Microsoft - Grazing carbon sequestration is better than we thought

[Jerry]

Good article here.

Sustainable Food Trust

New research challenges scientific orthodoxy on the role of grazing livestock in relation to emission reduction targets

sustainablefoodtrust.org

All stems from them buying carbon credits to help off set their carbon footprint.

Microsoft buys carbon credits from NSW cattle operation

Wilmot Cattle Company makes first global carbon credit sale, thanks to soil sequestering.

www.theland.com.au

 

[neilo]

An interesting piece on what we all know to be true already.

However, the same author also has a piece on ‘glyphosate based herbicides’ on the same platform, which is extremely poor. It is full of words such as ‘assume’ and ‘likely’, basing his anti-glyphosate rhetoric on the results of one trial that showed that long term exposure of rats to Roundup (in a lab, over 2 years) has altered their gut biome. The people behind the trial say it suggests that the adjuvants in Roundup are more toxic than the glyphosate. IF that’s true then maybe the adjuvants warrant further investigation but no, Mr Holden writes a piece promoting the banning of glyphosate, again.
My opinion of Patrick Holden hasn’t changed.

 

[hendrebc]

Not sure how I feel about this carbon offsetting. Great opportunity for farmers maybe... Maybe not.
But what really annoys me is they, Microsoft or whoever, don't really change anything about what they are doing just throwing money at the problem and then making themselves look good. It would be much better if they didn't emit all this carbon in the first place. But no they can buy their way out of trouble so it all gets swept under the rug and forgotten about

 

[neilo]

Not sure how I feel about this carbon offsetting. Great opportunity for farmers maybe... Maybe not.
But what really annoys me is they, Microsoft or whoever, don't really change anything about what they are doing just throwing money at the problem and then making themselves look good. It would be much better if they didn't emit all this carbon in the first place. But no they can buy their way out of trouble so it all gets swept under the rug and forgotten about

The trading of Carbon Credits will just fund another group of parasites on industry, whilst changing very little in terms of global CO2 production.
Governments can encourage such practices through policy change and support, without brokers in shiny suits taking a slice.

 

[tepapa]

Not sure how I feel about this carbon offsetting. Great opportunity for farmers maybe... Maybe not.
But what really annoys me is they, Microsoft or whoever, don't really change anything about what they are doing just throwing money at the problem and then making themselves look good. It would be much better if they didn't emit all this carbon in the first place. But no they can buy their way out of trouble so it all gets swept under the rug and forgotten about

I agree, good for farming if we get paid but in reality nothings actually changed except money changing hands. So the carbon is still produced as it was but now companies can claim they're carbon neutral but in reality it's agriculture that's a carbon sink as it's always been.

 

[steveR]

Not sure how I feel about this carbon offsetting. Great opportunity for farmers maybe... Maybe not.
But what really annoys me is they, Microsoft or whoever, don't really change anything about what they are doing just throwing money at the problem and then making themselves look good. It would be much better if they didn't emit all this carbon in the first place. But no they can buy their way out of trouble so it all gets swept under the rug and forgotten about

Carbon offsetting, the modern equivilant to the medieval method of bunging your local church a few quid to offset your sins.

As the global warming belief has many aspects of a religion for some of the more extreme devotees, maybe it is an appropriate practice...?

Plus ca change.

 

[steveR]

Carbon offsetting, the modern equivilant to the medieval method of bunging your local church a few quid to offset your sins.

As the global warming belief has many aspects of a religion for some of the more extreme devotees, maybe it is an appropriate practice...?

Plus ca change.

And yes, my PP will almost certainly guarantee my place in some form of Farmer's Heaven!

Definition still to be decided, but it might well involve sunshine a nice single cylinder bike and fine, empty mountain roads, with a nice auberge/pub waiting at the end of the day. Oh yes, and the combining has been done!!

 

[hendrebc]

It's a trap. It it could be. I saw an example of a contract that someone had signed up for in America. It was for 35 years and they had to guarantee to store this carbon for that long. It we a one off payment of I think £100 an acre roughly and I don't think there was anything after that. Or it might have been £10 a year something like that not a lot anyway. And annual testing to make sure it's still there.
Sounds good doesn't it money for nothing. Problem is carbon isn't constant it's always changing with weather and what's growing in the soil at the time and the time of year. If you have a high level one year and the next year it's lower through no fault of your own you would have to buy more credits to make up the difference! 35 years of a hell of a long time to be tied into something like that! They effectively own the soil and you have to look after it for them.
The shortest scheme I've seen was 5 years but you could still end up in trouble there too. If I was going to do it it would have to be for a short amount of time. Say 12 months and it would have to be them renting it from me and no comebacks if the level has gone down.
If your going to do something like this then be very very careful what you sign up for.

