Public land access through Carbon offsets?

[SAJ-99]

I thought that was an interesting article. It is written as being "bad" from the point of view of the aspect of carbon capture and global warming. I don't disagree with that necessarily, but I thought of it interesting as a potential future for public land access. If that land has value in terms of a carbon store you have a wider group of constituents, and one with much deeper pockets. Anecdotally, I also heard a couple of stories about large MT ranches being sold to those looking for the advantage of the carbon credit offset. This could go either way (bad or good), but I would rather the NC buy this stuff than "ACME" corporation. Am I off base here? thoughts?

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-nature-conservancy-carbon-offsets-trees/?sref=rYMkp3wV

 

[BigHornRam]

Once this conservation easement is in place on this property it will likely be sold to a company looking to offset its carbon emissions. Hopefully that company does a good job managing these lands.

Easement Proposed For More Former Weyerhaueser Land In NW Montana

Last week, federal officials announced a proposal maintaining public access on 100,000 acres of private timber lands in northwest Montana belonging to…

www.mtpr.org

Companies like Amazon are looking at forest lands as an easy way to say they are doing something about carbon emissions. Enough people will likely buy into it to give them cover.

Amazon pledges $10M for forest preservation and carbon offsets in the Appalachians

Amazon launched a $10 million grant program Tuesday designed to help family forest owners conserve their land and participate in carbon credit markets. It

www.geekwire.com

Shell game if you ask me.

 

[SAJ-99]

Once this conservation easement is in place on this property it will likely be sold to a company looking to offset its carbon emissions. Hopefully that company does a good job managing these lands.

Easement Proposed For More Former Weyerhaueser Land In NW Montana

Last week, federal officials announced a proposal maintaining public access on 100,000 acres of private timber lands in northwest Montana belonging to…

www.mtpr.org

Companies like Amazon are looking at forest lands as an easy way to say they are doing something about carbon emissions. Enough people will likely buy into it to give them cover.

Amazon pledges $10M for forest preservation and carbon offsets in the Appalachians

Amazon launched a $10 million grant program Tuesday designed to help family forest owners conserve their land and participate in carbon credit markets. It

www.geekwire.com

Shell game if you ask me.

Yeah, but does it matter to us as long as the land and access is preserved? Part of the problem hunters face is not having deep enough pockets to lock in the things we want. Don't want to turn it into a political discussion, but if the new Admin gets across some cap-and-trade rules (see EU) these companies don't need to sell the land, they can sell the credits. Hell, maybe State land trusts could sell carbon credits. The rules are a little onerous for that land to get the classification, but just spitballing. There are articles showing the revenue cuts states have endured in 2020 from O&G leases on public lands. That revenue needs to be offset somehow. Taxes on renewables are being considered in MT legislature. Brainstorming Friday for me.

 

[BigHornRam]

If you are truly interested in long term carbon sequestration think annual fine root turn over in the soils of our prairie grasses and forbs. Additional bonus is the fact that ungulates feed off these grasses and forbs.

If corporations want to pay landowners both public and private for the carbon sequestration they provide, in order to show they care, I am all for it. Just remember, the consumer of these corps products are the ones who ultimately pay for these carbon credits.

 

[BigHornRam]

Read through this article attempting to incorporate all this new whiz bang technology, and you finally get to to the true motivations here. Get the consumer to feel good about paying more for the products they are buying.

FarmLab thinks it can get 1 million farmers to sequester 1 billion tons of CO2 by 2025

“The carbon credit game is really all about labor costs and the cost of soil sampling, so we need models to help reduce those costs,” says Sam Duncan, CEO and co-founder, FarmLab.

www.agriculture.com

"One area we’re interested is downstream buying of ag products. We think the biggest way to improve the uptake of soil carbon methods is providing an accreditation system, so farmers can sell their produce at a premium,” he says. “But that needs to be backed by science and there’s also a challenge around provenance – getting that steak to the supermarket and allowing consumers to know for sure it came from a carbon neutral or positive farm.”

