Just Stop P*ssing Everyone Off

[mudsticks]

''Focus group'' that's the new buzzword for we interviewed 10/100/rarely more people we who are strictly screened beforehand to align with our preferred outcome and now we pretend it's and independent quality research performed by journalist.
Nothing further from reality

and again the ''reach zero lie'' as a farmer yourself you surely known, ''zero'' is not what you want right? because with ''zero'' you don't have plant growing and stuff.
I known that zero is actually BS very similar to emission rights it works pretty simple company A is a dirty little company burning dirty coal, to meet net zero they promise to ''offset'' they emmision, so they pay company B to do that offsetting, Company B then goes to a offsetting marketplace (simplified it hidden in all kind of BS terms, sub-companies etc. etc. ) and from there we get a lot of shifting which on paper indeed offsets emissions but in reality just make a few other people rich and stops real investments.

A real life example? The city off Amsterdam is burning Italian garbage, instead of the Italian investing in proper waste management themselves. Which contributes to Italies ''net zero'' but it's actually a ''net shift''

Absolutely agree that 'Net Zero' is a fudge when one industries fossil fuel usage can allegedly be 'offset' by say planting trees -often planting trees in unsuitable places.

And various other sorts of greenwashing.

That needs to be addressed.

But at the same time abandoning even the less ambitious carbon reductions which are promised by 'Net Zero' is doubly terrible.

Net zero doesn't mean take all the CO2 and other GG out of the atmosphere (rather obviously I would have thought🙄) it means to take those emissions back to a place where CO2 etc absorbed, is the same as that put out - but of course we need to go further and faster and start reabsorbing that excess CO2 back into soils, plant material etc.

As an agroecological farmer I can work in such a way as to sequester carbon into the soil, and enhance biodiversity, and vegetative cover by various methods, which benefits the farm overall - I don't need pesticides for example - I've got a free army of bug and bird life that works for me.
.
Whilst at the same time I still produce a lot of high nutrient food with minimal wastage of fuel or wastage of the food itself.
I also have very low emissions, and wastage by shortening the supply chain to the consumer.

Thankfully this way of working is catching on, it still needs more support and recognition from both policy makers, and consumers of food, but progress is being made.
We have considerably more political clout nowadays by our campaigning and information gathering and solid research.

This year's Groundswell regen ag gathering was about four times the size of the original one I attended.
There's lots of farmers and growers getting practically, and politically involved in more sustainable land use, and food production now.
And that's a heartening thing to see.

All hope is not yet lost, but it needs a big push to upscale to the point where the kind of thing that us regenerative farmers do becomes mainstream.

Sky high fertiliser, energy and other prices are pushing things in that direction for farmers anyway.
But many will need help and support to transition away from what we're very high input systems - I'm not knocking farmers for how they were operating previously.

It's what they were told to do for decades by various 'experts' who had a vested interest in selling them inputs, and who were also disproportionately extracting value at the supply side. (Supermarkets dictating prices for example)

 

[icowden]

and again the ''reach zero lie'' as a farmer yourself you surely known, ''zero'' is not what you want right? because with ''zero'' you don't have plant growing and stuff.

I don't think you understand what Net Zero is. It's when you don't generate more CO2 than is being absorbed by nature and/or CO2 reclaiming methods.

I known that zero is actually BS very similar to emission rights it works pretty simple company A is a dirty little company burning dirty coal, to meet net zero they promise to ''offset'' they emmision, so they pay company B to do that offsetting, Company B then goes to a offsetting marketplace (simplified it hidden in all kind of BS terms, sub-companies etc. etc. ) and from there we get a lot of shifting which on paper indeed offsets emissions but in reality just make a few other people rich and stops real investments.

On this we agree.

A real life example? The city off Amsterdam is burning Italian garbage, instead of the Italian investing in proper waste management themselves. Which contributes to Italies ''net zero'' but it's actually a ''net shift''

 

[theclaud]

I don't think you understand what Net Zero is. It's when you don't generate more CO2 than is being absorbed by nature and/or CO2 reclaiming methods.

TMN to Mudsticks.

 

[Pale Rider]

TMN

Shudder.

 

[theclaud]

Shudder.

Yawn.

 

[Pale Rider]

Yawn.

Smile.

 

[Ian H]

Smile.

I think your avatar just cracked.

 

[Pale Rider]

I think your avatar just cracked.

Must have happened ages ago - there's lots on here to be amused about.

Not least the woke lefties who take themselves oh so seriously.

 

[Ian H]

Must have happened ages ago - there's lots on here to be amused about.

Not least the woke lefties who take themselves oh so seriously.

Careful, you do sound like a Spitting-Image- style parody at times.

