a carbon audit with 1 of these sites a couple of years ago. Found it was easy to look at what we emit, but could only estimate what we would be sequestering without taking base measurements and then follow up annual testing, which of course takes time. We put in a modest increase in carbon as we’re primarily organic permanent pasture and came out with a decent negative figure.
What surprised me recently was that test results on land which has been grass for 15 years came back with only 0.9% carbon. Perhaps we’re not sequestering as much as we think?
What surprised me recently was that test results on land which has been grass for 15 years came back with only 0.9% carbon. Perhaps we’re not sequestering as much as we think?