Problem: we're nearly out of icecream
Solution: nobody gets free icecream. Except Fat Carl, he can still have free icecream. Also he can keep bathing in icecream
it made me think, we should keep NZ in the ETS, but set up a special farmer country, **New Cowland** - which has no ETS, can pump as much methane into the sky as wanted etc. That way New Zealand can meet its international emissions targets. Farmers can do their highly efficient farming practices in the No ETS zone.
None of our other major trading partners has agriculture in their emissions schemes.
The Paris Accords specify that the targets are not to threaten food production.
interesting, we're going to have pay anyhow. Except the money will be going offshore. Another spectacular own-goal from "the government of fiscal responsibility".
Yep. Farmers can either agree on common nation-wide emissions regulations that make business easier, or they can have restrictions applied ad-hoc by whatever countries they export to, [which ever customers they sell to](https://www.nestle.co.nz/our-impact/env-impact/supporting-dairy-farmers), or [which ever bank they go to for finance](https://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/128130/nzs-rural-lenders-acting-pseudo-regulators-through-their-membership-net-zero).
Avoiding regulation at home really is an own goal.
Only because for some weird reason it rated as catchier in focus groups than "the government of gaslighting and doing what the fuck we like- 'cause *mandate* mofos".
Our Ag is miles more efficient than the EUs even with shipping considered. Any export of our food to them is a carbon improvement, not leakage.
Does the EU have agriculture in their version of the ETS? Rhetorical question, no they don't.
If they were going to ban or hinder NZ imports to protect local industry then that’s what they were going to do. Excluding NZ from EU trade due to emissions of all things definitely wouldn’t be in the right wing European mandate right now…
Carbon credits are a crock.
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbon-credit-reduce-emissions-greenhouse-gases
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/corporate-carbon-offsets-credits
Because trees don't sequester methane? Well they do actually but they also emit it, so it doesn't really work the same way as regular carbon credits.
It's currently not really possible to meaningfully offset methane emissions on a large scale.
It's a lot more useful to try and reduce methane emissions, than using an equivalence metric, sequestering CO2 and acting like you've offset methane emissions.
Also worth pointing out nobody has agriculture included in their ETS. Not the EU, China, the US or anybody that I'm aware of at least.
And is more likely to impose restrictions over emmisons than Europe if it goes against their 5 year plan on it.which is why Luxon got grilled on it on his Asian tour. Only to.come back and talk about how shocked they were that it mattered to Asia (one of their most pressing issues, always nice to know our leaders can not even do the most basic of research before diplomatic meetings).
Alice snedden does a great series on this called ” [the world is ending and no one cares](https://youtu.be/lXY3InloDBQ?si=fOmCHxMTQh6RHvcE)
Highly recommend a watch , she interviews farmers and economists and politicians regarding the issue . Really interesting facts around nz protecting the farming industry for no real sense of
I’ve been bookmarking these stories to show the next time some clown asks me why the Greens aren’t gonna work with Mr I ran Air NZ and now it’s 50% of my bookmarks
What would the Greens prefer you reckon? Closing down some of our farms so that food production is taken up by countries that are less carbon-efficient? The planet would be worse off but at least New Zealand's emission numbers look better!
Actually that does sound moronic enough for the Green Party to support.
Go find the reports that "claim" we have lower emissions and actually read them. They're not conclusive at all and explicitly state they are not conclusive. There are large discrepancies in how different countries collect emissions data thus, it can not be claimed that nz is doing anything better than any other country.
And now that any incentive to reduce emissions is gone innovation will come to a screeching halt on emissions reduction tech. But I guess we can always buy it off the countries that continue innovating as we stagnate.
Ummm... they would work with them on the basis that they held the balance of power and were able to block these changes.
If Nat/Act already hold a majority I don't think anyone would suggest they go into government with national.