 

[SAJ-99]

Read through this article attempting to incorporate all this new whiz bang technology, and you finally get to to the true motivations here. Get the consumer to feel good about paying more for the products they are buying.

FarmLab thinks it can get 1 million farmers to sequester 1 billion tons of CO2 by 2025

“The carbon credit game is really all about labor costs and the cost of soil sampling, so we need models to help reduce those costs,” says Sam Duncan, CEO and co-founder, FarmLab.

www.agriculture.com

"One area we’re interested is downstream buying of ag products. We think the biggest way to improve the uptake of soil carbon methods is providing an accreditation system, so farmers can sell their produce at a premium,” he says. “But that needs to be backed by science and there’s also a challenge around provenance – getting that steak to the supermarket and allowing consumers to know for sure it came from a carbon neutral or positive farm.”

Everything in business is marketing with the end goal of getting people to buy things based on how they "feel" about them. Just saying we might as try to use it to our advantage. As you pointed out, we all want more access but don't want to pay for it. In the end, we all pay for everything. We pay to pull carbon out of the air and rebury it or we pay to build new sea walls and flood prevention structures or we pay a little more for our food. The question isn't who is paying, it is what are we getting in return.

 

[BigHornRam]

Everything in business is marketing with the end goal of getting people to buy things based on how they "feel" about them. Just saying we might as try to use it to our advantage. As you pointed out, we all want more access but don't want to pay for it. In the end, we all pay for everything. We pay to pull carbon out of the air and rebury it or we pay to build new sea walls and flood prevention structures or we pay a little more for our food. The question isn't who is paying, it is what are we getting in return.

I think you pointed out first that we all want access but don't want to pay for it. Trying to take advantage of carbon tax schemes to get more hunting access will only bite us in the butt IMO. Good luck to you if you want to try that route though.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Everything in business is marketing with the end goal of getting people to buy things based on how they "feel" about them. Just saying we might as try to use it to our advantage. As you pointed out, we all want more access but don't want to pay for it. In the end, we all pay for everything. We pay to pull carbon out of the air and rebury it or we pay to build new sea walls and flood prevention structures or we pay a little more for our food. The question isn't who is paying, it is what are we getting in return.

Color me simple, but carbon sequestering on rural and wild lands is already happening without anyone getting paid for "carbon credit". How is placing a value on what is already happening and tacking the added costs onto products that are currently being produced going to change the status quo? Same amount of emissions, same amount of carbon sequestering, tax breaks that allow companies to invest in valuable land, added cost to consumers.

What is the real world benefit? It looks like fancy card shuffling to me.

 

[SAJ-99]

Color me simple, but carbon sequestering on rural and wild lands is already happening without anyone getting paid for "carbon credit". How is placing a value on what is already happening and tacking the added costs onto products that are currently being produced going to change the status quo? Same amount of emissions, same amount of carbon sequestering, tax breaks that allow companies to invest in valuable land, added cost to consumers.

What is the real world benefit? It looks like fancy card shuffling to me.

I don't disagree. BHR called it a shell game. Sort of is. But it is still happening. I am just thinking if we can somehow use it to our advantage. The rules say you have to stop something that was going to happen, like logging. If you read the article I posted, the author's argument is the same as yours. That the TNC and the corporations got the land and credits but it wasn't going to be logged anyway so they didn't prevent anything in terms of net carbon production. Can't disagree, but there are subtleties to be made. Locking up natural areas for 50yrs seems like a benefit to hunters/anglers. Maybe not logging, but that is a different discussion. Without a benefit in the US, these companies can just as easily lock up land in Brazil/Amazon that was going to be cleared for soybeans.

Worrying about how this might come back to hurt us is receipt for doing nothing. Not sure if you noticed where that has gotten us. Perfect is the enemy of good. No time to debate whether shareholder activism on climate change is beneficial or not, it is happening. Every time you read a company or country going to "net zero" you can be sure that carbon credits are being exchanged.

 

[BigHornRam]

Over the years, humans have come up with all kinds of schemes. This carbon offset scheme will come to pass in the years ahead much like the tulip bulb.

