AgTalk Home
AgTalk Home
Search Forums | Classifieds (55) | Skins | Language
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )

Carbon Programs
View previous thread :: View next thread
   Forums List -> Crop TalkMessage format
 
MidNight Mapper
Posted 4/8/2024 15:14 (#10699377 - in reply to #10696641)
Subject: Carbon - Confusion - Programs


Colorado and Oz

Well some is sort of right but much is simply wrong in this thread.  Primarily, if you don't care for ecoservice payments you do not need to play - totally voluntary.  

There are two approaches: premiums for low carbon intensity score (CIS) corn primarily via ethanol plants.  235 million bushels is the current, fully optional sign up, to "possibly" access the 45Z provisions of the IRA for ethanol feed stocks to be processed starting Jan 1, 2025 via https://continuum.ag/billion-bushel-challenge/ . 

Simply, if you are no tilling, using covers, and possibly manures AND you sell to ethanol plants you likely have $100/acre advantage via the ethanol plant.  These benefits are for carbon AVOIDANCE benefits and are conceptually valuable to companies seeking Scope 3 accounting for their CI scores. (Think low CIS fuels, eggs, pork, etc as well).  If your Carbon Intensity Score is negative, then your farming system is likely also sequestrating soil carbon and improving soil health and productivity indices for your fields.

Most of the no till acreages with more than 5 years of that practice can not participate in soil carbon crediting for no tilling due to the additionality test by Verra and CAR private registries. As for the per acre payments offered by a number of BIG agribusinesses, likely take the money but any carbon you may generate will be entitled to the agribusiness for their insettings.

Sequestrated soil carbon crediting is selling at $20 to $30 per metric ton.  For healthy climate smart farming systems figure a SOC increase of 0.3 to maybe 1.0 metric tons per year - figure the 0.3mt/ac/yr rate.  The additionality test by Verra and CAR protocols is primarily driven by EU and IPCC guides which IMHO have little or no relevance for the US.  I believe the Australian process of "measurement" at baseline year and then again every three to five years pays on actual sequestration performance not on farming methods.  If you got additional carbon over the baseline, well you got it.   

Summary: CIS for biofuels pays for climate smart annual farming annually.  The benefits are known a AVOIDANCE credits hand have value down stream in the commodities like ethanol, eggs, pork, etc.  CIS, if the negative, then likely the system is also sequestrating carbon, aka REMOVAL carbon credits.  

Learn more via a white paper her: https://www.ryzo.earth/resources/farm-accounting-usa

 



Edited by MidNight Mapper 4/8/2024 15:29




(SomeGetIt_OthersDoNot (full).jpg)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments SomeGetIt_OthersDoNot (full).jpg (101KB - 25 downloads)
Top of the page Bottom of the page


Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete cookies)