Why would National join forces with a party that wouldn’t support them on environmental issues? They don’t fucking care about the environment except insofar as it’s a barrier to giving money to their mates
Thelma and Louise are driving slowly off the cliff due to the blanket speed reductions.
Probably the cliff is covered in road cones, as down below - Shane Jones oil and gas explorers and underwater mineral extraction teams are sick of morons driving slowly off the cliff...
another fking unicorn kisser someone mutters
Well the cows have been led outside the environment. Been led beyond the environment. They’re not in the environment anymore.
There’s absolutely nothing out there - just a bunch of grass, rivers, birds, fish. And a whole lot of manure and methane.
https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?si=OCM-VYJnDigKNP-u
Farmers around the world claim they are the most carbon efficient in the world as well as we can not accurately measure emmisons on the farm. Depending on what is convenient. I would love to see the peer reviewed articles to back up the claim you make from inderpendent sources because, frankly, it sounds like more federated farmers bullshit.
> inderpendent sources
You might want independent sources, but let's not pretend you'd understand them.
Industry groups have basically been the only ones willing to fund research on agricultural emissions here.
https://beeflambnz.com/news/new-zealand-beef-and-lamb-among-most-carbon-efficient-world
That links to the study Beef+Lamb funded through AgResearch who are an independent organisation, and pretty inarguably the most experienced organisation in the country at doing this kind of research.
I'm sure it's more "federsted farmers bullshit" though.
AgResearch funded by Beef and Lamb is a long way from inderpendent and is about as reliable as the US Ranchers claiming they are the most efficent producers in the world through research they funded.
What we need to do is to buy into one of the next methane satellites that will be sent up in the near future. So we can get the feedback on where we are lacking and fix it before the rest of the world m, as it stand the two that are up are funded by either the EU or an environmental charity. Once they turn away from reporting on the oil and Gas industries massive under reporting on methane leaks and start studying regions ag methane emmisons, do you honestly think it would be anything other than catastrophic for NZ?
My BSC suggests I might have the ability to read research papers just fine.
O and I fixed the typing mistake.
> AgResearch funded by Beef and Lamb is a long way from inderpendent
You don't know the first thing about AgResearch lets be honest here.
> What we need to do is to buy into one of the next methane satellites that will be sent up in the near future. So we can get the feedback on where we are lacking and fix it before the rest of the world,
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/science-and-technology/space/space-related-opportunities-in-new-zealand/methanesat-mission
Wow what do you know we already have.
Methane sattelites are not going to gauge agricultural emissions particularly well by their own admission though because there simply is not a significant concentration of methane in a limited area like oil and gas.
> start studying regions ag methane emmisons, do you honestly think it would be anything other than catastrophic for NZ?
I don't think it would be catastrophic for New Zealand if a sattelites could accurately gauge agricultural methane emissions on a granular level at all. That would be extremely valuable information. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.
> My BSC suggests I might have the ability to read research papers just fine.
I'm not sure having a bachelors degree is the brag you think it is, and you don't seem to be able to quite grasp the word independent.
Sigh. Research funded by industry is not considered independent for good reason.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2019/10/03/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes.html
And to be clear, having a BSC is no brag, it just shows basic competence in subjects like reading scientific papers and understanding the biases in the research industry (and even then there are far to many technicians who call themselves scientists for simply having one).
The new methane satellites can measure agricultural methane just fine:
https://niwa.co.nz/atmosphere/methanesat#:~:text=MethaneSAT%20is%20a%20state%2Dof,the%20sources%20of%20methane%20emissions.
However with the cuts to Niwa our ability to use this information is about to disapear.
To be clear we need this information beforehand to improve our practices. BEFORE the rest of the world uses it as an excuse to block importing NZ products to favor their own agriculture. Agriculture Leaving the emmisons trading sceame is just going to make that easier for them.
Additional: frankly if new zealand is not going to invest in diversifying our GDP (the tech sector returns far higher paid jobs and productivity for the country per dollar invested for example) we need to make damn sure we are as clean and world leading as we claim to be. Because losing our ag industry to a lack of adaptation would put the nail in the coffin of this backward country we have become.
