Trees.....

[willie waver]

Thank you. I actually grew up around my uncles farm, and spend a couple of evenings most week on a local dairy farm so It's not all work. I was genuinely surprised by the negativity. Possibly caused by a poor explanation or brevity.
Knowing there are so many schemes and subsidies I genuinely wondered if there was an opportunity for the Industry to help. I'll just stick to helping on the farm and keeping my gob shut....

you dont have to keep your gob shut, life is about learning and you've probably just learnt what a lot of us think of the carbon offsetting shite

 

[betweenthelines]

Does the OP work in the chemical industry supplying gas and drugs to the NHS?

If so, that puts a slightly different slant on things

 

[Bushcraft Paddler]

Does the OP work in the chemical industry supplying gas and drugs to the NHS?

If so, that puts a slightly different slant on things

Complicated, but I work for a company that enables the use of the gases via very small medical device that is very similar to a heat and moisture exchanger. We don't sell or market the drug.

 

[Highland Mule]

If you really want to save the environment, stop saving human lives. That may not be a palatable truth, but it's about as honest as you can be. I'd wager that the organisation with the best carbon balance of all is probably Durex.

 

[primmiemoo]

Complicated, but I work for a company that enables the use of the gases via very small medical device that is very similar to a heat and moisture exchanger. We don't sell or market the drug.

The single use plastics in medical situations are an exemption to the rule that single use plastics are a terrible invention.
By that, the equipment you make is also covered by small exemptions.

Maybe, by further focus on making your equipment as efficiently as possible, as suitable for safe recycling as possible, and to be as accurate in the dosages it delivers as possible, you are already on the way to reducing the environmental impact of your work?

 

[Dry Rot]

I am with Highland Mule on the condom factories. When I as at school we learnt about things called the 'carbon cycle' and the 'nitrogen cycle'. Life grows using nitrogen to create protein and carbon to create carbohydrate which is in turn recycled to eventually create more nitrogen and carbon and so it goes on. That doesn't happen any more?

Then I see large artic lorries carrying loads of wood to a failed former industrial site where it is stacked before being transported on again, to where I don't know, to be converted into wood chip for feeding to power stations to produce electricity which is presumably used to extract more fuel to power the lorries, fell trees, extract the timber, and power the chippers. It doesn't look very environmentally friendly to me, but then as I mentioned previously, I have a very tiny mind for such things.

We also did arithmetic at school (mathematics had not been invented back then) and I was taught that if one person produces x amount of something, two people would produce more, perhaps not quite 2x but not far off it. It is not, as they say, rocket science. Cut down on those who produce the CO2 (that's us!) and we might start getting somewhere.

 

[thesilentone]

I am shocked at some of the comments in the reply's, god forbid free speech and asking for qualified information or help.

Hospitals are one of my intrigues, given they are highly regulated and at the top of the health pyramid (or bottom depending how you want to interpret it)

The emissions from hospitals must have environmental risks, whether it be to the air, or water systems. These need to be scruitinised and be much more transparent about what happens. What type of air filtration system do hospitals have ? Is the local water filtration and cleaning system good enough to negate pathogens, poisons and modern medicines ? Why are people allowed inside to visit patients ? What type of flowers, plants and trees could be planted and grown inside hospitals to improve air quality and the environment ?

I know in some cases, waste food it put through a waste disposal/shredder unit and direct to sewer, because there is so little (someone must have a sense of humour)

We know our water treatment companies are one of the biggest polluters to our water system. What happens to the Covid virus (and other viruses) if we are flushing raw sewage into the water courses ?

So, Bushcraft Paddler, I think your on the right course looking at hospital emissions, however don't be surprised if you hit a few walls on the way. One example - Around Sellafield and Dounereay years ago, the incidents of leukemia and cancers were way above the National Average, however it was not linked to radiation, so it will be interesting what you may find once you've turned a few stones over. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37517770

............and for the naysayers on here, of course land and farming has a part to play.

 

[Humble Village Farmer]

I like your thinking but the problem is that any regulated scheme inevitably involves regulation, often by people who don't understand all the implications.

