Comments for Pastural Farming Climate Research

Comment on Another ridiculous decision by ridiculous people by Colin McIntyre

Colin McIntyre — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:13:44 +0000

Robin, as usual your logic is sound and refreshing. There are so many people to “stick it to” that I look forward to an interesting and probably depressing new year.
Many thanks for your efforts and all the best for Christmas and the future.

Comment on Kyoto extension by Robin Grieve

Robin Grieve — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:59:44 +0000

Sounds like we still have a chance to get NZ out of Kyoto and to get something done about biological emissions. The Govt is bending over backwards for the forestry people and doing nothing but shaft agriculture. I think that may have something to do with forestry lobby groups doing a good job and dairy and beef industry organisations like Dairy NZ and B & L and even Fonterra doing a pretty poor job on behaif of their farmers. they have cosied up to the Govt on this one.

Comment on Kyoto extension by Neil Henderson

Neil Henderson — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:56:52 +0000

New Zealand has not yet signed up to the Kyoto extension. A joint press release from Smith and Groser says: ” We will need to make a decision in coming months whether to join Europe in inscribing our next set of international commitments within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol or to join all the developing countries, the United States, Canada, Japan, Russia and others, in making those commitments under the alternative transitional arrangements described in different texts. It is not a matter of whether we make commitments – New Zealand will – but where they are made and how ambitious we should be.”

The release also said the Durban agreement improves the rules in the treatment of land use and forestry. Presumably this means that offsetting is now going to be allowed. I know this was an area NZ was pushing.
If so it is potentially bad news for hill country sheep and beef farming. It will allow dairy conversions to recommence on the Volcanic Plateau. I have no problem with this. Now that stock health problems have been solved for this land it is ridiculous that it is locked up growing low value pines and not high value food. But it is just as criminal to stop hill country sheep and beef farms from producing quality food and instead grow pine trees that very possibly may never be harvested.

Comment on Tim Groser, mischief in Durban by Craig Colton

Craig Colton — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:19:17 +0000

Catherine, The issue here is that “Pasture fed ruminents” (as they are in NZ) are “not” co2 emitters. People must stop pretending that ever growing, ever co2 sequestering pasture does not exist. Pasture does exist and pasture must be included in NZs proposed ETS calculations as there is no justification as to why it shouldn’t be . Once included NZs pasture fed livestock become co2 recyclers not co2 emitters. The current proposal to exclude a farmers pastures from ETS caculations makes our ETS nothing but an outright fraud.

Comment on Kyoto extension by Barry

Barry — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:43:05 +0000

Australia won’t accept obligations under a Kyoto second commitment period unless and until an all-country agreement is negotiated (2015 at the earliest).

“As part of the wash-up from Durban, Australia will not take on a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol until the new agreement has been finalised.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/durban-to-deliver-on-climate-pact/story-fn59niix-1226219439652.

One presumes that New Zealand will take a similar position – so that all financial liabilities expire at the end of next year. At the very least, we should be able to avoid liabilities if we cant negotiate forestry off-setting and a new GWP for methane.

Comment on Tim Groser, mischief in Durban by Catherine

Catherine — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:09:54 +0000

Firstly when compared to other nations NZ has a low population count. Humans are “carbon emitters” too. Therefore NZ should be able to offset the emissions from our low population base against the emissions of our high farmed animal count.Centuries ago there were more animals roaming the world and less humans. Today that balance is reversed and yet in NZ farmed animals come with a penalty and large populations do not. If “carbon emission” is truly the point here, the density of population in a nation is not only an issue, it is the REAL issue.
Secondly, having established that animals are also emitters, then animals whether farmed or wild should be included. Again NZ has low levels of free roaming animal carbon emitters when compared to other nations. eg, kangaroo numbers are growing in Australia.
The further down this tortuous road we travel, the more complex, bureacratic and ridiculous it will become, and the more the average citizen will just shake their head and learn to live with these carbon emission (un)facts. But then I guess that is probably what the AGW pushers ultimately hope to achieve.

Comment on Tim Groser, mischief in Durban by Neil Henderson

Neil Henderson — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:00:36 +0000

You can hear another report from Tim Groser in Durban on National Radio’s Morning Report at http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2504347/questions-over-whether-climate-change-talks-will-be-resolved.asx
He waxes quite eloquent over Austraila now having a carbon scheme (sorry, scam). With them in and now possibly the US, going by the above piece, our trading partners are falling like flies to the bait. National has repeatedly said that they won’t move on livestock emissions until our trdaing partners make a move. Thye will soon have no wriggle room left. I can see the Greens having a fielday when the new parliament first sits, and all the more so when the ETS amending legislation comes up. The government has foolishly painted itself into a corner.
NOTE: The government has never, to my knowledge, made bringing livestock in specifically conditional on our trading partners bringing livstock in to their schemes. By a careful choice of words, many are led to that assumption. But Nick Smith has specifically said to me that no country can afford to leave its major emitter out of its scheme.

With a major COP meeting in Brazil next year, back where it all started with the Rio Earth Summit, I believe the pressure is really going to come to bring an agreement to conclusion. What failed in Copenhagen could well come to pass. Cancun and Durban were merely low key sessions of regrouping and consolidating after the Copenhagen fiasco ready for an all out surprise assault in 2012. There is too big an industry out there to simply let this die.

Comment on Tim Groser, mischief in Durban by Barry

Barry — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:27:34 +0000

I suspect the negotiation of a 2015 target is mainly directed to ensuring the 4,700 bureaucrats and 5,100 registered NGO lobbyists at Durban will continue to be employed and jet off to sundry resort destinations for at least 4 more years.

The threat is that the EU might say this is good enough to roll over Kyoto, or part of it. I doubt this would involve any binding second commitment period but it could keep alive CDMs and the like.

I’m encouraged by the emphasis the BASIC countries are putting on the 2013-14 IPCC Report. Do they intend to make any issue of some of the crap science (especially if the world keeps cooling for another 3 years)?

It has suited them to go along with Western paranoia up ’til now, because it’s been all gain for developing countries. But now that further progress is sure to bite BASIC countries, perhaps they’ll start noticing the emperor has no clothes.

Comment on Biological emissions too logical for Russell Norman by Colin McIntyre

Colin McIntyre — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 23:09:27 +0000

Well said Craig Colton ( 7th December 2011 @ 8.54 am)

Comment on Biological emissions too logical for Russell Norman by Craig Colton

Craig Colton — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 20:54:45 +0000

Robin and Neil, I would like to thank you both for the great work you are doing in exposing the rort behind the taxing of pasture fed livestock via the fraudulent ETS. Through your efforts you are awakening a seemingly lethagic farming industry into asking the critical question of why their pastures are to be excluded from NZs proposed fraudulent ETS calculations. Keep up the good work, the unjustifiable cannot be justified while people like yourselves refuse to let it be. Your campaign appears to be gaining great momentum, all the best.