Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil

Agriculture and soil. Pollution control, soil remediation, humus and new agricultural techniques.
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by sicetaitsimple » 29/12/19, 20:17

Come on, I'm opening a new subject, we'll see if it lasts, but I think it's a subject in its own right, not specifically and only the fact of storing carbon in the soil, but the fact of receive remuneration.
I'm not an administrator, so some copied / pasted to get started. Everything starts with a post from Adrien, then my answer, etc ...:

Adrien (ex-nico239) wrote:
Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil
http://mailp.ro/1444369?fbclid=IwAR3ypw ... -FmKCVHCko

Simple:

Very good subject, it could be the subject of a thread all by itself! Extremely complex, I think, depending on where you stand.
My first "hot" reaction would be to say that it is certainly better, in terms of efficiency, to focus on reducing emissions rather than managing them.
To illustrate, fix the water leak rather than asking someone to empty the basin regularly ...
PS: same problem as Moindreffor, access to PDF is blocked by a whole series of warnings on "risks" (certainly zero ...) linked to the site. Can you put it in PJ?


Lesserffor:

when I started in sustainable development, there was a recurring question:
"what is the least harmful waste?"
and the simple answer but too little found: "that which one does not produce ..."


Did67:
The "CO2 market" exists in Europe. Some companies, large issuers, have a legal obligation.
Lire: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.f ... carbon
Others "buy" a good conscience by contributing voluntarily. Yann-Arthus Bertrand has insisted a long time ago that his programs "The Earth Seen From the Sky ..." were "compensated". That is to say, he paid someone who planted trees that were supposed to absorb, during their lifetime, the CO2 that had been emitted. If the goats didn't eat them!
More recently, I was surprised to read that Easyjet claims that its flights are CO2 neutral.
https://www.europe1.fr/economie/easyjet ...on-3932362
€ 29 million is not a straw!
So facing this market, why not the farmers ???
For much longer, we have been thinking about how to remunerate farmers for "environmental services". In the vast bazaar of the WTO and agreements banning direct subsidies (a word often skipped which however changes everything - as for organic and "synthetic products"), this allows the EU to argue that it pays its farmers to maintain mountain landscapes, to maintain activity in rural areas, etc ...
And so could now add a new niche: capture CO2. Right in the middle of the COP25 type agreements ...
What appeals to me: certainly, there is storage when the MO levels (including glomalins) increase. But destocking if tomorrow these same farmers return to more traditional forms of agriculture. What commitments have they made? How long? How can a farmer who sells his plot force the buyer to keep C in the ground? Etc etc ... So without a legal curb, it risks quickly becoming a tartufferie. One more. Companies are happy: a good conscience for cheap. The farmers are happy. The initiators surely also ... Look for the error.
The funny thing is that it is nothing more or less than a carbon tax. Instead of being applied to the fuel at the start, it is applied at the outlet, during the emission. But it is true that it is in Austria, and there, they do not have Ségolène Royal! Let's be fair: no red hats!


Simple:
Did67 wrote:
So facing this market, why not the farmers ???


Why not, indeed? I spoke about a "complex" subject and spoke of a first "hot" reaction!
But if I take my image "To illustrate, repair the water leak rather than asking someone to empty the basin regularly ....", in both cases you will not have a flood, but the The advantage of repairing the leak is that you won't have to pay the excess water bill.
In other words, if in an ideal world the revenues from an ideally distributed carbon tax were ideally reused to aim for a stabilization of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, to pay to limit emissions (renewable, insulation, ...) rather than paying to capture the CO2 in the soil would have the additional advantage of limiting the consumption of fossil fuels which we know are not inexhaustible and that they are still very expensive in the case of a 100% importing country like France.
In short, it's not easy!
It would be interesting to see how the Austrians (some Austrians, it seems rather local) manage this, because as you point out, it also poses enormous metrology and control problems, in addition in the long term.