In the 17th century, tulip bulb mania created the world’s first speculative bubble

In the 1600s the price of tulip bulbs in Holland soared. A single bulb could cost more than a house and in some cases tulip bulbs were used as a form of currency. Single bulbs would be sold multiple times, and investors would buy the rights to tulips yet to be grown. This created a futures...

www.spokesman.com

 

[ImBillT]

Carbon offsets or credits = “I can do whatever I want as long as I prevent others from doing what I’m doing”

 

[TrumpkinTheDwarf]

Carbon credits are based on the active sequestration of carbon. The truth is, proper cattle rotations on grasslands will store way more carbon than a forest. So carbon credits should theoretically incentivize cattle operations to change the way they ranch. Buying forests and sitting passively on their management doesn't gain you nearly as much carbon sequestration as a well run cattle operation. So, if this lets ranchers and farmers hold onto their operations by monetizing their dirt, and shifting their bottom line, it will theoretically encourage them to keep farming, thereby avoiding further fracturing and subdivision of land.

 

[BigHornRam]

Carbon credits are based on the active sequestration of carbon. The truth is, proper cattle rotations on grasslands will store way more carbon than a forest. So carbon credits should theoretically incentivize cattle operations to change the way they ranch. Buying forests and sitting passively on their management doesn't gain you nearly as much carbon sequestration as a well run cattle operation. So, if this lets ranchers and farmers hold onto their operations by monetizing their dirt, and shifting their bottom line, it will theoretically encourage them to keep farming, thereby avoiding further fracturing and subdivision of land.

Growing trees sequester carbon. Dead trees and burning trees release carbon. All part of nature. Cows fart, and offset all that sequestered fine root carbon. Also part of nature.
Carbon credits are man made bs.

 

[ImBillT]

Everything in business is marketing with the end goal of getting people to buy things based on how they "feel" about them. Just saying we might as try to use it to our advantage. As you pointed out, we all want more access but don't want to pay for it. In the end, we all pay for everything. We pay to pull carbon out of the air and rebury it or we pay to build new sea walls and flood prevention structures or we pay a little more for our food. The question isn't who is paying, it is what are we getting in return.

Sea levels won’t rise due to “global warming” The idea is that CO2 traps heat from the sun warming the earths surface. Most of the energy from the sun is deposited near the equator. The least goes near the poles. Trapping more, would raise the temperature near the equator more than near the poles. The result is significantly increased rainfall. This happens in yearly cycles. It’s called “el nino” and isn’t related to global warming, but it’s exactly what would happen. None of the scary things pushed by “global warming” pushers in the past has happened, very little ever will happen, and it’s beyond our control. Even climate scientists will say that 90%+ or warning and cooling cycles are directly related to sunspot activity. Greenhouse gasses can only slightly accentuate the effects.

 

[Irrelevant]

I think there's some decent science to indicate the native deep rooted prairie grasses sequester more carbon that any other environment. This could mean great things for wildlife.

 

[ImBillT]

Growing trees sequester carbon. Dead trees and burning trees release carbon. All part of nature. Cows fart, and offset all that sequestered fine root carbon. Also part of nature.
Carbon credits are man made bs.

Any plant life. Grass, trees, algae in a pond....

Oh yeah, fossil fuels only release carbon into the atmosphere that was once in the atmosphere.

 

[ImBillT]

Logging tress for lumber sequesters carbon as well. If you burn the tree or leave it for fungi and bacteria to break it down, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere.

 

[ImBillT]

Remember when giant, cold blooded, herbivorous dinosaurs roamed Montana and ate a lot more plant life than grows there today? It was a lot warmer then, man didn’t cause it(or the following ice age) and earth was teaming with life.

 

[Irrelevant]

Sea levels won’t rise due to “global warming”

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

"The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. "

The idea is that CO2 traps heat from the sun warming the earths surface. Most of the energy from the sun is deposited near the equator. The least goes near the poles.

Note all the large temperature anomalies are not along the equator.

