It is a huge relief that Copenhagen is over with no binding agreement. At Kyoto our negotiators did NZ a disservice when they signed up to the system of carbon dioxide equivalents with its global warming potentials which were nonsense then and they are nonsense now. I was not hopeful that our negotiators at Copenhagen were any more clued up than the last lot so I was thankful there was nothing of any substance to sign. The whole thing was a circus there is no other word for it.
A couple of points about agriculture and what emerged from Copenhagen. There is of course the Global Alliance which will put money into mitigation research. This research will achieve nothing in terms of reducing any global warming that might be happening because as I repeatedly say agricultural emissions don’t alter the composition of the atmosphere in the same way a fossil fuel emission does and so do not contribute to global warming. But the outcome of the research, if there is any, will be to reduce methane production per unit of production and to reduce nitrous oxide similarly. Enteric methane production represents an energy loss during the digestion process so any reduction in that will give a production response so that should improve profitability. Same with nitrous oxide, it represents a loss of nitrogen from the system so any reduction in that should see a production response and an environmental benefit as well .
So big ‘ups’ for John Key, the only agreement with any substance at the circus in Copenhagen and it was an accord to research ways to reduce emissions that don’t need reducing.
The interesting thing for me has been reading overseas media comments from Copenhagen about agriculture. Over here we have our media talking of bludgers and polluters but internationally it is a different story. The emphasis is on helping agriculture, not to reduce its emissions, but continue to produce unfettered by climate change rules and despite the supposed ravages of climate change. They even talked about giving money to farming to adjust to climate change. Although I think they had the poor African countries in mind here rather than NZ farmers. Forgive my scepticism here but Africa should be growing more food than it is now, climate change has to be the least of their problems, corruption is probably the only problem they need to solve. But anyway, agriculture is not seen as the baddie by the rest of the world, it is only in NZ by people who must think the world will somehow be a better place without agriculture.
The other heartening thing was the Copenhagen Accord, as they call it, agreed to do what the IPCC say needs doing, which is reduce emissions by 80% by 2050. What is good about that for NZ is that this target is for fossil fuel emissions, not agricultural emissions. The target for agriculture is only about a 15% reduction. Nick Smith and John Key might not be aware of this yet and the NZ media certainly aren’t but this gives farming a great opportunity. We can take the high ground and question;
At a time when the world is focused on increasing agricultural production why is John Key going to tax our producers for producing”
When the IPCC is differentiating between fossil fuel emissions and agricultural ones, why is NZ treating them the same?
When the IPCC is talking about a 15 % cut in agricultural emissions by the year 2050, why is NZ setting a reduction target in excess of that for its agricultural emissions?
It is time for farmers to front foot it a bit and get out of defensive mode. The world does not want agriculture in NZ to be treated the way NZ is treating it, and it is time to remind our Government about that and re look at the ETS.
Meanwhile, now Copenhagen is over we can all relax, knowing our hapless negotiators are locked away safely and no more bad deals will be signed for a while, if ever. John Key seems to think Copenhagen was a step towards a binding agreement next year but then he actually thought a binding agreement was possible at Copenhagen so I would not take what he says too seriously. It is a good time of the year to relax and for celebration and so a merry Christmas to you all.
I have severe reservations about the Global Alliance and believe it is a poisoned chalice. It is headed in totally the wrong direction. The suggestion that something needs to be done about our livestock emissions is suggesting there is something wrong with them now. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our animals are as near to clean and green as it is possible to get. To change their emissions is to make them less green. Those pushing the need to reduce livestock emissions are damaging our clean green image. It is remarkable how many urban people know human produced global warming is a myth, but in the next breath say we need to do something about those dirty cows and their methane. The Global Alliance as proposed is only going to reinforce this misunderstanding.
By holding it up as something that looks positive our focus is taken off the reality. True, methane does represent energy loss to the system. But there is no guarantee reducing it will improve efficiency. For example a horse produces only a third as much greenhouse gas as a cow, but its feeding efficiency is way inferior, with completely undigested food passing through its system.
At this stage the most likely lines of research are vaccines and genetically modifying the gut bacteria. I believe there is a real risk small gains may be found in digestive efficiency that only equate to the cost of implementing the technology. However farmers will now be deemed to have the means to reduce emissions so will no longer be able to argue against being in the ETS. Farmers will be forced to adopt the technology to avoid the carbon costs, which we know are irrelevant anyway. The carbon costs will make it uneconomic to opt out of the technology in order to supply a market that wants unmodified, more natural products. I am sure some of our top end consumers will not want these modified products any more than something with a high carbon footprint.
We need to look at what is really behind the move to tax our livestock. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, has said ‘less meat, less heat’. He said nothing about the methane production of the rice paddies in his homeland of India, nor of the millions of sacred cows there. People in Europe are being encouraged to have meatless days to reduce their carbon footprint. Nicholas Stern goes one step further by calling for us to become vegetarian. Then we get the people quoted in your previous article who want to tax the carbon dioxide as well. The whole concept is about global control of the food supply and through that, control of the people. The people pushing this Alliance are not interested in the truth.
If our government wants to take any initiative it should demonstrate that livestock farming does not contribute to global warming. Secondly, they should show more CO2 in the atmosphere enhances agricultural production. CO2 is not a hazard to health, as the US Environmental Protection Agency has just ruled, and does not need to be reduced as some organisations desire.
The New Zealand Government will be hosting a meeting about agricultural emissions in Wellington in March that will be attended by about 20 countries. Already the Green movement, smarting after their failure at Copenhagen, are holding workshops and training camps to prepare for action. What are farmers prepared to do to stop this brainwashed minority dictating the future of our industry and the ultimate destruction of our country?
well said Neil. Five thousand farmers protesting at the meeting in March might be a start. We could protest the lack of sound information about agricultural emissions. I have asked John Key and Nick Smith to spend some money researching exactly what you are saying to find out what effect, if any, these emissions have on the atmosphere, Nick Smith refused. It sems they do not want to know the truth.