Who dreamed up Carbon offset.

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
I guess a progressive society never aspires to go backward - we don't want to go back to walking now we have cars, we don't want to stop travelling internationally now we have planes , stop using the internet or heating our homes etc so any policy or thinking that promotes such approach will always fail

the solution ultimately probably is technology to pull the pollution from the air and clean it up again - we can invent technology to do thousand / or we can use plants to do it ......... but have to balance that with feeding people


people will noit stop flying / consuming the trapping of modern life and why should they - quality of life is better than ever for most, there is less poverty in the world that at any point in history, proposing a return to the dark ages is not a solution, society should never go backwards

no bigger myth than "the good old days"......... truth is the past WAS worse
Plants haven’t a hope in Hell of doing it. Hundreds of millions of years of buried carbon released in about 150 years, Technology will undoubtedly be the answer but we’re a long way off that right now.
 

robs1

Member
It's a con unless the companies doing it actually use something that takes in more carbon that was before ie planting trees but that needs to take account of the transport of the food produced on that land that is now done further away.
 

ski

Member
I guess a progressive society never aspires to go backward - we don't want to go back to walking now we have cars, we don't want to stop travelling internationally now we have planes , stop using the internet or heating our homes etc so any policy or thinking that promotes such approach will always fail

the solution ultimately probably is technology to pull the pollution from the air and clean it up again - we can invent technology to do thousand / or we can use plants to do it ......... but have to balance that with feeding people


people will noit stop flying / consuming the trapping of modern life and why should they - quality of life is better than ever for most, there is less poverty in the world that at any point in history, proposing a return to the dark ages is not a solution, society should never go backwards

no bigger myth than "the good old days"......... truth is the past WAS worse
Clive, what does a "progressive society' mean, progressing towards what?
It implies, and as your comment on going backward also implies a materialist's wet dream. The idea that progress toward more physical goods and services will inevitably lead to some nirvana or new utopia, is wrong as history demonstrates, the life well lived is not found in the balance sheet of assets accumulated and I am sure many have been to a funeral where the eulogy where you suddenly understand this. We need to go back and reacquaint ourselves what the conditions are that are required for people to flourish in. I think our and by implication your foundational philosophy is shaky, and this is what we have to look first in order to work out how we want policies to look. I am not optimistic though as we live so much in the moment there is no space for longer term thinking. This is your forum, for what its worth that is where I see its value. A mechanism for disseminating accumulated wisdom.

How was the past worse, you are not there, you can only make that judgment on todays fashions and fads, it is incredibly difficult to stand back and perhaps a tad arrogant to make such a sweeping generalisation.
 

Barleycorn

Member
BASE UK Member
Location
Hampshire
There is no overwhelming body of scientific data that supports anthropogenic global warming only a overwhelming body of misused statistics to bolster propaganda that has created a cult like following where belief is an act of faith. There are many world leading physicists and other academics who repeatedly say the science is simply not there. This does not mean that they support the squandering of resources or the status quo. They just want to stick to the facts that they have at their disposal. The carbon offsetting is one of the most egregious examples of nonsense, its a licence to carry on doing what you are already doing. If you think that less flying will make a big difference then stop flying, the thought process that 'flying is bad, but I like flying to places, so ill support planting trees to offset my carbon' is so illogical that only people who think they are intelligent could support it. Do not fly and plant a few trees. And while we all hurrah this nonsense we will ignore the fact that a globalised supply chain leads to significant wastefulness and requires all sorts of accreditation schemes as local relationships that foster trust based on visibility as you know your customer and they know you are seen as outdated. Your local butcher buying from your local farmer does not need red tractor as he knows who he wants to buy from. The same would be true of local millers and farmers. This however is not seen as 'efficient' in the modern world, efficiency is parts made on four continents assembled in a fifth. This is the the lowest unit cost of production efficiency not resilience efficiency and recent history would suggest a balance perhaps between the two? Carbon offsetting will probably work out as well as subsidising renewable energy schemes, and look, hey presto, you get Drax being paid to bring wood chip in from virgin forests in the USA paid for by the taxpayer.

What could possibly go wrong.
Best TFF post 2022 IMO!
 
