Ear to the ground

Buford T. Justice XIX

alps wrote: »

https://westcorkpeople.ie/environment/holly-cairns-td-and-councillor-paul-hayes-seek-clarification-on-disgraceful-situation-for-shannonvale-residents/

1.2 million bill looming to solve the issue for 9 houses that currently send their untreated muck to Courtmacsherry bay..

I'm sure those issues will also be outlined on the next programme....

Yeah.

newholland mad

Say my name wrote: »

But every sector is not doing their bit.
They do of course need to do their bit.

But we've just had a government incentivise ploughing of tillage ground for next year. Releasing more nitrates to waterways than if they were min tilled or had plant cover.
This is from a Green government.
With not one word from the epa or even the farm orgs against it.

In the U.S. they banned tillage farmers in parts from ploughing and implemented mintill with mandatory green cover because of nitrate release.
Here we promote it.
Are you getting the hypocrisy.

What exactly is the government incentive to plough ground for next year. I must have missed it

alps

newholland mad wrote: »

What exactly is the government incentive to plough ground for next year. I must have missed it

€10m fund to incentivise tillage farmers to plough in straw.

Reason would suggest this should read "incorporate" straw. Details not yet published...concern generally iver the use of the word "plough"..

newholland mad

alps wrote: »

€10m fund to incentivise tillage farmers to plough in straw.

Reason would suggest this should read "incorporate" straw. Details not yet published...concern generally iver the use of the word "plough"..

I'd say that was a journalist creating a fancy headline rather than reality. Most tillage farmer's that are likely to chop are mintill anyway especially since mintill is already an option in glas. I'd say the idea of chopping straw will create more upset than the idea of using a plough. Had a man over paying for straw on Friday and he was fuming over the idea of farmers being paid to chop. Its already scarce and expensive enough he thought.

_Brian

newholland mad wrote: »

I'd say that was a journalist creating a fancy headline rather than reality. Most tillage farmer's that are likely to chop are mintill anyway especially since mintill is already an option in glas. I'd say the idea of chopping straw will create more upset than the idea of using a plough. Had a man over paying for straw on Friday and he was fuming over the idea of farmers being paid to chop. Its already scarce and expensive enough he thought.

Anything other than saving straw puts pressure to extract more peat which is desperately damaging to our bogs.

gozunda

newholland mad wrote: »

What exactly is the government incentive to plough ground for next year. I must have missed it

Article here about it

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/amp/incorporation-of-straw-to-be-encouraged-578424

The aim

Increasing the soil organic carbon levels of arable soils has been identified in the Teagasc MACC [marginal abatement cost curve] curve as a carbon sequestration action.

Don't think they've been working with the heads in Europe....

Climate change mitigation. 

The most carbon-rich soils are peatlands, mostly found in northern Europe, the UK and Ireland. Grassland soils also store a lot of carbon per hectare...

The fastest way to increase organic carbon in farmed soil is to convert arable land to grassland...

On farmland, ploughing the soil is known to accelerate decomposition and mineralisation of organic matter. In order to keep carbon and nutrients in the soil, researchers suggest reducing tillage

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

Jjameson

Ear to the ground has a face book page. Any articulate Learned posters here to challenge the lovely Ellas narrative should really channel their energy towards a few comments on the page?

ruwithme

Ah the lovely Ella,she knows where the camera is.

Birdnuts

https://www.thejournal.ie/spruced-up-pt1-5241271-Oct2020/

Like many I am sick of the obsession some parts of the media have about climate and Irish farming compared to other sectors - that is why it is a timely that this long but brilliant piece highlighting how primitive and outdated forestry policies in this country are a big part of the problem when it comes to CO2 and biodiversity destruction.

NcdJd

Birdnuts wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/spruced-up-pt1-5241271-Oct2020/

Like many I am sick of the obsession some parts of the media have about climate and Irish farming compared to other sectors - that is why it is a timely that this long but brilliant piece highlighting how primitive and outdated forestry policies in this country are a big part of the problem when it comes to CO2 and biodiversity destruction.