 

[jack6480]

I’m confused by it all, I’ve seen many farmers doing the carbon tool kit for there own farms and they aren’t sequestering enough carbon to cover there own activity. So how can they sell carbon credits?

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Not sure how I feel about this carbon offsetting. Great opportunity for farmers maybe... Maybe not.
But what really annoys me is they, Microsoft or whoever, don't really change anything about what they are doing just throwing money at the problem and then making themselves look good. It would be much better if they didn't emit all this carbon in the first place. But no they can buy their way out of trouble so it all gets swept under the rug and forgotten about

Obviously, all farmers are doing exactly what Stu Austin is doing only better

 

[hendrebc]

Obviously, all farmers are doing exactly what Stu Austin is doing only better

@jack6480 has nailed it there.
One thing we have to remember is farmers like him hold all the aces here. It's the likes of Microsoft that are the problem and we have a so called solution. But just watch some of them go and ruin it all by jumping at he chance of a few crumbs. If they were serious about this carbon job then we should be able to charge what we like. And make it so highly priced that they won't want to emit the carbon in the first place! Otherwise it's just a vanity project.

 

[egbert]

It's a trap. It it could be. I saw an example of a contract that someone had signed up for in America. It was for 35 years and they had to guarantee to store this carbon for that long. It we a one off payment of I think £100 an acre roughly and I don't think there was anything after that. Or it might have been £10 a year something like that not a lot anyway. And annual testing to make sure it's still there.
Sounds good doesn't it money for nothing. Problem is carbon isn't constant it's always changing with weather and what's growing in the soil at the time and the time of year. If you have a high level one year and the next year it's lower through no fault of your own you would have to buy more credits to make up the difference! 35 years of a hell of a long time to be tied into something like that! They effectively own the soil and you have to look after it for them.
The shortest scheme I've seen was 5 years but you could still end up in trouble there too. If I was going to do it it would have to be for a short amount of time. Say 12 months and it would have to be them renting it from me and no comebacks if the level has gone down.
If your going to do something like this then be very very careful what you sign up for.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Read and absorb.

It's smoke and mirrors, which won't fix the problem - which a lot of folk think is a myth anyway (@steveR )
We take the money for grabbing carbon for XX years, and are then held to account when it transpires it's flown away in XX years +1

PP isn't going to hold but a merest whiff of the CO2 we're (all) releasing.
Atmospheric levels continue to rise, global temps continue to rise - just as those whacky hippy scientists said 40 years ago- and we continue to burn fossil fuels.

I'll grab the money if I can, but know it's not the answer.

 

[tepapa]

It's a trap. It it could be. I saw an example of a contract that someone had signed up for in America. It was for 35 years and they had to guarantee to store this carbon for that long. It we a one off payment of I think £100 an acre roughly and I don't think there was anything after that. Or it might have been £10 a year something like that not a lot anyway. And annual testing to make sure it's still there.
Sounds good doesn't it money for nothing. Problem is carbon isn't constant it's always changing with weather and what's growing in the soil at the time and the time of year. If you have a high level one year and the next year it's lower through no fault of your own you would have to buy more credits to make up the difference! 35 years of a hell of a long time to be tied into something like that! They effectively own the soil and you have to look after it for them.
The shortest scheme I've seen was 5 years but you could still end up in trouble there too. If I was going to do it it would have to be for a short amount of time. Say 12 months and it would have to be them renting it from me and no comebacks if the level has gone down.
If your going to do something like this then be very very careful what you sign up for.

But surely the carbon credits will be trade able, so in a few years after the £100 initial investment, the investment firm can sub let them for the current market value let's say £250/acre. Farmer won't get anymore money out of the job.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Carbon offsetting, the modern equivilant to the medieval method of bunging your local church a few quid to offset your sins.

As the global warming belief has many aspects of a religion for some of the more extreme devotees, maybe it is an appropriate practice...?

Plus ca change.

That's a nice analogy: 21st century indulgences.