I don't agree with those on here who say it's all everyone else's fault. We all burn carbon and the UK is one of the most deforested countries in the world. Most of that deforestation was to make way for farming.

So good luck with your scheme. Some farmers like trees.

 

[Netherfield]

One of the drawbacks of course could be the cost, the scheme would have to be run by a Packham clone, cost x£m per year and take 10 years before the first tree ever got planted, and then get abandoned altogether.

 

[thesilentone]

My big negatives with tree's are:

1) Next time your in a spruce forest, stop and listen for a while and see how many birds you can hear ?
2) List the wildlife you see in a spruce forest.
3) What happens to the acidic run-off ?
4) Great fire risk for future global warming.
5) Consumes a monstrous ammount of fuel to harvest/transport.

 

[toquark]

My big negatives with tree's are:

1) Next time your in a spruce forest, stop and listen for a while and see how many birds you can hear ?
2) List the wildlife you see in a spruce forest.
3) What happens to the acidic run-off ?
4) Great fire risk for future global warming.
5) Consumes a monstrous ammount of fuel to harvest/transport.

Excuse me whilst I get on my soap box for a moment...

1) Spruce forests change the wildlife, they don't obliterate it. There are many species that thrive in them at the expense of others such, mainly ground nesting species. Yes they harbour foxes but so does anywhere, its only that in a farmed environment they're usually controlled more intensively. Its fairly well accepted that without Kielder & Eskdalemuir forests on the Scot-English border, the incursion of the grey squirrel into Scotland would be far worse as conifer woods favour reds and provide a barrier to greys moving up from the south.

2) Nightjars, Red Deer, Roe Deer, Pine Martins, Red Squirrels, Numerous song birds, Ospreys, Goshawks, Buzzards, Wild Boar, to name but a very few. I spend a fair proportion of my working day in spruce forests and have done for 20 years. They are certainly not the wildlife deserts people like to claim.

3) Modern forests and most legacy (pre 1990) forests are planted and replanted in a way which vastly reduces acidification. Many river systems were severely damaged in the post war plantings, they didn't know the damage they were doing in the early days and the focus was on production & securing a national resource (very similar to the post-war ag policy). Thankfully the policy is more enlightened today and certainly in this area, the rivers are in a good or improving state.

4) Nonsense. Open hill is a far bigger fire risk than conifer plantation. I've seen several hill fires burn out of control for miles until they reach the forest edge, where they peter out very quickly.

5) What doesn't? Does you tractor run on fresh air? Do you walk your stock to the market? Hydrogen is the future in this regard but forestry is in the same boat as everybody else, in that its waiting for the technology to come.

I farm as well as work in the woods so can see both sides of the coin, but trees, particularly commercial ones, are not the evil some on here like to make out.

Rant over. Sorry for hijacking the thread...

 

[Grass And Grain]

@Bushcraft Paddler You're quite right to come on a forum where land owners/managers hang out and discuss the options.

If you want trees, then go for trees. Several on here have pointed you in the direction of using grass as a carbon sequestration medium. That's good advice, and qorthy of some consideration.

Trees or grass, which is best? Good argument for either.

There are schemes/businesses who will provide the service you are looking for. Or alternatively, probably someone on here willing to manage grassland in a carbon sequestration friendly way to achieve your goals.

Is the company you work for willing to pay for this service?

It's trying to get the required sequestration done in a way which is efficient, good for environment and has longevity.

How about wild flower pollinator meadows? Sequesters carbon AND good for ground nesting birds, bees and butterflies, owls etc etc. Maybe we can help.

Depends on scale etc.

 

[thesilentone]

Excuse me whilst I get on my soap box for a moment...

1) Spruce forests change the wildlife, they don't obliterate it. There are many species that thrive in them at the expense of others such, mainly ground nesting species. Yes they harbour foxes but so does anywhere, its only that in a farmed environment they're usually controlled more intensively. Its fairly well accepted that without Kielder & Eskdalemuir forests on the Scot-English border, the incursion of the grey squirrel into Scotland would be far worse as conifer woods favour reds and provide a barrier to greys moving up from the south.