Nothing for fifty years I expect, technology might well have found a solution to global warming by then or it might have been found not to have been man made at all
I am pretty sure permanent pasture sequesters more carbon in the soil, than planting trees does (as the cultivation of the ground prior to planting releases Carbon, as does the changing soil microbiome in the change of land use), unless the trees are planted on arable land I believe, but all this tree planting is on permanent pasture in the hills, rather than the depleted soils in arable areas. But, if we plant all the arable areas with trees, what will be eat (especially if we don't eat meat!)?
 

digger64

Member
I agree it is VERY subjective and there is a lot of bullshite and dodgy accounting going on as well (Root zero potatoes I highlighted on Twitter this week !)

BUT (as an example ) lets take regen arable systems as an example and via lots of well agreed research and models prove we accept it can sequester carbon (same could be said re grassland and other C sequestering areas of ag)

now let's say a farmer is not regen and can't afford to change to regen either because of capital cost or a loss of output or maybe both. lets also suggest the farmer has unproductive areas he could plant trees on or could let hedges grow bigger etc ...... but doing any of those thing will cost the farmer so why should he / he cant afford to do so personally ?


NOW let's say British Airways are prepared to buy offset and that money goes to the farmer who can now afford to run a regen system, plant some trees, let his hedges grow wider etc and sequester Carbon


surely this is a positive outcome for environment ?


IMPORTANT - The above doesn't remove the need or obligation for BA to also reduce their C footprint within their business as much as possible but like most none ag business they can never reduce it to zero or become negative can they ! - the best they can do is use their profits to help others make negative viable
Not really, because BA are carrying on as before , the farmers lost production is being grown on freshly cleared rain forest to replace it and shipped across the globe , the air tickets will cost more and some the people employed in the local community food/crop processing etc will have been laid off so probably wont be able to afford to go on holiday coupled the increase in the cost of their weekly food shop and the farmer's neighbours rent will go up due competition for remaining land - it will be inflationary for all .
 

holwellcourtfarm

Member
NFFN Member
I guess a progressive society never aspires to go backward - we don't want to go back to walking now we have cars, we don't want to stop travelling internationally now we have planes , stop using the internet or heating our homes etc so any policy or thinking that promotes such approach will always fail

the solution ultimately probably is technology to pull the pollution from the air and clean it up again - we can invent technology to do thousand / or we can use plants to do it ......... but have to balance that with feeding people


people will noit stop flying / consuming the trapping of modern life and why should they - quality of life is better than ever for most, there is less poverty in the world that at any point in history, proposing a return to the dark ages is not a solution, society should never go backwards

no bigger myth than "the good old days"......... truth is the past WAS worse
Firstly, we don't need to save the planet.

THE PLANET WILL BE FINE WHATEVER WE DO.

This is about saving OURSELVES. Continuing to do the things that have got us here is collective suicide IMHO.

We are already causing rapid species extinction, widespread environmental contamination and increasing natural disasters. I've just read today's BBC piece about otters all contaminated with PFOS (chemicals widely used as non-stick coatings or as waterproofing, which effectively never break down in the environment and accumulate to toxic levels - Watch Mark Ruffalo's film "Dark waters").

Toxic 'forever chemicals' found in British otters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60127701


Many of our modern technological achievements are incredible. We now have to learn to be judicious instead of profligate in their use. Air travel is one clear example. There are SO MANY more.

There IS a technological fix to pull carbon from the atmosphere and store it permanently back underground, BECCS. It is so costly that it will be a very, very long time, if ever, before it becomes economic to operate to "offset" corporate or personal emissions. The only viable client for it is the taxpayer and even then it can't be afforded at the scale necessary. We HAVE to MASSIVELY reduce our actions which emit fossil carbon, as the IPCC have been pointing out for some time.


You and I will probably escape most of the impacts if this doesn't happen as, due to our ages and our luck of being UK residents, we won't live to see the worst impacts.

As for "the old days", some aspects of society actually WERE better (although life certainly could be brutal by our standards).

People looked out for their family, friends and neighbours much more.

People were much less wasteful.

On average, people were more resourceful and self-reliant.

There was MUCH less waste.
 
Last edited:

ski

Member
Firstly, we don't need to save the planet.

THE PLANET WILL BE FINE WHATEVER WE DO.

This is about saving OURSELVES. Continuing to do the things that have got us here is collective suicide IMHO.

We are already causing rapid species extinction, widespread environmental contamination and increasing natural disasters. I've just read today's BBC piece about otters all contaminated with PFOS (chemicals widely used as non-stick coatings or waterproofing which effectively never break down in the environment and accumulate to toxic levels - Watch Mark Ruffalo's film "Dark waters").

Toxic 'forever chemicals' found in British otters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60127701


Many of our modern technological achievements are incredible. We now have to learn to be judicious instead of profligate in their use. Air travel is one clear example. There are SO MANY more.