I'm leaning towards believing the whole process of carbon offsets is strongly akin to the Collateralised Debt Obligations in the mortgage industry - an incredibly clever theoretical mechanism to cut risk which ends up collapsing and proves to have massively encouraged the very damage it was claimed to negate.

The trouble is collapsing the financial system is a walk in the park compared to collapsing the climate.

 

[hendrebc]

But surely the carbon credits will be trade able, so in a few years after the £100 initial investment, the investment firm can sub let them for the current market value let's say £250/acre. Farmer won't get anymore money out of the job.

Yes that's exactly what will happen it will be traded like the stock market but carbon credits. That's why I say it's a trap. Farmers won't benefit from it as it stands and I won't sign up to anything other than a short term lease type agreement.

 

[onesiedale]

Am I the only cynical one here that sees this as a massive PR stunt for Microsoft? $500,000 dollars is a small price to pay for the global discussion this is creating around their brand. Especially as, by default, their carbon footprint should be pretty insignificant.
Like @hendrebc has said. If they are truly serious then the carbon value should be almost unaffordable and they'd simply stop burning fossil fuels and mining resources.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Am I the only cynical one here that sees this as a massive PR stunt for Microsoft? $500,000 dollars is a small price to pay for the global discussion this is creating around their brand. Especially as, by default, their carbon footprint should be pretty insignificant.
Like @hendrebc has said. If they are truly serious then the carbon value should be almost unaffordable and they'd simply stop burning fossil fuels and mining resources.

Exactly that, it makes me want to rush out and show my support for this wonderfully caring corporation by buying a new computer to replace the one they design to become obsolete as soon as possible, with another one they design to become obsolete as soon as possible

it's almost like the whole recreational fossil-burning sector, from motorsports to unessential travel and consumerism, is out of bounds to making the world a better place - nobody seems overly prepared to make the slightest sacrifice, so this eases any pangs of guilt.

All aboard the green airplane to Miami

 

[hendrebc]

I read a comment on here or somewhere else that Boris Johnson has scrapped plans for a carbon tax because it would mean that food prices (and presumably everything else) would rise.
I don't know if that's true as it's just some random comment I read but it wouldn't surprise me. Everyone knows what the problem is but no one wants to pay for it.
Edit to add. No one wants to pay for it or change their behaviour.

 

[Tarw Coch]

I read a comment on here or somewhere else that Boris Johnson has scrapped plans for a carbon tax because it would mean that food prices (and presumably everything else) would rise.
I don't know if that's true as it's just some random comment I read but it wouldn't surprise me. Everyone knows what the problem is but no one wants to pay for it.
Edit to add. No one wants to pay for it or change their behaviour.

I’m not sure everyone does know what the problem is, I’m sure many are convinced it’s the farting cows. They haven’t even considered the possibility they are part of the problem, someone/thing else must be to blame

 

[wanton dwarf]

An interesting piece on what we all know to be true already.

However, the same author also has a piece on ‘glyphosate based herbicides’ on the same platform, which is extremely poor. It is full of words such as ‘assume’ and ‘likely’, basing his anti-glyphosate rhetoric on the results of one trial that showed that long term exposure of rats to Roundup (in a lab, over 2 years) has altered their gut biome. The people behind the trial say it suggests that the adjuvants in Roundup are more toxic than the glyphosate. IF that’s true then maybe the adjuvants warrant further investigation but no, Mr Holden writes a piece promoting the banning of glyphosate, again.
My opinion of Patrick Holden hasn’t changed.

The Glysophate rhetoric is because we have a very large group of people paid by the media and government telling agriculture what they are doing wrong all the time.

Notice they never say what is right though .. or it's implied that agriculture should somehow disappear.

Had two EA girls walking the farm staring at a ditch .. went over to talk to them. It was like listening to a child. Talk of "Slowing down" the water. Pointed out that the drains would block. They then talked about the neighbours failed crop where he had ploughed and the silt in the drains - to be fair he was unlucky. But no recognition that if our drains get blocked the next step is a burst drain mid field and a muddy river entering the ditch.

And not far away is 300 acres being turned into a commercial park .. now that's some mud and will generate a HUGE amount of water locally. But of course that's never mentioned.

We need to take back control, I fear these EA people are little more than paid trouble makers.

Talk of local people gathering up toads .. they lose sight of water sources. Toads friggin don't like lots of water other than to breed. They prefer somewhere damp but not wet with a good local food source .. the slugs in my field with luck.