There's a comment at the end of the page where a link to a gofundme page where a lad is trying to raise 2.5 million euros to buy 10000 acres of commonage in Connemara so he can plant trees and introduce Wolves on it.. no contributions yet ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/building-an-native-irish-wildlife-sanctuary?utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email+7500-amplify_campaign

kerryjack

It's not worth watching these days, like a lot of RTE ****e that's out there.

giveitholly

NcdJd wrote: »

There's a comment at the end of the page where a link to a gofundme page where a lad is trying to raise 2.5 million euros to buy 10000 acres of commonage in Connemara so he can plant trees and introduce Wolves on it.. no contributions yet ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/building-an-native-irish-wildlife-sanctuary?utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email%2B7500-amplify_campaign

Doubt trees would even grow on commonage,and that's not to even mention the wolves

NcdJd

giveitholly wrote: »

Doubt trees would even grow on commonage,and that's not to even mention the wolves

Don't worry giveitholly, he said he is going to fence it off so that humans can't get near the cuddly bears and cute wolfies..

Birdnuts

NcdJd wrote: »

There's a comment at the end of the page where a link to a gofundme page where a lad is trying to raise 2.5 million euros to buy 10000 acres of commonage in Connemara so he can plant trees and introduce Wolves on it.. no contributions yet ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/building-an-native-irish-wildlife-sanctuary?utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email%2B7500-amplify_campaign

I;d like to buy Mayo myself cos I'd just have to fence off 2 sides:D;)

gozunda

NcdJd wrote: »

There's a comment at the end of the page where a link to a gofundme page where a lad is trying to raise 2.5 million euros to buy 10000 acres of commonage in Connemara so he can plant trees and introduce Wolves on it.. no contributions yet ha.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/building-an-native-irish-wildlife-sanctuary?utm_medium=email&utm_source=product&utm_campaign=p_email%2B7500-amplify_campaign

Claims thst he is" creating an area for native wildlife" but at the same time wants to introduce "brown bear, wild boar, eurasian lynx, grey wolf etc and let them roam the land".

There'll by fuk all native wildlife left after that lot get started ...

giveitholly

giveitholly wrote: »

Doubt trees would even grow on commonage,and that's not to even mention the wolves

I have serious disagreements with rewilding, mostly the landlordism/EcoColonialism/utter disregard for the people who actually own that land. But, trees would grow in a lot of places if the right conditions were provided. You'll find them growing on many islands in lakes and in cracks on cliff faces etc.

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

I have serious disagreements with rewilding, mostly the landlordism/EcoColonialism/utter disregard for the people who actually own that land. But, trees would grow in a lot of places if the right conditions were provided. You'll find them growing on many islands in lakes and in cracks on cliff faces etc.

Rewinding would be fine if it came with lifetime guaranteed payments.
If they want to rewind land then it’s going to cost long term, can’t the carbon tax pay for it.

Suppose if a radical enough government got in it could be CPO’d to rewind.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

Rewinding would be fine if it came with lifetime guaranteed payments.
If they want to rewind land then it’s going to cost long term, can’t the carbon tax pay for it.

Suppose if a radical enough government got in it could be CPO’d to rewind.

The carbon tax was meant to pay for REPS mk2, which I heard today they're finding trouble locating the funding for.

Env/Herirage have funding for **** all.

Ag is already compromised by various vested interests.

CPO would cause war, again they also don't have the money.

They can't guarentee anything, much less life time payments.

Say my name

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The carbon tax was meant to pay for REPS mk2, which I heard today they're finding trouble locating the funding for.

Env/Herirage have funding for **** all.

Ag is already compromised by various vested interests.

CPO would cause war, again they also don't have the money.

They can't guarentee anything, much less life time payments.

It's all going pear shaped.

The forestry money was their way of tempting landowners off cap.
15 year payment and then the land has to stay in forestry for eternity.

Big business are already giving out carbon credits amongst themselves and in the real world not one iota of a piece of Carbon sequestered and stored.

Too many pluckers looking for some back to jump on and no doers.

Dinzee Conlee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The carbon tax was meant to pay for REPS mk2, which I heard today they're finding trouble locating the funding for.

Env/Herirage have funding for **** all.

Ag is already compromised by various vested interests.

CPO would cause war, again they also don't have the money.

They can't guarentee anything, much less life time payments.

Is the carbon tax going into the overall pot now
Was it meant to be ring-fenced for carbon offsetting payments?

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

The carbon tax was meant to pay for REPS mk2, which I heard today they're finding trouble locating the funding for.

Env/Herirage have funding for **** all.

Ag is already compromised by various vested interests.

CPO would cause war, again they also don't have the money.

They can't guarentee anything, much less life time payments.

I suppose this week missed an opportunity for cap funding to be redirected away from just direct payments because of historical actions and move it towards actions supporting biodiversity and environment.