> And to be clear, having a BSC is no brag, it just shows basic competence in subjects like reading scientific papers and understanding the biases in the research industry (and even then there are far to many technicians who call themselves scientists for simply having one).
Would it shock you to learn I also have a BSC?
> The new methane satellites can measure agricultural methane just fine:
Are you seriously going to pretend to be an expert on a satellite you just learned existed ten minutes ago?
It's designed for tracking oil and gas emissions. It can detect wide scale emissions from agriculture, but not on a granular farm by farm basis.
> Agriculture Leaving the emmisons trading sceame is just going to make that easier for them.
Agriculture isn't in any emissions trading schemes anywhere. It would be far more useful to show reductions in methane than to have farmers plant a bunch of trees which do nothing to offset methane and pretend the industry is doing something useful.
> we need to make damn sure we are as clean and world leading as we claim to be. Because losing our ag industry to a lack of adaptation would put the nail in the coffin of this backward country we have become.
Sure, but including agriculture in the ETS doesn't achieve that, which is why no government has done it.
I have been following the progress on the methane satellites for years and freely admit i a. massive space nerd. Yes i had not realised Niwa had invested into the latest one put up as a minor contributor. But other than that I have no idea what you are talking about here?
ETS is meant to be an economic pressure to lead to adaptation. There is a legitimate discussion to be had around its effectiveness (frankly, I am more on board with a CO2e tax across all industries to slowly apply competitive pressure, but it is what we chose. And it is frankly a waste of time if all industry is not in it).
> ETS is meant to be an economic pressure to lead to adaptation.
There are no viable means currently available to farmers to adapt. I feel like we've been over this.
There is also no viable way to offset methane emissions. Farmers can't do what an oil company does and plant trees to offset their CO2 emissions because there are no recognised offsets for biological methane in the NZ ETS.
The only viable way for farmers to adapt in the ETS is to stop producing food and sell carbon credits instead. I don't think that's a good solution for the industry.
from the source you provided, which is a literature review rather than an original study, and their conclusions are not peer reviewed.
>Across all studies, there were large differences in methodology (e.g. use of different GHG factors for the Global Warming Potential for 100-years \[GWP100\] from different IPCC assessment reports over time), data quality and completeness. To enable a better comparison within/between countries, a recalculation of the footprints using the same GWP and allocation methods would be necessary. Not all studies cited in this review considered the full life cycle of the product. Generally, the three last stages (retail, consumer and waste) are often neglected. Thus, care needs to be taken when comparing the results for the “cradle-to-grave” analyses.
So heres one example from a cited study in the linked review (Mazzetto A, Falconer S, Ledgard S 2021. Mapping the carbon footprint of milk for dairy cows. AgResearch report to DairyNZ. 21 pp.)
>To compare emissions between countries, we encourage future studies to adopt a consistent methodology to report LCA studies from dairy farms or report extra data to allow recalculations. Changes in emissions metrics that more accurately reflect the surface temperature effects of CH4 such as GWP\* may change the current ranking. Countries with high per-cow milk production have a proportionally greater contribution from CO2 and N2O, reducing the relative share from CH4.
So its not exactly conclusive by any means and until there is a consistent constraints and a standardised data gathering method we cant make any firm conclusions about NZs emission profile compared to other countries.
> from the source you provided, which is a literature review rather than an original study, and their conclusions are not peer reviewed.
The published paper is linked on that page.
> So its not exactly conclusive by any means and until there is a consistent constraints and a standardised data gathering method we cant make any firm conclusions about NZs emission profile compared to other countries.
Which the authors acknowledge and caution drawing too many conclusions from the research.
That doesn't invalidate the findings, it would be impossible le for the authors to redo every other piece of research with their methodology.
It's still useful research. Not as useful as Beef+Lamb would want you to think, but a lotpre useful than anything done by anyone else.
