Is Carbon Sequestration Selling Smoke & Mirrors?

[Bignor Farmer]

I wasn’t going to post this but the concept has been bugging me since Groundswell last week particularly @Clive telling us that he is already being paid by a company to offset some of their carbon.

I’m not against the idea of a new market for agriculture but I don’t believe (perhaps I’m wrong?) that any large scale arable farmer can be carbon negative regardless of cover crops or direct drilling because they will be applying hundreds of tonnes of Nitrogen fertiliser?

I assume that the only way to achieve true carbon sequestration is to grow trees, permanent pasture or long term green manures without cereals in which case I have a fundamental problem with where our food is going to come from, the standard it is grown to and it’s environmental (carbon) footprint relative to us producing it in the UK. Presumably the government will soon force business to offset carbon in which case this will likely be a more lucrative market than growing crops or meat and the British countryside becomes one giant green manure with very little production of food. It certainly won’t need any tenant farmers!

If we can get away with growing a few cover crops between cereals then the government will be happy because we’ve started on the road to ”net carbon zero 2050.” Industry is happy because they’ve improved their eco credentials, they can probably even pass the costs onto their customers who can also sleep well at night knowing that they’re buying a low Carbon product. The farmer is obviously happy because he’s getting money/recognition but the reality is that not a single extra gram of carbon will get locked up If he’s already growing those cover crops. Industry buys a lower carbon footprint but doesn’t actually produce any less carbon, farming gets a worse carbon footprint, global carbon production from food and transport gets worse! Or am I missing something?

 

[An Gof]

So. What you are sayaing is that all this carbon stuff is no better than The Kings new clothes?

 

[teslacoils]

It's total rubbish really, but if there's money on the table ......

 

[jpd]

It's total rubbish really, but if there's money on the table ......

spoken like a a true farmer

 

[davidroberts30]

its all bullshyte until the human race comes to terms with their appetite for oil and breeding

 

[SilliamWhale]

The real gains from carbon/ GHG reduction need to come in the reduction in the use of the product creating the GHG (or using up the prehistoric carbon source) in the first place. But no one really wants to do that yet because the truth is we don't know how to do it without slowing economic growth.

We will get more efficient at moving away from carbon heavy sources to grow the economy eventually though as humans innovate well.

That said if someone is paying I'll be definitely taking the money. And it is still a good thing to keep carbon in the ground by not ploughing than not so we should be paid for that.

Welsh govt is going climate crazy at the moment and wierd thing is I don't think Wales has a lot to worry about re: climate change.

 

[egbert]

I wasn’t going to post this but the concept has been bugging me since Groundswell last week particularly @Clive telling us that he is already being paid by a company to offset some of their carbon.

I’m not against the idea of a new market for agriculture but I don’t believe (perhaps I’m wrong?) that any large scale arable farmer can be carbon negative regardless of cover crops or direct drilling because they will be applying hundreds of tonnes of Nitrogen fertiliser?

I assume that the only way to achieve true carbon sequestration is to grow trees, permanent pasture or long term green manures without cereals in which case I have a fundamental problem with where our food is going to come from, the standard it is grown to and it’s environmental (carbon) footprint relative to us producing it in the UK. Presumably the government will soon force business to offset carbon in which case this will likely be a more lucrative market than growing crops or meat and the British countryside becomes one giant green manure with very little production of food. It certainly won’t need any tenant farmers!

If we can get away with growing a few cover crops between cereals then the government will be happy because we’ve started on the road to ”net carbon zero 2050.” Industry is happy because they’ve improved their eco credentials, they can probably even pass the costs onto their customers who can also sleep well at night knowing that they’re buying a low Carbon product. The farmer is obviously happy because he’s getting money/recognition but the reality is that not a single extra gram of carbon will get locked up If he’s already growing those cover crops. Industry buys a lower carbon footprint but doesn’t actually produce any less carbon, farming gets a worse carbon footprint, global carbon production from food and transport gets worse! Or am I missing something?

It's baloney. total baloney.
The carbon grabbed by trees cannot be held for more than a century or so, and the carbon in carefully managed soil is equally hard to hold onto
(no doubt the usual experts will be along in a minute to say how it is held)

To hold the carbon fossil fuels emit would require topsoil building to many feet thick...imagine how likely it is that it would be 'held' for thousands of years?

The single most important factoid to keep in your head is that the FF carbon was grabbed hundreds of millions of years ago, over a period of many tens of millions of years, in a world that was VERY different to the one we know.
We cannot replicate those conditions, or hold this carbon for any realistic timescale.


But saying we're doing it makes everyone feel better.
Net zero is a lie.

 

[delilah]

Or am I missing something?

A bargepole.

 

[Pan mixer]

An interesting conundrum comes up with this offset trading.

