Who dreamed up Carbon offset.

[holwellcourtfarm]

This gives a balanced overview

To truly work in the way we need, Carbon offsets need to be expensive enough to discourage all but the most essential fossil carbon use.

That's a very inconvenient idea for politicians and businesses.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

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.

My lifetime flying emissions stand at just under 30t CO²e.

Almost half that was from the 115 hours of helicopter flying I did. That's why I can no longer justify it to myself.

We HAVE to change our behaviour.

 

[matthew]

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

Do those 'middle men' have to have offices in Pall Mall though? A pop up advert on the side of this platform shows that they did. (sorry I didn't screen shot it)

The land we farm and the forestry aurrounding it is the ONLY source of carbon sequestration on this planet (apart from the sea bed).

Offsetting it against big polluters' grubby habits is achieving nothing. Smoke and berluddy mirrors with some suspect calculations and algorithms supporting the well heeled fleas on this latest dog's back.

 

[Clive]

Do those 'middle men' have to have offices in Pall Mall though? A pop up advert on the side of this platform shows that they did. (sorry I didn't screen shot it)

The land we farm and the forestry aurrounding it is the ONLY source of carbon sequestration on this planet (apart from the sea bed).

Offsetting it against big polluters' grubby habits is achieving nothing. Smoke and berluddy mirrors with some suspect calculations and algorithms supporting the well heeled fleas on this latest dog's back.

avoid the ones with fancy offices not run by farmers maybe ?

there is plenty choice building now

 

[Clive]

My lifetime flying emissions stand at just under 30t CO²e.

Almost half that was from the 115 hours of helicopter flying I did. That's why I can no longer justify it to myself.

We HAVE to change our behaviour.

despite 800hrs heli and loads of international travel / gt race cars etc in the past i bet my lifetime C footprint in negative as a farmer who had also planted 20’s of thousands if trees ?

my behaviour has still changed though snd its a bog reason why i no longer race or fly much etc i guess

i would like to say my choice of EV car was for environmental reasons but being honest it was economic - and that makes the point that nothing really drives behaviour more than ££££££ ?

 

[matthew]

avoid the ones with fancy offices not run by farmers maybe ?

there is plenty choice building now

I question how we can think of trading such a tenuous 'product' at all.

And the choices which are building are all fleas on this particular dog's back. (imo)

Green washing (off setting) someone else's dirty laundry solves nothing at all, unless they change their habits.

i would like to say my choice of EV car was for environmental reasons but being honest it was economic - and that makes the point that nothing really drives behaviour more than ££££££ ?

And that is the only driver of sustainable change. imo

 

[digger64]

This gives a balanced overview

That doesnt make any sense at all , flooding the marshland in germany just creates a natural form of an AD plant releasing un used methane into the atmosphere whilst displacing the existing production from there to other places- probably clearing/burning existing rain forest as a consequence .

 

[sjt01]

That doesnt make any sense at all , flooding the marshland in germany just creates a natural form of an AD plant releasing un used methane into the atmosphere whilst displacing the existing production from there to other places- probably clearing/burning existing rain forest as a consequence .

Wet peat bog is a major carbon store, drying out peat bog oxidises and gives off CO2

 

[Cowabunga]

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 !

Except it DOESN’T of course. There’s nothing positive about growing a whole lot more trees in the Welsh landscape already dominated by trees but which will devastate local economies and rural communities.

 

[Mark Hatton]

My lifetime flying emissions stand at just under 30t CO²e.

Almost half that was from the 115 hours of helicopter flying I did. That's why I can no longer justify it to myself.

We HAVE to change our behaviour.

Behavioural change will be the single biggest blocker to environmental improvements, the vast majority of the population aren't interested, if it impacts their way of living it won't be supported. As an example, You only have to look at the rubbish along roadsides, if the vast majority can't even be bothered to deal with their own rubbish, what hope is there of the bigger issues being taken seriously?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

Except it DOESN’T of course. There’s nothing positive about growing a whole lot more trees in the Welsh landscape already dominated by trees but which will devastate local economies and rural communities.

when I stand in my yard and look out, there are plenty of trees, we have enough already

 

[digger64]

Wet peat bog is a major carbon store, drying out peat bog oxidises and gives off CO2

But the work has already been done , whatever plants grow there will photosynthesise (and sequest carbon) ,the 360's are digging there to destroy historical work done with human effort and enviromental cost whilst in another place they are clearing / releasing carbon/creating food miles,displacing the local populations in both locations as a consequence-its madness just so wealthy people can carry on as before with some kind of guilt free halo

 

[wanton dwarf]

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

"Environment".

What we have got is a bunch of already rich people creating new taxes to ensure they get even more money whilst doing nothing.

In other words a "Carbon Trading" exchange based in the City of London.

Meanwhile the "Plebs" will pay whilst the rich will fly about in their subsidised pleasure craft laughing at the plebs.

But don't worry .. there'll be "some variation" in 0.04% of the atmosphere

 

[Cowabunga]

"Environment".

What we have got is a bunch of already rich people creating new taxes to ensure they get even more money whilst doing nothing.

In other words a "Carbon Trading" exchange based in the City of London.

Meanwhile the "Plebs" will pay whilst the rich will fly about in their subsidised pleasure craft laughing at the plebs.

But don't worry .. there'll be "some variation" in 0.04% of the atmosphere

It’s like Lionardo DeCaprio bleating about the environment and carbon emissions and supposedly rising sea levels whist flying around in his private jet if not swanning around on his massive multi-million yacht moored just off his low lying private estate. He can’t actually believe in the doomsday scenarios or he wouldn’t have bought the island estate because according to alarmist climate predictions, even when he bought the place, it should be submerged under the sea by now.

 

[DaveGrohl]

Behavioural change will be the single biggest blocker to environmental improvements, the vast majority of the population aren't interested, if it impacts their way of living it won't be supported. As an example, You only have to look at the rubbish along roadsides, if the vast majority can't even be bothered to deal with their own rubbish, what hope is there of the bigger issues being taken seriously?

So what you’re saying is we shouldn’t leave it to individuals then? Well quite.

 

[SilliamWhale]

My lifetime flying emissions stand at just under 30t CO²e.

Almost half that was from the 115 hours of helicopter flying I did. That's why I can no longer justify it to myself.

We HAVE to change our behaviour.

Hold on. You had to change your behaviour not necessarily everyone else.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Hold on. You had to change your behaviour not necessarily everyone else.

Your point?

Is there nothing you do that causes carbon emissions that you could change?