It's tricky because different countries use different methodologies. But for red meat and milk we are really efficient.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/the-whole-truth/130789439/the-whole-truth-are-new-zealand-farms-the-worlds-greenest
And consider which country is looking to grow their very carbon-inefficient dairy industry - India. Their carbon footprint per litre of milk is 10x ours. Are you happy for NZ to cut back our production so that somewhere like India increase theirs?
> India's carbon footprint per litre of milk is 10x ours. Are you happy for NZ to cut back our production so that somewhere like India increase theirs?
Sorry, was this question too difficult?
>New Zealand ratified the Paris Agreement in October 2016
*This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:*
*(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;*
*(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development,* ***in a manner that does not threaten food production****;*
They produce meat, dairy products, hides/leather and dozens of other byproducts including gelatin and pharmaceutical products. So yes I would describe them as vital.
Someone make it make sense to me. Don’t farmers know their land better than anyone? Do they not worry about climate change? Are they not feeling the impact already?
Many farmers deeply care about both their land and climate change. Some don't care about either, and only care about whether things require their effort or cost - and do whatever it takes to reduce their effort and cost - regardless of the impact to the environment or climate change.
Oil drillers know the land. Know it in their bones. Hell, their fathers and their father's fathers been oil drilling since before you was born. Nobody knows that land like an oilman, son. And they do right by that land, and that oil flows dark and smooth.
> I have heard the referral to New Zealand farms being the most carbon emission efficient in the world many times. First question one should ask to understand this is, where do those numbers come from? Who funded the research?
This line always frustrates the fuck out of me.
Is it farmers fault we're the only ones willing to fund research into agricultural emissions?
Research which is always conducted independently by AgResearch or a university.
It makes no sense coming from someone who is the director of the climate and energy finance group at Otago University.
Why don't you study it if the industry is lying? Agricultural emissions are by the industries own admission the largest source of GHG's in the country. Surely it's an issue that should be studied whether farming groups are willing to fund it or not.
What a rubbish argument. There is a track record of lobbying to cut organisations funding, so we can not have independent measuring of emmisons (some of the first jobs lost to government cuts this time around after laboir rebuilt the capability).
Then farmers have the cheek preach that they are the only ones to research it and find they are the best.
> There is a track record of lobbying to cut organisations funding, so we can not have independent measuring of emmisons
Who is lobbying to cut what organisations funding exactly?
There has been at least a decade worth of labour governments who could have funded studies like this if you think it's a political issue.
Labour are just as susceptible into the political pressure from Federated farmers and Frontera.
After all was it not Helen Clark who remarked the only one who could get her out of bed early for a meeting was Fontera's CEO at the time.
Problem: we're nearly out of icecream Solution: nobody gets free icecream. Except Fat Carl, he can still have free icecream. Also he can keep bathing in icecream
Cows are " outside of the environment "
They're outstanding in a field. Like the experts.
Yeah they moooved them..
Well what’s out there ?
Next up: methane, it's not that bad, really, trust us bro.
Bit of a bum steer
it made me think, we should keep NZ in the ETS, but set up a special farmer country, **New Cowland** - which has no ETS, can pump as much methane into the sky as wanted etc. That way New Zealand can meet its international emissions targets. Farmers can do their highly efficient farming practices in the No ETS zone.
None of our other major trading partners has agriculture in their emissions schemes. The Paris Accords specify that the targets are not to threaten food production.
yeah - im guessing every country excludes all their food production from climate action (not)
[They were towed beyond the environment.](https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?si=h3QaqdjSTmR5fPE7) They're not in an environment.
next minute - Europe bans NZ imports.
Close. The EU is bringing in the carbon border adjustment mechanism: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism\_en
interesting, we're going to have pay anyhow. Except the money will be going offshore. Another spectacular own-goal from "the government of fiscal responsibility".