This is the beginning of the story, will there be a sequel? To you!
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by sicetaitsimple » 29/12/19, 22:30

Of course, and to be clear, the two "options", reducing emissions or storing in the ground, are by no means mutually exclusive and can technically work completely independently and in parallel.
But an arbitration of allocation of resources (taxes, duties, ...) dedicated to this objective will completely depend on the situation of the country concerned, even if the CO2 content (in GHG more generally) in the air is a subject. which has no borders.
0 x
ENERC
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 725
Registration: 06/02/17, 15:25
x 255

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by ENERC » 30/12/19, 09:30

For me the lasting solution for arable crops is to have a hedge, then 3 to 4 times the width of a harvester, then a hedge, and we repeat the pattern.
This makes it possible to be sustainably organic because the trees draw minerals including phosphorus deep in the soil.
In the fall, a machine cuts the hedges and sends the BRF to the cultivable strip.
The main drawback is for the growing of winter wheat because of the covering by the broya and the hunger of nitrogen, but one can make a rotation of culture which makes it possible not to cut every year.
On the financing side, there are 3 years for the conversion but this does not finance the cost of planting hedges.
And after 3 years, the hedge is too small to provide enough carbon for the nitrogen cycle.

I am in favor of there being a subsidy for planting hedges and extending the conversion aid for farms which start on this type of cultivation.

I see only advantages: self-fertile farms, less water loss thanks to the windbreak effect of hedges, return of birds, less pests in crops, pollination, and carbon in the soil.
Chemical and agricultural lobby will love : Mrgreen:
The game in the hedges will appeal to hunters. This is a key argument to present because hunters weigh heavily at the electoral level in the countryside. They are highly represented in the Senate.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13645
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by izentrop » 30/12/19, 10:48

The hedges, rather in the north south direction so that the crops are well sunny.
Also reconnect with the scouts.

The subject joins that on "4 per thousand"

Permanent meadows are the best means of storage, but currently much more is destroyed than created.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the ... TXog7swhIY
0 x
Moindreffor
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5830
Registration: 27/05/17, 22:20
Location: boundary between North and Aisne
x 957

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by Moindreffor » 30/12/19, 11:05

to improve agriculture, our farmers should be able to live on the sale of their production and not on subsidies of all kinds
pay to store what we are going to emit to say that we are carbon neutral, that may indeed sound like common sense, but that is always reducing the problem

the carbon storage in the ground is not infinite and so we reduce the problem, we put the dust under the carpet, but as I often say by dint of putting the dust under the carpet, it makes a mound and we finish by getting caught in it and falling

so yes, because it goes in the right direction, but for me it is still a false good idea ...
1 x
"Those with the biggest ears are not the ones who hear the best"
(of me)
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by sicetaitsimple » 30/12/19, 12:34

izentrop wrote:The subject joins that on "4 per thousand"


You're right, he joined.
But the idea (my interest in the subject?) Was to speak specifically of "Remunerate farmers for", not techniques, storage potentials, .etc ...
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13645
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by izentrop » 30/12/19, 16:35

sicetaitsimple wrote: the idea (my interest in the subject?) was to speak specifically of "Remunerate farmers for", not techniques, storage potentials, .etc ...
That's why I put a link on an American company that intends to take advantage of the vein. : Mrgreen:

The initiative of the Austrians dates from 2005, do we know if it is still current?
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9774
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by sicetaitsimple » 30/12/19, 16:57

izentrop wrote:] That's why I put a link on an American company that intends to take advantage of the vein. : Mrgreen:
The initiative of the Austrians dates from 2005, do we know if it is still current?


Yes, thank you, I only saw the link after I answered you, but it is right in the subject.
Regarding the Austrian initiative, no idea. Maybe a German speaker that I am not more likely to find on the Net.
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by Exnihiloest » 30/12/19, 17:28

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the basis for all life on earth, plants feed on it and its increase makes the land green again despite deforestation. Its action on global warming is regularly revised downwards, global warming which is nothing to be alarmed about and in which anyway our action by reducing anthropogenic CO2 would have almost no effect (less than 0.1 to 0.2% over 20 years) . No effect on the climate, but a disaster by its cost, a colossal mismanagement of money which would be much more useful elsewhere.
Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil would therefore be one of these useless measures impoverishing everyone except perhaps farmers, and penalizing the sectors where there is a real need for a redistribution of wealth. Definitely to avoid.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadebois
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6532
Registration: 24/07/19, 17:58
Location: 04
x 982

Re: Paying farmers to put carbon back into the soil




by GuyGadebois » 30/12/19, 17:43

Exnihiloest wrote:Old age is a shipwreck (twice) ...

Image
0 x
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)

Back to "Agriculture: problems and pollution, new techniques and solutions"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Majestic-12 [Bot] and 344 guests