A global recession is on the horizon - please read OP for mod warning

An accounting trick only allowed to be played by the elietes and multinationals though. SMEs farmers the commoners basically are hung out to dry as they cannot compete on the same playing field.

Really is a disgrace, but that's what the EU and Western democracies have become a mouth piece for big corporates and lobbying, a far cry from when Bretton woods where no bankers or lobbyists were allowed to partake in the formation of the original Western order.

I admit I don't understand the Emissions trading scheme but it does seem to me like (summarising your previous posts) you want famers/other primary sector producers to get maximum benefit every which way from all other sectors of the economy.

They get CAP payments off the EU, part of which is about managing the land (now maybe it is not enough, I admit again I don't know) + I think you were arguing above the MNCs (i.e. secondary sector producers using agri products?) should be paying them too since they own the land which acts in reality as the "carbon sink" to generate the "carbon credits" etc?

I wonder where do us poor city dwelling shlebs/mindless consumers who will definitely never own any land (might get to see it through a fence!), maybe not even a house the way things are going fit in in these arguments? Just paying everyone else further down the chain I suppose! Something doesn't seem right to me here.

Anecdotally??

1. according to or by means of personal accounts rather than facts or research.
2. "such information is only available anecdotally"

No I think you must have taken me up wrong.

Land is only a very small part of it, basically what I'm saying is farmers/foresters are treated very unfairly as they are not allowed to offset the carbon sequestered from their land hedgesgrows and forestry against their cattles/farm enterprises emmisions - big businesses are buts that only one small part.

If you are lets say an small SME in the city, you are not allowed partake in the EU ETS. Therefore if you actually wanted to claim carbon offsets like Google or Eli Lilly by investing in solar panels to offset your electricy emmisions, you are not legally entitled to the carbon offset by installing panels on your premises rooftop - infact that offset will actually go in as an offset under Irelands Energy sector.

Absolutely nobody benefits bar the big multinationals, how can a small SME access the se ESG loans/investment a Multinational can since they can't legally claim net zero which would give them a high ESG score in the first place.

Long and short any buisness be it farming, forestry, SMEs should be treated and allowed to play on the same field as the MNCs, this push towards net 0 and offsetting only benefits the big MNCs, therefore they will mushroom even more while everyone else gets left behind

Thanks, I think I understand your points better now but from what I am reading for farmers/agri SMEs participating anyway, it does boil down to the land/buildings etc. and the management of it (as you say what is growing on it - hedgerows, forests etc. acting as a "carbon" sink or installations like solar or wind + the farmers getting more credit for it).

I am still not sure that having farmers or other SMEs involved in it (the "emissions trading" scheme) at all is a good idea or makes sense. I can see why you seem to want it as it opens some funding stream or benefit you feel is being unfairly denied them but is available to the big companies/polluters involved to take advantage of.

As said I knew/know little about it, I understood it was for intensive industries, big polluters etc. (which will be giant companies).

Per my post there is already the (I assume very comlex) CAP system which I thought dealt with aspects like managing the land etc., maybe there should be more grants or benefits under CAP for the kinds of things you mention (or I suppose perhaps some other schemes for non agricultural SMEs)?

Also add that Europe's refineries now have to import crude oil from half way round the world at 50% more now. Diesel, plastic, jet fuel and hundreds of other products all will become more expensive.

Farmers costs to run the tractor, packaging for goods and the cost to get everything from A to B all becomes more expensive.

I'm a novice in the area too (despite being a farmer) but from my understanding farmers are not getting the credit for a lot of what does constitute a carbon sink on land yhry manage...

I was under the impression hedgerows don't count etc etc...there's also a potential issue in how carbon being sequestered is calculated...I seem to remember big issues with calculations surrounding how much carbon is supposed to be sequesterd in grazing systems and which gases are considered to be 5he biggest GHG offenders.....I seem to remember methane being labelled as the worst offender yet it doesn't last as long as co2 in atmosphere and has always been produced by ruminant animals and is part of a natural cycle...(and claims that numbers of ruminant animals globally have increased dramatically in recent times rebutted)

It does seem odd to me that any carbon sequestered at the moment by farmers counts towards a national total which can then be traded with multinationals if that is the case??..

