A lot of hot air

138 comments on “A lot of hot air ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tigger 1

   9 July 2012 at 7:32 am

   Answered a Fonterra survey last week, some of which was about pollution (mostly seemed to be about their rebranding as ‘our’ Fonterra bs).
2. Psycho Milt 2

   9 July 2012 at 7:39 am

   Let’s face the truth: farmers can reduce their emissions and paying the price of their pollution would encourage them to take up the opprtunties to reduce them further. But, instead, National is making us subsidise agricultural pollution.

   The gases produced by the existence of plant and animal life on this planet are pollution to the same extent you breathing out all that CO2 is pollution. Maybe the govt could introduce a breathing tax? That might prompt you to reduce your emissions.

   Given that the ETS doesn’t do what it was supposed to do, it would make more sense for the govt to stop billing the taxpayer for this supposed “pollution” that farm animals are producing and think about a carbon pricing system that might actually achieve something other than unintended consequences.
   • felix 2.1

     9 July 2012 at 8:33 am

     There’s nothing “unintended” about National selectively applying legislation so as to advantage farmers at the expense of everyone else.
   • Deano 2.2

     9 July 2012 at 9:09 am

     the millions of cows in new zealand producing methane are as much an artifical (ie human-created) source of greenhosue gases as the millions of cars.
     • Psycho Milt 2.2.1

       9 July 2012 at 10:00 am

       Animals emit GHG gases – if those are a pollutant, your argument is with life on earth, not farmers.
       • felix 2.2.1.1

         9 July 2012 at 11:48 am

         Milt, from what you write around the place you’re obviously a very smart person. Why are you pretending you’re not?

         You know the millions of cows on our farms exist because we have deliberately bred that many. It’s (almost) entirely up to us how many cows are born and how many die. Nothing to do with “life on earth” in the sense that you imply as if it’s a state of nature we are powerless to control.
         • Psycho Milt 2.2.1.1.1

           9 July 2012 at 1:13 pm

           The cows in NZ are here because we put them here, yes – but that comes under the heading of So What for several reasons:

           1. There’s no reason these particular animals are bad relative to other animals that exist and have existed. A farmer is entitled to resist being billed for his ruminants if we let wetlands continue to exist and let wild ruminants wander about with nobody clipping the ticket.

           2. If we weren’t using that land for growing cows we’d be using it for some other form of food production, which would also involve greenhouse gases. Anyone who complains about GHGs emitted by food production and also eats is a hypocrite.

           3. What comes out of a cow is no more pollution than what comes out of you or me. If critters with unnaturally-large populations need to have their numbers reduced for the good of the planet, seems to me humans would logically be number one on the priority list, not cows.
           • Deano 2.2.1.1.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 1:28 pm

             farming is an industry – just because the manufacture of food and other agricultural products involves a biological process doesn’t change the fact that the process is occuring because of human action and, therefore, it’s GHG emissions are human-induced.

             Since the point is to stop human-induced climate change, we can’t ignore a human-induced source of the gases that cause climate change.

             And saying ‘if you eat, you’re a hypcrite’ is stupid – it’s like saying ‘if you think this government is less than perfect but you refuse to joing armed revolt agaisnt it, you’re a hypocrite’.

             The point is that there are techs to reduce emissions per unit of output now and those techs can be improved upon – so let’s do it and let’s give farmers a financial incentive to pick up those techs.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 July 2012 at 1:37 pm

               Destocking and de-intensification is going to be part of the answer in many cases. No way around it.
             • Jenny …

               9 July 2012 at 1:43 pm

               Some major central government initiative is required. It would be good to hear of some serious policy initiatives from our aspiring governmental parties on this issue.
             • Psycho Milt …

               9 July 2012 at 2:43 pm

               The point is that there are techs to reduce emissions per unit of output now and those techs can be improved upon – so let’s do it and let’s give farmers a financial incentive to pick up those techs.

               Some scheme to do that would probably be a good idea. It’s too bad the current one will amount to a tax on owning livestock.

               Some major central government initiative is required.It would be good to hear of some serious policy initiatives from our aspiring governmental parties on this issue.