2) Nightjars, Red Deer, Roe Deer, Pine Martins, Red Squirrels, Numerous song birds, Ospreys, Goshawks, Buzzards, Wild Boar, to name but a very few. I spend a fair proportion of my working day in spruce forests and have done for 20 years. They are certainly not the wildlife deserts people like to claim.

3) Modern forests and most legacy (pre 1990) forests are planted and replanted in a way which vastly reduces acidification. Many river systems were severely damaged in the post war plantings, they didn't know the damage they were doing in the early days and the focus was on production & securing a national resource (very similar to the post-war ag policy). Thankfully the policy is more enlightened today and certainly in this area, the rivers are in a good or improving state.

4) Nonsense. Open hill is a far bigger fire risk than conifer plantation. I've seen several hill fires burn out of control for miles until they reach the forest edge, where they peter out very quickly.

5) What doesn't? Does you tractor run on fresh air? Do you walk your stock to the market? Hydrogen is the future in this regard but forestry is in the same boat as everybody else, in that its waiting for the technology to come.

I farm as well as work in the woods so can see both sides of the coin, but trees, particularly commercial ones, are not the evil some on here like to make out.

Rant over. Sorry for hijacking the thread...

2014.

Forests and forest management practices can affect surface water acidification in a number of ways. The primary mechanism is the ability of tree canopies to capture more sulphur and nitrogen pollutants from the atmosphere than other types of vegetation. Pollutant scavenging is expected to have peaked in the 1970s when emissions were greatest and led to surface waters draining catchments dominated by forestry being more acidic. The introduction of emission control policies in the 1980s has achieved major improvements in air quality and studies show forest sites to be recovering in line with their moorland counterparts. However, forest streams remain more impacted, requiring continued restrictions on new tree planting and restocking. Tree planting can influence acidification by the scavenging of acid deposition, base cation uptake, the scavenging and concentration of sea salts, soil drying and the formation of an acid litter layer at the soil surface. Cultivation, drainage and road building, fertiliser use, felling and harvesting, and restocking also have effects. This Research Note considers each of these factors in turn and assesses the role of tree species, planting scale and design. It covers the identification and protection of vulnerable areas, use of critical load and site impact assessments, research and monitoring, and measures to promote recovery. Continued monitoring will be essential to demonstrate whether current measures remain fit for purpose and guide the development of good practice.

https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/documents/352/FCRN016_46PkzE8.pdf

 

[Grass And Grain]

Not trying to turn you off trees, but one more thing...

Cropping land has much higher value than grassland, so trre planting schemes normally happen on low capital value grassland. Therefore the good carbon sequestering grass gets scrubbed up to be replaced by another reasonably decent carbon sink of trees. But no real carbon benefit from doing so, hence why so many people on here say keep the grass. Maybe better to buy carbon sequestration in the form of carbon friendly grassland management with the bees, butterflies, wild flower meadows that can go with it.

Or, take cropping land, plant legume, flower, grass blend. Legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen, plants grow vigorously, photosynthesis lots, grow big roots, store those roots in the soil, increase carbon in soil, win win win. We/farmers can help you achieve this.

One of our meadows in photo below. We could rip it up and plant it with trees, but ro me that makes no sense.

 

[essexpete]

Not trying to turn you off trees, but one more thing...

Cropping land has much higher value than grassland, so trre planting schemes normally happen on low capital value grassland. Therefore the good carbon sequestering grass gets scrubbed up to be replaced by another reasonably decent carbon sink of trees. But no real carbon benefit from doing so, hence why so many people on here say keep the grass. Maybe better to buy carbon sequestration in the form of carbon friendly grassland management with the bees, butterflies, wild flower meadows that can go with it.

Or, take cropping land, plant legume, flower, grass blend. Legumes fix atmospheric nitrogen, plants grow vigorously, photosynthesis lots, grow big roots, store those roots in the soil, increase carbon in soil, win win win. We/farmers can help you achieve this.