There IS a technological fix to pull carbon from the atmosphere and store it permanently back underground, BECCS. It is so costly that it will be a very very long time, if ever, before it begins economic to operate to "offset" corporate or personal emissions. The only viable client for it is the taxpayer and even then it can't be afforded at the scale necessary. We HAVE to MASSIVELY reduce our aims which emit fossil carbon, as the IPCC have been pointing out for some time.


You and I will probably escape most of the impacts if this doesn't happen as, due to our ages and our luck of being UK residents, we won't live to see the worst impacts.

As for "the old days", some aspects of society actually WERE better (although life certainly could be brutal by our standards).

People looked out for their family, friends and neighbours much more.

People were much less wasteful.

On average, people were more resourceful and self-reliant.

There was MUCH less waste.
I would add that we should go after the low hanging fruit as it are first, pollution (not C02), waste and recycling (I can't believe we allow landfill) etc, etc.
 

Clive

Staff Member
NFFN Member
Location
Lichfield
Middlemen Clive, middlemen.

They aren’t encouraging positive change, they’re marketing bullshiit and profiting from it. The public are being told on a daily basis that companies are net zero or close to it. Maybe we should be taxing the shiit out of everything fossil fuel related and using that tax to provide an actual answer that might help a bit right now, like using the tax for nuclear? It won’t solve everything but it would help rather than fool people into thinking something is being done?


I agree - but sometimes some middle men are necessary, I can't see farmers doing this and benefiting directly at any kind of scale really left to themselves to make it happen ?

If we don't take control of this product / market then our buyers will just take this from us and once again the farmer will loose out, I have sat in meeting recently and listened to supermarkets suggest this ......... they are busy plotting how to make OUR natural capital THEIR natural capital righty now
 

Clive

Staff Member
NFFN Member
Location
Lichfield

DaveGrohl

Member
Location
Cumbria
I agree - but sometimes some middle men are necessary, I can't see farmers doing this and benefiting directly at any kind of scale really left to themselves to make it happen ?

If we don't take control of this product / market then our buyers will just take this from us and once again the farmer will loose out, I have sat in meeting recently and listened to supermarkets suggest this ......... they are busy plotting how to make OUR natural capital THEIR natural capital righty now
I think you’ve missed the bit about TAXING the polluters. What you’re suggesting is just letting them and the middlemen organise their own "tax" that they can then fool the public with.
 
I don't see how creating financial incentive to encourage positive environmental change can be bad ........ as long as it DOES encourage positive change


some of the worlds biggest pollution companies are also some of the worlds most profitable - some of that profit should be used to try put right the damage they do

It really just another tax on pollution and I doubt anyone would disagree that taxing pollution is bad ? - only difference is right now this "tax" is voluntary but I suspect that WILL change !

Depends where you spend the money afterwards! What about if its on a family holiday to Barbados on private jet?
 
This gives a balanced overview
shows that what we need to do is emit less, not "green wash" by displacing indigenous populations in the uplands and hills by tree planting. In the start of the video she mentioned visiting family in Japan, I remember my grandfather telling me mother had family who emigrated to California, when they went that was it, never see family again. Why should we expect to fly to Japan?
 
shows that what we need to do is emit less, not "green wash" by displacing indigenous populations in the uplands and hills by tree planting. In the start of the video she mentioned visiting family in Japan, I remember my grandfather telling me mother had family who emigrated to California, when they went that was it, never see family again. Why should we expect to fly to Japan?
I will add, I have done a bit of long haul flying in the past, however, no one had ever hear of Carbon Footprint then.
 

Make Tax Digital Software Poll

  • Quickbooks

    Votes: 26 17.8%
  • Sage

    Votes: 13 8.9%
  • Xero

    Votes: 64 43.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 43 29.5%

Five nature-recovery projects spanning 100,000ha launched

  • 45
  • 0
Written by Michelle Martin from Agriland

Image-source-Savills-field-640x360.jpg
Five nature-recovery projects spanning nearly 100,000ha across the West Midlands, Cambridgeshire, the Peak District, Norfolk and Somerset have been announced by the government and Natural England today (Thursday, May 26).

This is the equivalent in size to all 219 current National Reserves.

The aim of the projects is to deliver nature recovery at a landscape scale, helping to tackle biodiversity loss, climate change and improve public health and well-being.

All five projects will make a significant contribution towards the national delivery of the international commitment to protect at least 30% of land and...
Top