               I guess it’s theoretically possible that NZ’s political parties might lay before the voters a plan for a major initiative to wreck our biggest export industry and drive the prices of dairy products even higher than they are now, but I wouldn’t put money on it.
               • Jenny …

                 9 July 2012 at 6:13 pm

                 Though I raised stopping all dairy conversions on the Canturbury Plains as an option, and possibly even reversing some farms already converted back to cropping. What I was actually asking was: Are there are any policy ideas coming from our political aspirants to government different than that to the current administration?
                 • Robert M …

                   10 July 2012 at 4:19 pm

                   Actually I agree. NZ had quite enough dairy farms with their excessive runoffs and production of too much fatty milk products. The idea that by increasing production by 50% internally within NZ is somehow going to give us sufficient weight to remain a world level dairy markerter remains absurd. The extra water use and runoff from extra dairy is quite unsustainable.
                   There is far better use for the remaining Waitaki and Rakaia water than using it to fuel more dairy conversions that will be farmed by the usual uneducated, unitelligent daft aspirant farmers of the Ewen MacDonald sort. Some more water could have been allocated to those areas to help them thru dry years and sustain lamb and crop farming- but not any expansion of dairy.
                   The English,Grosser and Smiths policies are fradulent pie in the Sky stuff. The emission tradings schemes and carbon transfers etc have always been an elaborate fraud , never intended to be seriously implemented generally and never in the agricultural area. The emission tradings schemes are all simply designed to give credibility to NZ green voters and the international image that NZ is enviromentally sensitive and still remotely part of the advanced intelligent liberal western world. Its a short term con,with the intention always to push implementation dates out furthur step by step into the never,never.
                   I think I corresponded with Nick Smith with ideas for a green centre party and the ideas of the Nats seeking a Green partner or creating one, 15 years ago. From my point of view I was talking about urban greenism, public transport, solar energy etc- but I think Smith developed the idea of the Blue Greens and attraction to the Green voters about that time from multiple sources. But for the Nats its a poitical strategy aimed in assisting and disguising the key National strategy of English and Smith of cementing the provincial seats as the strongest Nat areas and changing the strongest Labour areas traditionally in the heartland into strong National bases.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1.1.2

             9 July 2012 at 1:40 pm

             1.) Over-population
             2.) But quite significantly less
             3.) Yes
           • felix 2.2.1.1.1.3

             9 July 2012 at 3:46 pm

             Milt that is so much bullshit.

             1. They don’t just “exist”, we created them. And we don’t have millions of wild ruminants running around and we aren’t creating any more wetlands.

             2. In that case anyone who argues that anything could be done better is a hypocrite.

             3. Being human doesn’t require that we raise so many cows.

             I take back the first part of my previous comment. If you seriously believe any of what you just wrote you’re a moron.
             • Psycho Milt …

               9 July 2012 at 4:25 pm

               1. So? The biotonnage of animals on the planet is not small – it makes no sense to arbitrarily assign a “pollutant” category to some tiny proportion of them because we increased their population. There’s a hell of a lot of animals that have had their population decreased by humans, but I don’t expect anyone will be volunteering to dish out carbon credits for it. Also, no NZ doesn’t have millions of wild ruminants running around but the climate doesn’t observe our geographic boundaries. From the atmosphere’s pov there’s no difference between the emissions of a cow in NZ and an elephant in Kenya.

               2. Maybe, but then I also think that people who regard the outputs of animals as pollutants should be agitating for a tax on their own breath and on any children they produce before they start hassling farmers for growing food. Some hypocrisy is more annoying than others.

               3. So? What comes out of a cow is no more a pollutant than what comes out of you or me. Imagining otherwise is simply wrong.
               • McFlock …

                 9 July 2012 at 4:33 pm

                 1: Not all animals are artificially concentrated with things like intensive grass fertilisation (not to mention that many fertilisers involve longer-cycle carbon).
                    
                 2: Funnliy enough, a lot of people are trying to lower their own carbon footprint voluntarily. Farmers… not so much.

                 3: It’s not so much the substance as the needless amount. See 2.
                 • Psycho Milt …

                   9 July 2012 at 8:11 pm

                   If you want a “needless amount,” ask yourself what the planet’s current need for 7 billion people is. Cows are trivial by comparison.

                   And some farmers are trying to lower their own carbon footprint voluntarily, just like some other people. So what? At issue is the extent to which the govt should make people pay for the emissions of animals, not the extent to which some social class you despise is morally inferior to those you don’t. If some people should be billed for the CO2 and methane outputs of animals they’re responsible for, why not all of us? Farmers at least stand to get billed for cows from 2015 onwards – where’s the plan to bill the rest of us? You, your kids, your pets, all of us are turning out greenhouse gases every minute of every day, and we are more concentrated and artificially supported than any farm animal. If you’re feeling angry at farmers not getting billed until 2015, you should be incandescent with rage at the failure of the govt to make any plans at all to increment your own taxes for the gases produced by you and every dependent adult, child or pet on your property (or make deductions from your benefits, as the case may be). Let’s bitch about the farmers once we’ve removed the justification for them to bitch about us.
                   • RedLogix …

                     9 July 2012 at 8:25 pm

                     It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, “Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!”

                     This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues – roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

                     These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.