One of our meadows in photo below. We could rip it up and plant it with trees, but ro me that makes no sense.
View attachment 974106

The beauty of the above, environmental benefits apart; if necessary it could be returned to an arable food crop at the drop of a hat. The food security aspect is fulfilled.
I saw the most appalling use of farm land in a West Essex earlier this week. Ground with maize for a AD plant. Apart from the energy used growing and harvesting, I gather last years product was be hauled some distance. Whilst I realise that the very wet recent period was unexpected, the damage to the soil in some areas was breathtaking.

 

[primmiemoo]

There's a planted wood (all native trees and shrubs) with public access I sometimes visit to stretch my legs on a long journey.
I noticed big changes in the little things on my most recent creak around it. It was tightly planted from the outset, and the canopy has now closed. There's obviously less woodland edge, now ~ it's the edges where the trees meet the meadow that have most biodiversity. The meadow is now kept cut short for criss-crossing paths.
It's starting to look like a managed and titivated municipal park within a town, instead of blending with an already typically patchwork farmed rural area that the now late instigator envisioned. It's no longer part of its landscape like the fields bounded by hedges that it has been superimposed upon. They even keep the original hedges close clipped.
Just hope it isn't a sign of things to come.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

There's a planted wood (all native trees and shrubs) with public access I sometimes visit to stretch my legs on a long journey.
I noticed big changes in the little things on my most recent creak around it. It was tightly planted from the outset, and the canopy has now closed. There's obviously less woodland edge, now ~ it's the edges where the trees meet the meadow that have most biodiversity. The meadow is now kept cut short for criss-crossing paths.
It's starting to look like a managed and titivated municipal park within a town, instead of blending with an already typically patchwork farmed rural area that the now late instigator envisioned. It's no longer part of its landscape like the fields bounded by hedges that it has been superimposed upon. They even keep the original hedges close clipped.
Just hope it isn't a sign of things to come.

bet it is

 

[Ffermer Bach]

If you notice on the farming forum, there are comments about how hedge cutting every two or three years is a bad idea, that is just an extension of what has happened in your local woods. Unfortunately, as a country, we want to see the countryside looking like a well kept suburban garden at the same time as chucking all our rubbish out of the car window, talk about cognitive dissonance! I think our national obsession with tidy ness , is one of the reasons we are the most wildlife empty countries in the world, all we have lots of is predators (like badgers, foxes, crows etc), having said the above, I am dead against any reintroductions, lets try to look after what we have.

 

[farmerm]

thanks, genuinely that's why I asked. I have little understanding of these things but do know they exist. Hence rather than re-inventing the wheel I was looking for what is best. I can't persuade a hospital to eat local produce etc but I thought I would ask about this.

I have a genuine love of the country (not in a Packham kind of way) from childhood right up to the present day. In fact being out in the fields has probably saved my mind a few times over the last eighteen months or so !!!

Most of those investing in "carbon offsetting" schemes also have little understanding of what they are actually investing it with most schemes to date being little more than greenwash. Offsetting schemes I have seen to date over promise and under deliver. Any payments need to drive a real and meaningful change, paying someone who already direct drills a payment for direct drilling is simply a mechanism for moving wealth not locking up carbon. Tree planting can not offset the burning of fossil fuels or release of other greenhouse gases at at time when tree planting can not even keep up with the scale of todays global deforestation, let alone recover the carbon emissions from the last 100 years of felling. Trees can never offset emissions from anything other than deforestation until such time as we have created mature forests equivalent in biomass to the worlds forests of the 1900's We do need to plant more trees but it needs to be on a global scale with money from public and/or private sources being used to buy up less productive land to create new and expand on existing national forests. That is not where I want NHS funds spend though. Every penny of NHS funding is needed to provide the facilities, equipment, medicines and incredible staff like yourself doing what you do so well. Keep up the amazing work and I wish you all the best, I fear you will have a very difficult few months ahead as we struggle though this next wave.