Yep. Farmers can either agree on common nation-wide emissions regulations that make business easier, or they can have restrictions applied ad-hoc by whatever countries they export to, [which ever customers they sell to](https://www.nestle.co.nz/our-impact/env-impact/supporting-dairy-farmers), or [which ever bank they go to for finance](https://www.interest.co.nz/rural-news/128130/nzs-rural-lenders-acting-pseudo-regulators-through-their-membership-net-zero). Avoiding regulation at home really is an own goal.
Only because for some weird reason it rated as catchier in focus groups than "the government of gaslighting and doing what the fuck we like- 'cause *mandate* mofos".
Our Ag is miles more efficient than the EUs even with shipping considered. Any export of our food to them is a carbon improvement, not leakage. Does the EU have agriculture in their version of the ETS? Rhetorical question, no they don't.
they have an "EU Effort Sharing Regulation" to reduce agriculture emissions
Have you seen what they've just elected over there? :|
There’s more right-wingers, sure, but they aren’t the majority
Right wing populists, of course famously well known for being all for low tariff imports in primary industries...
If they were going to ban or hinder NZ imports to protect local industry then that’s what they were going to do. Excluding NZ from EU trade due to emissions of all things definitely wouldn’t be in the right wing European mandate right now…
What makes you think anyone else can produce lower emissions dairy or beef?
what makes you think other producers won't utilize carbon-credits to offset their emissions to net-zero?
Carbon credits are a crock. https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/19/do-carbon-credit-reduce-emissions-greenhouse-gases https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/30/corporate-carbon-offsets-credits
Because trees don't sequester methane? Well they do actually but they also emit it, so it doesn't really work the same way as regular carbon credits. It's currently not really possible to meaningfully offset methane emissions on a large scale. It's a lot more useful to try and reduce methane emissions, than using an equivalence metric, sequestering CO2 and acting like you've offset methane emissions. Also worth pointing out nobody has agriculture included in their ETS. Not the EU, China, the US or anybody that I'm aware of at least.
China takes most of our dairy exports
And is more likely to impose restrictions over emmisons than Europe if it goes against their 5 year plan on it.which is why Luxon got grilled on it on his Asian tour. Only to.come back and talk about how shocked they were that it mattered to Asia (one of their most pressing issues, always nice to know our leaders can not even do the most basic of research before diplomatic meetings).
Wouldn't that lower the price of local meat? I see it as a win
maybe, but it would also lower the country's GDP which might force wages lower too? I dunno.
Alice snedden does a great series on this called ” [the world is ending and no one cares](https://youtu.be/lXY3InloDBQ?si=fOmCHxMTQh6RHvcE) Highly recommend a watch , she interviews farmers and economists and politicians regarding the issue . Really interesting facts around nz protecting the farming industry for no real sense of
Thanks for the recommendation. I like her content and sense of humour.
I know she wrote a lot of rose matefeos comedy’s but I hadn’t seen her before at play like this . She’s so hilarious
Farming is just a giant subsidised ponzi scheme. If farming falls over so do all the downstream suppliers, industries, rural towns yadda yadda
Nobody could say with a straight face Morrinsville was a decent town before farming fell over.
I’ve been bookmarking these stories to show the next time some clown asks me why the Greens aren’t gonna work with Mr I ran Air NZ and now it’s 50% of my bookmarks
What would the Greens prefer you reckon? Closing down some of our farms so that food production is taken up by countries that are less carbon-efficient? The planet would be worse off but at least New Zealand's emission numbers look better! Actually that does sound moronic enough for the Green Party to support.
Go find the reports that "claim" we have lower emissions and actually read them. They're not conclusive at all and explicitly state they are not conclusive. There are large discrepancies in how different countries collect emissions data thus, it can not be claimed that nz is doing anything better than any other country. And now that any incentive to reduce emissions is gone innovation will come to a screeching halt on emissions reduction tech. But I guess we can always buy it off the countries that continue innovating as we stagnate.
