CarbonPlus Grasslands: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
'''Documentation (v1):''' <https://library.regen.network/v/methodology-library/published-methodologies/methodology-for-ghg-and-co-benefits-in-grazing-systems/version-1.0> | '''Documentation (v1):''' <https://library.regen.network/v/methodology-library/published-methodologies/methodology-for-ghg-and-co-benefits-in-grazing-systems/version-1.0> | ||
= Development = | |||
With [[Impact Ag]] and [[Wilmot Cattle]] (as currently described on the [[Regen Network]] page. | |||
= Scientific Critique = | |||
In 2021, [[Regen Network Development]] sold its first batch of these credits issued by the [[Murdoch family]] ranches in Australia managed by the [[Wilmot Cattle]] company. | |||
For an analysis of these credits + their underlying practices by nine professors, scientists + researchers: | |||
<https://theconversation.com/us-scheme-used-by-australian-farmers-reveals-the-dangers-of-trading-soil-carbon-to-tackle-climate-change-161358> | |||
Some key flaws these scientists identified: | |||
1. They only looked for SOC increase, not the GHG in and out of the whole system (such as methane and nitrous oxide) | |||
2. "The dry weight of soil in a known volume, also known as “bulk density”, is a key factor in calculating soil carbon stocks. Rather than bulk density being measured from field samples, it was calculated using an equation. We examined this method and determined it was far less reliable than field sampling" | |||
3. "Estimates of soil carbon were not adjusted for gravel content. Because gravel contains no carbon, carbon stock may have been overestimated" | |||
4. The remote sensing used by Regen Network involved assessment of vegetation cover via satellite imagery, from which soil carbon levels were estimated. However, vegetation cover obscures soil, and research has found predictions of soil carbon using this method are highly uncertain.<ref>https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/14/1683/htm</ref> | |||
5. "Wilmot increased soil carbon, or 'sequestration', through changes to grazing and pasture management. The resulting rates of carbon storage calculated by Regen Network were extremely high – 7,660 tonnes of carbon over 1,094 hectares. This amounts to 7 tonnes of carbon per hectare from 2018 to 2019.... These results are not consistent with our experience of what is possible through pasture management. For example, the CSIRO has documented soil carbon increases of 0.1 to 0.3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year in Australia from a range of methods to increase pasture production.<ref>https://publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP10121</ref><ref>That makes their estimates a massive outlier, storing 20-70x more soil carbon than has observed in similar case studies</ref> | |||
6. RND's additionality, double counting, and permanence standards are less stringent than even legacy registries with major issues such as [[Verra]] | |||
Revision as of 15:14, 24 March 2023
Credit Class
<https://app.regen.network/credit-classes/carbonplus-grasslands>
Benefits Claimed
Primary: Soil Organic Carbon
Co-Benefits:
- Animal Welfare;
- Ecosystem Health;
- Soil Health;
Methodology
Overview: <https://app.regen.network/methodologies/carbonplus-grasslands>
Documentation (v1): <https://library.regen.network/v/methodology-library/published-methodologies/methodology-for-ghg-and-co-benefits-in-grazing-systems/version-1.0>
Development
With Impact Ag and Wilmot Cattle (as currently described on the Regen Network page.
Scientific Critique
In 2021, Regen Network Development sold its first batch of these credits issued by the Murdoch family ranches in Australia managed by the Wilmot Cattle company.
For an analysis of these credits + their underlying practices by nine professors, scientists + researchers: <https://theconversation.com/us-scheme-used-by-australian-farmers-reveals-the-dangers-of-trading-soil-carbon-to-tackle-climate-change-161358>
Some key flaws these scientists identified:
1. They only looked for SOC increase, not the GHG in and out of the whole system (such as methane and nitrous oxide)
2. "The dry weight of soil in a known volume, also known as “bulk density”, is a key factor in calculating soil carbon stocks. Rather than bulk density being measured from field samples, it was calculated using an equation. We examined this method and determined it was far less reliable than field sampling"
3. "Estimates of soil carbon were not adjusted for gravel content. Because gravel contains no carbon, carbon stock may have been overestimated"
4. The remote sensing used by Regen Network involved assessment of vegetation cover via satellite imagery, from which soil carbon levels were estimated. However, vegetation cover obscures soil, and research has found predictions of soil carbon using this method are highly uncertain.[1]
5. "Wilmot increased soil carbon, or 'sequestration', through changes to grazing and pasture management. The resulting rates of carbon storage calculated by Regen Network were extremely high – 7,660 tonnes of carbon over 1,094 hectares. This amounts to 7 tonnes of carbon per hectare from 2018 to 2019.... These results are not consistent with our experience of what is possible through pasture management. For example, the CSIRO has documented soil carbon increases of 0.1 to 0.3 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year in Australia from a range of methods to increase pasture production.[2][3]
6. RND's additionality, double counting, and permanence standards are less stringent than even legacy registries with major issues such as Verra
- ↑ https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/14/1683/htm
- ↑ https://publications.csiro.au/publications/publication/PIcsiro:EP10121
- ↑ That makes their estimates a massive outlier, storing 20-70x more soil carbon than has observed in similar case studies