Stop carbon farming now....

[jilledge]

Perhaps it would be helpful if you provided links to your alternative ETS information. If your gripe is with the inclusion of agriculture into the taxing of GH emissions that's a whole different argument than the topic of this thread.

Sounds like that is the case - would have been helpful if it was mentioned a bit earlier in the thread.  But who doesn't love a guessing game?

You were the one who brought the ETS to the table, I was always talking about the carbon sequestration equation.

[king1]

Sounds like that is the case - would have been helpful if it was mentioned a bit earlier in the thread.  But who doesn't love a guessing game?

You were the one who brought the ETS to the table, I was always talking about the carbon sequestration equation.

Ok then. We have rules about hijacking threads [Rule 4B] to avoid these very situations from happening...  Granted it was loosley related but clearly you were the only one who new what you were talking about...
https://tmmb.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?tid=572

[jilledge]

You were the one who brought the ETS to the table, I was always talking about the carbon sequestration equation.

Ok then. We have rules about hijacking threads [Rule 4B] to avoid these very situations from happening...  Granted it was loosley related but clearly you were the only one who new what you were talking about...
https://tmmb.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?tid=572

Hijacking a thread? That's a bit of a stretch at best.

[king1]

Ok then.  We have rules about hijacking threads [Rule 4B] to avoid these very situations from happening...  Granted it was loosley related but clearly you were the only one who new what you were talking about...
https://tmmb.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?tid=572

Hijacking a thread? That's a bit of a stretch at best.

just making the point that you're having a whinge about something (which is fine), that was as it turns out not relevant to the thread topic.  Start your own thread, include some details so readers know what the issues are...

[jilledge]

Hijacking a thread? That's a bit of a stretch at best.

just making the point that you're having a whinge about something (which is fine), that was as it turns out not relevant to the thread topic.  Start your own thread, include some details so readers know what the issues are...

A whinge? That's a bit of a stretch at best.

[harm_less]

Native NZ tree species aren't "excluded" as this confirms: https://www.carboncrop.nz/post/which-tre...on-credits The preference for Pinus Radiata will have to do with their faster rate of growth which will sequester more carbon quicker than most native species and the better marketability (and earlier harvest maturity) of pines. As usual the issue is explained by 'following the money', as it's about the quickest buck.

We are talking about different things, I am talking about the farming emissions and the carbon sequestration equation that the Govt. have put in place

You state yourself in this post that "We are talking about different things". To continue to push whatever alternative narrative is floating your boat is a blatant hijacking of the thread.

As advised, if you want to make points about diverging subjects then start your own thread to do so, and include some reliable quotes to support your argument rather than just ignoring any information posted that disagrees with your view of the world.

[Olive]

We are talking about different things, I am talking about the farming emissions and the carbon sequestration equation that the Govt. have put in place

You state yourself in this post that "We are talking about different things". To continue to push whatever alternative narrative is floating your boat is a blatant hijacking of the thread.

As advised, if you want to make points about diverging subjects then start your own thread to do so, and include some reliable quotes to support your argument rather than just ignoring any information posted that disagrees with your view of the world.

Thank you for this.  I was following this thread for a while then it went so off topic that I thought I had missed something.  Relieved to learn it wasn't just me being daft.

[jilledge]

We are talking about different things, I am talking about the farming emissions and the carbon sequestration equation that the Govt. have put in place

You state yourself in this post that "We are talking about different things". To continue to push whatever alternative narrative is floating your boat is a blatant hijacking of the thread.

As advised, if you want to make points about diverging subjects then start your own thread to do so, and include some reliable quotes to support your argument rather than just ignoring any information posted that disagrees with your view of the world.

There's no narrative, the thread is about carbon farming, the Govt. requires farmers to "farm" carbon, to offset their emissions, yet they disallow various aspects which form part of the carbon sequestration equation - this seems to be on topic.

[king1]

You state yourself in this post that "We are talking about different things". To continue to push whatever alternative narrative is floating your boat is a blatant hijacking of the thread.

As advised, if you want to make points about diverging subjects then start your own thread to do so, and include some reliable quotes to support your argument rather than just ignoring any information posted that disagrees with your view of the world.

There's no narrative, the thread is about carbon farming, the Govt. requires farmers to "farm" carbon, to offset their emissions, yet they disallow various aspects which form part of the carbon sequestration equation - this seems to be on topic.

The topic was about the wholesale buy up of farms by investors to convert them to carbon farms.  

As you have been advised, if you want to make points about diverging subjects then start your own thread - don't hijack someone else's thread just so you can have a whinge about government policy... it's not fair to other users trying to follow the topic.

[harm_less]

You state yourself in this post that "We are talking about different things". To continue to push whatever alternative narrative is floating your boat is a blatant hijacking of the thread.

As advised, if you want to make points about diverging subjects then start your own thread to do so, and include some reliable quotes to support your argument rather than just ignoring any information posted that disagrees with your view of the world.

There's no narrative, the thread is about carbon farming, the Govt. requires farmers to "farm" carbon, to offset their emissions, yet they disallow various aspects which form part of the carbon sequestration equation - this seems to be on topic.

I have provide links to disprove your pines only narrative but you choose to ignore this information. If you have reliable information to counter that stated in the links I have provided then post it. To put it bluntly, put up or shut up!

[jilledge]

There's no narrative, the thread is about carbon farming, the Govt. requires farmers to "farm" carbon, to offset their emissions, yet they disallow various aspects which form part of the carbon sequestration equation - this seems to be on topic.

I have provide links to disprove your pines only narrative but you choose to ignore this information. If you have reliable information to counter that stated in the links I have provided then post it. To put it bluntly, put up or shut up!

Let your fingers do the walking, quite a rude little fellow aren't you.

[king1]

I have provide links to disprove your pines only narrative but you choose to ignore this information. If you have reliable information to counter that stated in the links I have provided then post it. To put it bluntly, put up or shut up!

Let your fingers do the walking, quite a rude little fellow aren't you.

if you're going to derail a thread like you have the least you could do is be forthcoming with some evidence to back up your claims...  Generally the way things are done is you need to provide proof that your claims are truthful...

[C_T_Russell]

I agree, it's weird that they don't permit natives to be part of the carbon sequestration equation.

Yup, it makes no sense. Farmers also cant even claim credits for any trees such as shelter belts planted.

I agree, it's weird that they don't permit natives to be part of the carbon sequestration equation.

Probably because they do not hold the same quick buck potential.

Btw, nice to see you, to see you nice... 

This is partially true, if the forest is planted for the timber, but now we are seeing permanent forests with pines. Totally pointless.
I think the other reason is the fact they grow faster and will absorb more carbon in a shorter time so will save the planet "faster"
Thats the perception anyway, but natives are hardwoods, and hold more carbon in the long term.

[harm_less]

I have provide links to disprove your pines only narrative but you choose to ignore this information. If you have reliable information to counter that stated in the links I have provided then post it. To put it bluntly, put up or shut up!

Let your fingers do the walking, quite a rude little fellow aren't you.

If your dismissal of the data you're being provided wasn't so oblique then Googling would be possible. Your 'do your own research' attitude is nothing new in such critique of complex matters and is disrespectful in itself. Your opinion does not constitute reliable info so back up your rantings with whatever content you are basing it on and this thread might progress. Failing that it will be locked.