Climate Reanalyzer

climatereanalyzer.org

Trapping more, would raise the temperature near the equator more than near the poles. The result is significantly increased rainfall. This happens in yearly cycles. It’s called “el nino” and isn’t related to global warming, but it’s exactly what would happen. None of the scary things pushed by “global warming” pushers in the past has happened,

Climate Change Complicates Counting Some Alaska Native Villages For Census

Rising temperatures are speeding up erosion in some Alaska Native villages and making traveling on ice roads more dangerous, threatening the Census Bureau's plans for an accurate count.

www.npr.org

very little ever will happen,

Climate damages and adaptation potential across diverse sectors of the United States - Nature Climate Change

In this Article, modelling results from a consistent set of sectoral climate change impact models, covering 22 impact sectors of the United States, are summarized. Findings are complex, but largely negative and expensive.

www.nature.com

and it’s beyond our control.

*plant head firmly in sand" Got it

Even climate scientists will say that 90%+ or warning and cooling cycles are directly related to sunspot activity. Greenhouse gasses can only slightly accentuate the effects.

Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?

Earth has warmed in the past due to changes in the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and naturally occurring increases in greenhouse gases. Our ability to understand and explain past changes is one reason we are confident that recent changes are due to humans.

www.climate.gov

"Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials."

All of the feedback loops are based on the production and sequestration of greenhouse gases, they are exactly what causes the heating the cooling.

 

[ImBillT]

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that sea level is rising and will continue to rise this century at increasing rates.

oceanservice.noaa.gov

"The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. "

Note all the large temperature anomalies are not along the equator.

Climate Reanalyzer

climatereanalyzer.org

Climate Change Complicates Counting Some Alaska Native Villages For Census

Rising temperatures are speeding up erosion in some Alaska Native villages and making traveling on ice roads more dangerous, threatening the Census Bureau's plans for an accurate count.

www.npr.org

Climate damages and adaptation potential across diverse sectors of the United States - Nature Climate Change

In this Article, modelling results from a consistent set of sectoral climate change impact models, covering 22 impact sectors of the United States, are summarized. Findings are complex, but largely negative and expensive.

www.nature.com

*plant head firmly in sand" Got it

Hasn't Earth warmed and cooled naturally throughout history?

Earth has warmed in the past due to changes in the Sun, volcanic eruptions, and naturally occurring increases in greenhouse gases. Our ability to understand and explain past changes is one reason we are confident that recent changes are due to humans.

www.climate.gov

"Over at least the past million years, glacial and interglacial cycles have been triggered by variations in how much sunlight reaches the Northern Hemisphere in the summer, which are driven by small variations in the geometry of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. But these fluctuations in sunlight aren’t enough on their own to bring about full-blown ice ages and interglacials."

All of the feedback loops are based on the production and sequestration of greenhouse gases, they are exactly what causes the heating the cooling.

Did you read your NOAA article?

A) It gives zero evidence that anything is man caused.

B) Explains how we measure sea level(based on comparing the CHANGING height of various points on land to the height of the ocean using satellites) and expects you to think that a 2.6” rise in sea level is possible to prove. I doubt that’s outside the margin of error! Did anyone even prove that those points in land didn’t erode 2.6”?

C) Cites terrible problems like nuisance flooding in populated areas, and as stated in A) blames it on global warming rather than increased pavement that doesn’t absorb water the way the ground does.

D Suggests that the primary reason a .125” increase in sea level rise(which I’d assert there isn’t absolute proof of) is so deviating is because a lot of people live near the coast. As if in 100 years, when the water may or may not be 8” deeper, people can’t handle that.

Do you remember mentioning the costly sea walls we’re going to have to pay for? Man I don’t know if I can afford to build an 8” sea wall in 100 years!!!

Did you notice that the article was last updated in 2020, and A) still quotes 2014 as the highest sea level, and B) that the .125” per year rise in sea level is based on a 2.6” rise from 1993 to 2014 and not actually on a consistent year to year increase of .125”?

WE’RE GONNA NEED AN 8” SEA WALL!!! AND, WE ONLY HAVE 100 YEARS TO BUILD IT!!!