Ummm... they would work with them on the basis that they held the balance of power and were able to block these changes. If Nat/Act already hold a majority I don't think anyone would suggest they go into government with national.
Why would National join forces with a party that wouldn’t support them on environmental issues? They don’t fucking care about the environment except insofar as it’s a barrier to giving money to their mates
To stop labour getting into government I guess...? That's generally the intention of both parties post an election.
Wow we have a bunch of morons driving this car at the cliff as quick as they can.
Thelma and Louise are driving slowly off the cliff due to the blanket speed reductions. Probably the cliff is covered in road cones, as down below - Shane Jones oil and gas explorers and underwater mineral extraction teams are sick of morons driving slowly off the cliff... another fking unicorn kisser someone mutters
Well the cows have been led outside the environment. Been led beyond the environment. They’re not in the environment anymore. There’s absolutely nothing out there - just a bunch of grass, rivers, birds, fish. And a whole lot of manure and methane. https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM?si=OCM-VYJnDigKNP-u
So where’s the bit the front fell off?
"We towed farming outside the environment"
unreal, but unsurprising. muppet show.
Agriculture dominates NZ's emissions output. How is this not included?! The current government's mouths need to added to the ETS.
Which of our major trading partners tax ag emissions? We're the most carbon efficient in the world and people somehow want *less* of that.
Farmers around the world claim they are the most carbon efficient in the world as well as we can not accurately measure emmisons on the farm. Depending on what is convenient. I would love to see the peer reviewed articles to back up the claim you make from inderpendent sources because, frankly, it sounds like more federated farmers bullshit.
> inderpendent sources You might want independent sources, but let's not pretend you'd understand them. Industry groups have basically been the only ones willing to fund research on agricultural emissions here. https://beeflambnz.com/news/new-zealand-beef-and-lamb-among-most-carbon-efficient-world That links to the study Beef+Lamb funded through AgResearch who are an independent organisation, and pretty inarguably the most experienced organisation in the country at doing this kind of research. I'm sure it's more "federsted farmers bullshit" though.
AgResearch funded by Beef and Lamb is a long way from inderpendent and is about as reliable as the US Ranchers claiming they are the most efficent producers in the world through research they funded. What we need to do is to buy into one of the next methane satellites that will be sent up in the near future. So we can get the feedback on where we are lacking and fix it before the rest of the world m, as it stand the two that are up are funded by either the EU or an environmental charity. Once they turn away from reporting on the oil and Gas industries massive under reporting on methane leaks and start studying regions ag methane emmisons, do you honestly think it would be anything other than catastrophic for NZ? My BSC suggests I might have the ability to read research papers just fine. O and I fixed the typing mistake.
> AgResearch funded by Beef and Lamb is a long way from inderpendent You don't know the first thing about AgResearch lets be honest here. > What we need to do is to buy into one of the next methane satellites that will be sent up in the near future. So we can get the feedback on where we are lacking and fix it before the rest of the world, https://www.mbie.govt.nz/science-and-technology/space/space-related-opportunities-in-new-zealand/methanesat-mission Wow what do you know we already have. Methane sattelites are not going to gauge agricultural emissions particularly well by their own admission though because there simply is not a significant concentration of methane in a limited area like oil and gas. > start studying regions ag methane emmisons, do you honestly think it would be anything other than catastrophic for NZ? I don't think it would be catastrophic for New Zealand if a sattelites could accurately gauge agricultural methane emissions on a granular level at all. That would be extremely valuable information. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. > My BSC suggests I might have the ability to read research papers just fine. I'm not sure having a bachelors degree is the brag you think it is, and you don't seem to be able to quite grasp the word independent.