If you have sold carbon credits or whatever - you must be moving away from net zero yourself.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[warksfarmer]

I wasn’t going to post this but the concept has been bugging me since Groundswell last week particularly @Clive telling us that he is already being paid by a company to offset some of their carbon.

I’m not against the idea of a new market for agriculture but I don’t believe (perhaps I’m wrong?) that any large scale arable farmer can be carbon negative regardless of cover crops or direct drilling because they will be applying hundreds of tonnes of Nitrogen fertiliser?

I assume that the only way to achieve true carbon sequestration is to grow trees, permanent pasture or long term green manures without cereals in which case I have a fundamental problem with where our food is going to come from, the standard it is grown to and it’s environmental (carbon) footprint relative to us producing it in the UK. Presumably the government will soon force business to offset carbon in which case this will likely be a more lucrative market than growing crops or meat and the British countryside becomes one giant green manure with very little production of food. It certainly won’t need any tenant farmers!

If we can get away with growing a few cover crops between cereals then the government will be happy because we’ve started on the road to ”net carbon zero 2050.” Industry is happy because they’ve improved their eco credentials, they can probably even pass the costs onto their customers who can also sleep well at night knowing that they’re buying a low Carbon product. The farmer is obviously happy because he’s getting money/recognition but the reality is that not a single extra gram of carbon will get locked up If he’s already growing those cover crops. Industry buys a lower carbon footprint but doesn’t actually produce any less carbon, farming gets a worse carbon footprint, global carbon production from food and transport gets worse! Or am I missing something?

There’s definitely a market. We were approached spring 2020 by an agent representing a European company. I didn’t believe it initially but it did all check out. They’d approached us because their first interest was the renewables we’re doing, secondly a recycling site on site and thirdly their headquarters are localish. The farm side of things was of lesser importance to them initially. Now about 14 months later discussions are ongoing but slow, because it’s an unknown entity to all concerned. I think something will happen though.

 

[david ll]

'Every little helps'

 

[Bignor Farmer]

I guess what I’m saying is that although I like the idea of a new “product” to sell, it feels a bit dishonest! Consumers are very bad at seeing the wider picture.

Reminds me of recycling targets where government proudly quotes the tonnes that pass through the sorting plants but takes no account rejections That end up in landfill, energy consumed in the process or the millions of tonnes of our “recycled” waste that end up on the banks of the Ganges being sifted through by barefoot orphans trying desperately to forge an existence!

 

[SilliamWhale]

An interesting conundrum comes up with this offset trading.

If you have sold carbon credits or whatever - you must be moving away from net zero yourself.

Can't have it both ways.

Yes exactly. If the hypothetical Clive scenario ends up buying a Humvee with his carbon credit money...

 

[D14]

I guess what I’m saying is that although I like the idea of a new “product” to sell, it feels a bit dishonest! Consumers are very bad at seeing the wider picture.

Reminds me of recycling targets where government proudly quotes the tonnes that pass through the sorting plants but takes no account rejections That end up in landfill, energy consumed in the process or the millions of tonnes of our “recycled” waste that end up on the banks of the Ganges being sifted through by barefoot orphans trying desperately to forge an existence!

Local borough council sits on the outer edge of the main county and is a bit satellite if that makes sense. The county has recycling targets and gets paid for these by the gov. They recycle everything thats central and urbanised but the satellite stuff is all sent to landfill because it would push the county over its annual target which they would not get paid for so landfilling is alive and well.

 

[curlietailz]

What happens when the farmer has sold his Carbon Credit. The company who bought them is still churning out carbon into the atmosphere- but feels happy because the farmer is capturing it back for them.
then in 10 years time the Hovt decides to test the soil to make sure all that carbon spewed out by the industry has actually been stored by the farmer..... and it’s not there. For whatever reason the soil hasn’t held the carbon

will the farmer be bankrupted because he hasn’t stored the carbon and has to pay all the carbon credit money back

that’s my worry about it all

 

[egbert]

Some sunny windy summer days, the UK proudly pronounces that our leccy is now all carbon free....deftly omitting mention of the metaphoric oil slick leading back to the US forests being raised and chipped to feed Drax.
Etc etc etc

 

[lloyd]

I see it like an alcoholic told it's alright to carry on drinking as the hospital has found
a liver donor .The polluters should be taking responsibility of reducing their own pollution
not offsetting.

 

[delilah]

Three questions to ask yourself; one practical, one financial, one philosophical.
1) What would such a commitment mean in terms of future farming options ?
2) What would such a commitment mean in terms of land value should you wish to/ be forced to sell ?
3) Would you be happy providing greenwash for the very companies who are screwing you on your primary role of producing food ?

 

[CPF]

On Harry’s farm On you tube This week talking about Carbon offset

 

[roscoe erf]

its all bullshyte until the human race comes to terms with their appetite for oil and breeding

its the breeding that's the problem.......................... I don't mind practicing