 

[Pale Rider]

Careful, you do sound like a Spitting-Image- style parody at times.

I'll take that as a compliment - I think most of the Spitting Image parodies were great.

 

[Ian H]

I'll take that as a compliment - I think most of the Spitting Image parodies were great.

You do realise that parody = ridicule?

 

[mudsticks]

Careful, you do sound like a Spitting-Image- style parody at times.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Absolutely agree that 'Net Zero' is a fudge when one industries fossil fuel usage can allegedly be 'offset' by say planting trees -often planting trees in unsuitable places.

Wait correction it's even worse, they pay for offset, the general suggestion is that they will plant trees, some companies do that too but that is symbolic, the offset money goes to unclear destinations, to help with the so called offset. (but considering bio-mass is green according to the EU investing in that could be offsetting too.)

And various other sorts of greenwashing.

That needs to be addressed.

agreed

But at the same time abandoning even the less ambitious carbon reductions which are promised by 'Net Zero' is doubly terrible.

i'm not advocating for abandoning them, i'm advocating for more transparency, removal of misleading name and more clearer and achievable goals.
For example diesel cars are banned from town centers more and more, that is good news for the car companies who scammed their costumers for years by claiming their diesels where cleaner than they actually where. electric cars are nowhere near ready to replace all off those. Yet the car industry presents them as the only solutions. (after Shell's fake greenwashing successfully killed the reputation of hydrogen cars in europe) Yet Diesels(yes all diesels) can be 40% cleaner by replacing current diesel with an plant based alternative (they have an fancy name for it but i can't remember) With adjustments there are cleaner options but my whole point is forcing poeple to ditch their diesel car isn't the best option in my view, if in 5 years time electric has become much cleaner to produce and maintain it might be an other story but nothing points in that direction currently.

Net zero doesn't mean take all the CO2 and other GG out of the atmosphere (rather obviously I would have thought🙄) it means to take those emissions back to a place where CO2 etc absorbed, is the same as that put out - but of course we need to go further and faster and start reabsorbing that excess CO2 back into soils, plant material etc.

i known, see my response to @icowden (probably below)

As an agroecological farmer I can work in such a way as to sequester carbon into the soil, and enhance biodiversity, and vegetative cover by various methods, which benefits the farm overall - I don't need pesticides for example - I've got a free army of bug and bird life that works for me.
.

Whilst at the same time I still produce a lot of high nutrient food with minimal wastage of fuel or wastage of the food itself.
I also have very low emissions, and wastage by shortening the supply chain to the consumer.

Yes i try to buy more directly from the farm or suchlike alternatives as well is often not more or not much more expensive but the quality is better and it often saves a lot of packaging material to throw away.

Thankfully this way of working is catching on, it still needs more support and recognition from both policy makers, and consumers of food, but progress is being made.
We have considerably more political clout nowadays by our campaigning and information gathering and solid research.

Yes well here are only a few farms left as i'm close to London where everything is about building flats apperently but we have a few nearby, a online predence that gives local adresses and the kind of produce they have would help a lot i think, i known there are tons of those in the Netherlands.

This year's Groundswell regen ag gathering was about four times the size of the original one I attended.
There's lots of farmers and growers getting practically, and politically involved in more sustainable land use, and food production now.
And that's a heartening thing to see.

All hope is not yet lost, but it needs a big push to upscale to the point where the kind of thing that us regenerative farmers do becomes mainstream.

Not only that part of the green movement is apperently under the impression farmers are a big threat so it seems to me that would be an issue to discus too, so that they if they calculate things, calculate using real measurements and not from behind a computer.

I don't think you understand what Net Zero is. It's when you don't generate more CO2 than is being absorbed by nature and/or CO2 reclaiming methods.

Technically it's greenhouse gasses and it's indeed about the balance, i knew that. My point is that they (the powers behind the ''net zero blah'') are trying to instagrammify the whole thing, by creating a load of buzzwords setting unreachable goals etc. in 2030/50 whatever the goal is it might look like we all met that net zero goal but i'm pretty sure it will turn out to be fake just like instagram filters do with average pictures and how you then in more then enough cases can't recognize the real person from the heavily edited/filtered one.

I think it's much better to work with shorter term, reachable goals, instead of goals and systems that are made to be abused just as the example i gave in my pervious post.

 

[Pale Rider]

View attachment 4337

Ooo. a classic BMC A series engine before they turned it sideways to put in the original Mini.

By trying to have pop at me, you've unwittingly come up with some fascinating motoring history.

Thanks.

 

[Pale Rider]

You do realise that parody = ridicule?

Only in your tiny mind.

Do check before trying to use those longer words, I know they can be difficult.

https://www.google.com/search?q=par...CDg2OTJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8