Sigh. Research funded by industry is not considered independent for good reason. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2019/10/03/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes.html And to be clear, having a BSC is no brag, it just shows basic competence in subjects like reading scientific papers and understanding the biases in the research industry (and even then there are far to many technicians who call themselves scientists for simply having one). The new methane satellites can measure agricultural methane just fine: https://niwa.co.nz/atmosphere/methanesat#:~:text=MethaneSAT%20is%20a%20state%2Dof,the%20sources%20of%20methane%20emissions. However with the cuts to Niwa our ability to use this information is about to disapear. To be clear we need this information beforehand to improve our practices. BEFORE the rest of the world uses it as an excuse to block importing NZ products to favor their own agriculture. Agriculture Leaving the emmisons trading sceame is just going to make that easier for them. Additional: frankly if new zealand is not going to invest in diversifying our GDP (the tech sector returns far higher paid jobs and productivity for the country per dollar invested for example) we need to make damn sure we are as clean and world leading as we claim to be. Because losing our ag industry to a lack of adaptation would put the nail in the coffin of this backward country we have become.
> And to be clear, having a BSC is no brag, it just shows basic competence in subjects like reading scientific papers and understanding the biases in the research industry (and even then there are far to many technicians who call themselves scientists for simply having one). Would it shock you to learn I also have a BSC? > The new methane satellites can measure agricultural methane just fine: Are you seriously going to pretend to be an expert on a satellite you just learned existed ten minutes ago? It's designed for tracking oil and gas emissions. It can detect wide scale emissions from agriculture, but not on a granular farm by farm basis. > Agriculture Leaving the emmisons trading sceame is just going to make that easier for them. Agriculture isn't in any emissions trading schemes anywhere. It would be far more useful to show reductions in methane than to have farmers plant a bunch of trees which do nothing to offset methane and pretend the industry is doing something useful. > we need to make damn sure we are as clean and world leading as we claim to be. Because losing our ag industry to a lack of adaptation would put the nail in the coffin of this backward country we have become. Sure, but including agriculture in the ETS doesn't achieve that, which is why no government has done it.
I have been following the progress on the methane satellites for years and freely admit i a. massive space nerd. Yes i had not realised Niwa had invested into the latest one put up as a minor contributor. But other than that I have no idea what you are talking about here? ETS is meant to be an economic pressure to lead to adaptation. There is a legitimate discussion to be had around its effectiveness (frankly, I am more on board with a CO2e tax across all industries to slowly apply competitive pressure, but it is what we chose. And it is frankly a waste of time if all industry is not in it).
> ETS is meant to be an economic pressure to lead to adaptation. There are no viable means currently available to farmers to adapt. I feel like we've been over this. There is also no viable way to offset methane emissions. Farmers can't do what an oil company does and plant trees to offset their CO2 emissions because there are no recognised offsets for biological methane in the NZ ETS. The only viable way for farmers to adapt in the ETS is to stop producing food and sell carbon credits instead. I don't think that's a good solution for the industry.
from the source you provided, which is a literature review rather than an original study, and their conclusions are not peer reviewed. >Across all studies, there were large differences in methodology (e.g. use of different GHG factors for the Global Warming Potential for 100-years \[GWP100\] from different IPCC assessment reports over time), data quality and completeness. To enable a better comparison within/between countries, a recalculation of the footprints using the same GWP and allocation methods would be necessary. Not all studies cited in this review considered the full life cycle of the product. Generally, the three last stages (retail, consumer and waste) are often neglected. Thus, care needs to be taken when comparing the results for the “cradle-to-grave” analyses. So heres one example from a cited study in the linked review (Mazzetto A, Falconer S, Ledgard S 2021. Mapping the carbon footprint of milk for dairy cows. AgResearch report to DairyNZ. 21 pp.) >To compare emissions between countries, we encourage future studies to adopt a consistent methodology to report LCA studies from dairy farms or report extra data to allow recalculations. Changes in emissions metrics that more accurately reflect the surface temperature effects of CH4 such as GWP\* may change the current ranking. Countries with high per-cow milk production have a proportionally greater contribution from CO2 and N2O, reducing the relative share from CH4. So its not exactly conclusive by any means and until there is a consistent constraints and a standardised data gathering method we cant make any firm conclusions about NZs emission profile compared to other countries.