If it was proven to be calculated relatively fairly with relevant nuances (insofar as possible) taken into account and its not simply bring used to let big business or govt continue polluting then I'd be a bit less concerned....although nonetheless it does look like govt/powers that be pocketing a large part of the profits (while continuing to pollute) and feeding back a very small percentage of what the credits are worth despite the fact the farmer is sequestering the carbon and probably reducing commercial output to do so.....the CAP ain't great tbh...and I suspect a lot of the payments will be eating up to fund the actions in first year or two and after that would they replace lost output?.....not sure....I'd have a suspicion big business/govt is taking the cream when it comes to carbon credits myself.

Yeah would agree, but by allowing MNCs to effectively get net zero so easily by trading credits and offsetting it will automatically create life much more harder for the SMEs as they will not be able to compete. They will be effectively pushed out of buisness and more and more market capitalisation will go to the big MNCs as they can claim net zero by just offsetting.

In terms of CAP, there is a carbon farming proposal in the EU at the minute it is not likely to be in play for another few years, but it will not link carbon storage and its value to the land. The EU wants to give a grant for storing carbon instead of attaching the market value of carbon to tonnage stored.

Huge problem with this is down to how it will be designated in the LULUCF charter. Basically if I rewet bogland/grassland inorder to store carbon this will be designated as rewet peatland in the LULUCF. Much like when forestry is planted it is designated as forestry land in the LULUCF, when this happens this land can never come out of that sector, eg that designated rewet bogland can never be drained for grassland or built on, or forestry can only ever be planted on designate forestry land again.

So basically if you choose to rewet bogland, your land will be worthless as it can never be used for anything else, and it does not track a commodity price (forestry land price would track the commerical price of timber) as the EU will not allow the carbon storage commodity value to be assigned to the land. Nobody in their right mind would devalue there asset value to be worthless, would you?

Funnily enough any of the credits from doing all this reweting and grants from tax payers money to store carbon on land will will be put up for auction and Germany or any member state, Google or BP. So all of the grants from tax payers money may well be used by big MNCs in order for them to hit net zero and get their high ESG score. I'll have to admit there must be some big MNC buisness lobbying power in the EU for them to be able to pull this off.

Their taking alot more than just the cream I'm afraid. Absolute shitshow at the minute. On the big MNCs and claiming credits from the LULUCF sector, they were not allowed to claim from that sector in years gone by. The EU then changed the LULUCF regulation in November 2022 that allows the member state to auction off excess credits from that sector if they are a net sequester, first preference goes to any member state then second preference it goes for auction on the ETS where a MNC could purchase them. It would be unlikely that it would get that far and no member state to buy them first but nonetheless they can legally buy excess credits off farmland all over the EU.

Some new tech jobs here

I am not a farmer I admit so could have some biases the other way when I think I am hearing pleading that sounds like an interest group looking to grab bigger slice or perhaps find a way to protect themsleves from painful economic changes and sacrifices coming down the tracks at us all + make some one else pay for it.

I can see the argument as to why should the largest companies benefit from it over others or somehow use other people's effort to offset their own pollution. However I would imagine that a trading system if it included pretty much all businesses rather than just the biggest polluters (and countries themselves) would become an even more complex "command economy" type structure that would collapse under its own weight.

However the fact that the farmers have their property rights and are also working the land should not mean that all such "credit" in a trading system related to what is happening on the lands owned will accrue to them for their own exclusive use.

I think alot of this stuff is going to be utterly useless anyway, unless the EU gets a lot more protectionist about imports, grows a spine + tells the "global south" and "Brics" beloved of Brickster (LOL), the WTO etc. (as well as these big MNCs) to go and f-ck themselves!

It's plain to me most of the world does not give much of a **** for environmentalism or mitigating impacts of human activity on the ecosystem/planet etc., so without protectionism all the EU will do pursuing this hard is destroy its own agriculture and industry. It will go to the countries that let companies pollute and destroy as much as they want once they pay a political bribe to the right people. Then they can export their dirty (+ cheaper) products into the EU under rubric of "free trade".

Eurozone CPI report. Some up, some down and some the same. Energy was the only faller overall, everything else higher. Good job it has been the mildest winter in 30 years really and the driest which is not so great.