It’s long overdue.

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

I suppose this week missed an opportunity for cap funding to be redirected away from just direct payments because of historical actions and move it towards actions supporting biodiversity and environment.

It’s long overdue.

Hasn’t 30% of the Cap been redirected to supporting biodiversity and the environment? How is that a missed opportunity?

grassroot1

Panch18 wrote: »

Hasn’t 30% of the Cap been redirected to supporting biodiversity and the environment? How is that a missed opportunity?

It is a missed opertunity because you are as a farmer are being asked to deliver enviromental benefits and biodiversity targets for not one single euro more than you were getting previously.
1.No allowance for extra cost
2.No allowance for lower stocking rate
3.No extra fiancial benefit for providing enviromental gains for the common good

Say my name

Say my name wrote: »

It's all going pear shaped.

The forestry money was their way of tempting landowners off cap.
15 year payment and then the land has to stay in forestry for eternity.

Big business are already giving out carbon credits amongst themselves and in the real world not one iota of a piece of Carbon sequestered and stored.

Too many pluckers looking for some back to jump on and no doers.

I think a lot is "how do we be seen to be doing something without doing anything".

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Is the carbon tax going into the overall pot now
Was it meant to be ring-fenced for carbon offsetting payments?

Not sure where it was to come from, but the info I heard came from someone who should know. Many's the slip between the cup and the lip, but as of today that's how they had the scene.

_Brian wrote: »

I suppose this week missed an opportunity for cap funding to be redirected away from just direct payments because of historical actions and move it towards actions supporting biodiversity and environment.

It’s long overdue.

TBH that's going into a subject I'm not sure I want to delve into. Personally I have bigger problems that CAP at the present. But on CAP & Env policy I hold serious misgivings on motives. We see in particular The Guardian spreading information of a certain hue as they're bankrolled by the Open Philanthropy Project (just check any of their "animal farmed" series and it *now* openly states that). People involved in OPP have interests in Impossible Meat among other things. We have the good folks at Davos (World Economic Forum), always concerned with us the little folks, now wanting 50% protected areas by 2050.

I smell a big stinky rat.

And I believe at the heart of it is reducing peoples options in how and where they live and what they must spend their money on, rather than any goodwill towards the environment.

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

Hasn’t 30% of the Cap been redirected to supporting biodiversity and the environment? How is that a missed opportunity?

Because it’s not 50/60/80% or even 100%

Do we need tax payers money going out to farms based on activity from decades ago when it could/should be going to support biodiversity development

Panch18

_Brian wrote: »

Because it’s not 50/60/80% or even 100%

Do we need tax payers money going out to farms based on activity from decades ago when it could/should be going to support biodiversity development

That’s insane

_Brian

Panch18 wrote: »

That’s insane

Why ??

We need less beef production for example.
Over time it’s become a completely devalued product, it’s become a mere commodity.

Part of the problem is direct payments supporting farms to continue producing it at a loss. Without the payments production would fall and it would regain its true value. Yea there would be less people farming beef but at least the would have an opportunity to make an actual profit on their animals.

CAP has become about keeping farms producing below cost raw materials to feed into industry where vast fortunes is made on it, that’s the actual insanity

wrangler

Panch18 wrote: »

That’s insane

Yea, my farm animals will be the only species I'll be looking after , and my land will be the only ecosystem I'll be minding.
Anything else is not what I went into farming for, however if I get as well paid as the last twenty years......
There's no way the next twenty years will be as good subsidy wise as the last twenty

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

Without the payments production would fall

If you look around the internet at different models of farming, it's often the case without using chemical fertiliser that production can actually rise.

alps

_Brian wrote: »

Why ??

We need less beef production for example.
Over time it’s become a completely devalued product, it’s become a mere commodity.

Part of the problem is direct payments supporting farms to continue producing it at a loss. Without the payments production would fall and it would regain its true value. Yea there would be less people farming beef but at least the would have an opportunity to make an actual profit on their animals.

CAP has become about keeping farms producing below cost raw materials to feed into industry where vast fortunes is made on it, that’s the actual insanity

The payment has nothing to do with production Brian. It is unfortunately now the main drawings source on many farms and they cannot do without it.

The concept of environment schemes is fine, except that the farmer will be expected to pay for the environment scheme out of the BP...

Fair enough, pay the farmer for setting up and maintaining an environmental project on farm, but pay for the capital, input and running costs of it separately...