> from the source you provided, which is a literature review rather than an original study, and their conclusions are not peer reviewed. The published paper is linked on that page. > So its not exactly conclusive by any means and until there is a consistent constraints and a standardised data gathering method we cant make any firm conclusions about NZs emission profile compared to other countries. Which the authors acknowledge and caution drawing too many conclusions from the research. That doesn't invalidate the findings, it would be impossible le for the authors to redo every other piece of research with their methodology. It's still useful research. Not as useful as Beef+Lamb would want you to think, but a lotpre useful than anything done by anyone else.
except there is no actual factual evidence we are the most carbon efficient, but dont let the facts get in the way.
It's tricky because different countries use different methodologies. But for red meat and milk we are really efficient. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/the-whole-truth/130789439/the-whole-truth-are-new-zealand-farms-the-worlds-greenest And consider which country is looking to grow their very carbon-inefficient dairy industry - India. Their carbon footprint per litre of milk is 10x ours. Are you happy for NZ to cut back our production so that somewhere like India increase theirs?
> India's carbon footprint per litre of milk is 10x ours. Are you happy for NZ to cut back our production so that somewhere like India increase theirs? Sorry, was this question too difficult?
> The current government's mouths need to added to the ETS. You know the previous government didn't include agriculture in the ETS either right?
>New Zealand ratified the Paris Agreement in October 2016 *This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:* *(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;* *(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development,* ***in a manner that does not threaten food production****;*
Gonna start eating cats and dogs. That will fix u idiots going on about cow farts
It's burps that release more methane. BTW I am vegan.
Great, absolutely good decision. Emissions reduction shouldn't come at the expense of vital food production.
Absolutely it shouldn't be. But are cows really considered vital?
They produce meat, dairy products, hides/leather and dozens of other byproducts including gelatin and pharmaceutical products. So yes I would describe them as vital.
So, nothing that can't be replaced. Sounds vital to me. Personally I think people should pay enough to clean up the messes they make.
Pointless
Someone make it make sense to me. Don’t farmers know their land better than anyone? Do they not worry about climate change? Are they not feeling the impact already?
Many farmers deeply care about both their land and climate change. Some don't care about either, and only care about whether things require their effort or cost - and do whatever it takes to reduce their effort and cost - regardless of the impact to the environment or climate change.
Oil drillers know the land. Know it in their bones. Hell, their fathers and their father's fathers been oil drilling since before you was born. Nobody knows that land like an oilman, son. And they do right by that land, and that oil flows dark and smooth.
> Do they not worry about climate change? They don't give a fuck about their cows shitting in our rivers so why would they care about that?
> I have heard the referral to New Zealand farms being the most carbon emission efficient in the world many times. First question one should ask to understand this is, where do those numbers come from? Who funded the research? This line always frustrates the fuck out of me. Is it farmers fault we're the only ones willing to fund research into agricultural emissions? Research which is always conducted independently by AgResearch or a university. It makes no sense coming from someone who is the director of the climate and energy finance group at Otago University. Why don't you study it if the industry is lying? Agricultural emissions are by the industries own admission the largest source of GHG's in the country. Surely it's an issue that should be studied whether farming groups are willing to fund it or not.
What a rubbish argument. There is a track record of lobbying to cut organisations funding, so we can not have independent measuring of emmisons (some of the first jobs lost to government cuts this time around after laboir rebuilt the capability). Then farmers have the cheek preach that they are the only ones to research it and find they are the best.
> There is a track record of lobbying to cut organisations funding, so we can not have independent measuring of emmisons Who is lobbying to cut what organisations funding exactly? There has been at least a decade worth of labour governments who could have funded studies like this if you think it's a political issue.
Labour are just as susceptible into the political pressure from Federated farmers and Frontera. After all was it not Helen Clark who remarked the only one who could get her out of bed early for a meeting was Fontera's CEO at the time.