                     Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it’s a carbon cycle, not a straight line – and a good thing, too!

                     http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-breathing-contribute-to-co2-buildup-in-the-atmosphere.html

                     On the other hand cows create methane which while short-lived in the atmosphere, is more intense in it’s effect. This means that methane (CH4) has to be counted as an extra component to the AGW effect … over and above that which the same amount of carbon in CO2 contributes.
                   • Psycho Milt …

                     10 July 2012 at 6:38 am

                     So, GHGs produced by humans are just part of the natural atmospheric cycle even when we make 7 billion CO2 excreters while cutting down most of the CO2-absorbing trees, but GHGs produced by ruminants are an unnatural imposition on the atmospheric cycle that must be accounted for?

                     In other words, your quote works for complaints about needing to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, but loses all logic when you apply it to animals.
           • Matthew Whitehead 2.2.1.1.1.4

             9 July 2012 at 5:54 pm

             1) These particular animals in these particular numbers and density are not a natural occurence. They have been fed, bred, and contained to protect them so they can be slaughtered for meat. If everyone stopped eating meat, or even just ate three quarters less, it would do an amazing amount for the climate.

             2) Other forms of food production than livestock are in general far more energy-efficient, as livestock use up paddock space, resources for barns, pens, or other animal housing, medications, workhours, and an incredible amount of potable water IN ADDITION to using more space and water for grains or other feed stocks than we would need to actually grow food directly to feed the same number of people. If we quit or even just greatly reduced meat and dairy farming, it would be far more impactful than say, improving our fuel economy or taking buses everywhere. (which yes, I also do.)

             3) What comes out of you or me, assuming you’re talking about methane or CO2, is indeed also a pollutant, because there is too much of it for the atmosphere to handle, which is why we need to be moving towards negative global population growth. It seems to me we should focus on each individual human having a high quality of life and clean water, good, healthy, and efficient food, (ie. not meat) rather than cramming in as many animals- human or otherwise- on the planet as possible. And we can do that without war, forced sterilisation, or any of the other scare-mongering strawarguments about politcies to slow or reverse population growth.
             • Psycho Milt …

               9 July 2012 at 8:13 pm

               Hell is other people, huh?
               • RedLogix …

                 9 July 2012 at 8:19 pm

                 Well if there were so many ‘other people’ that the entire planet was stacked ten layers deep with us… then I guess that would be hell too.

                 (I had this pile of straw lying about and….)
               • mike e …

                 9 July 2012 at 8:29 pm

                 PM Hey us humans are subsidizing cows right now Under the ETS. I thought you’d be happy about that !
                 A little GM and we can help you avoid that as you already have the intelligence of a cow it would explain why you talk so much BS.
           • rosy 2.2.1.1.1.5

             9 July 2012 at 10:42 pm

             1. Not much sympathy with this argument. We grow cows at greater and greater densities than other ruminants wandering wetlands.
             2. I have some sympathy with that argument – but we could be growing plants instead. As it stands a monoculture of dairying is what we’re getting. Emissions trading* may affect that.
             3. A lot of sympathy with this argument. No-one seems to have come up with an emissions trading scheme that includes population increases with credits for effective family planning. Can of worms, that one!

             * not that I actually agree with the ETS, but if we’re going to have it it might be useful here
   • Shane Gallagher 2.3

     9 July 2012 at 10:00 am

     Okay – I am going to assume you are simply mis-informed…. In order to create pasture out of what was once forest you have to either burn it down or chop it down. Mostly it was burnt – carbon goes into atmosphere. Then you plow the fields – more carbon escapes into the atmosphere as there is a lot of carbon trapped in the soil that is released when you plow it. Also you get run-off into water and that helps release more carbon. Then you put cows on the pasture land who essentially convert a large amount of the grass into methane. Now methane has a greenhouse effect 25 times that of CO2. So you chop down trees that are soaking up CO2 and storing it in the ground and replace them with Methane creating cows you have a net increase in our greenhouse gas emmsions.

     Got it? This is basic chemistry… not that complicated really. 🙂
     • Psycho Milt 2.3.1

       9 July 2012 at 10:06 am

       I doubt even a Greens govt would attempt to bill farmers and Maori for the NZ forests that have been burnt over the last 1000 years. Also, animals eating vegetation is to a great extent what life on this planet involves. Anyone wanting to wring their hands over how awful that is will promptly stop all that eating they’ve been doing, if they’ve the courage of their convictions.
       • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.1

         9 July 2012 at 1:42 pm

         Typical, moronic and false either/or option put forward as an argument.
3. TT 3

   9 July 2012 at 8:20 am

   All farming is dirty, polluting activity; particularly animal. Farming animals is also morally reprehensible. The practice should cease immediately. So called “livestock” farmers should also face criminal charges for the inevitable cruelty of their evil practices. We should only farm for the needs of the people of this country. That farming should only be plant-life, and possibly insects if people insist on eating animal protein. At least that way the emissions per gram of protein would be acceptable.
   • Sweetd 3.1

     9 July 2012 at 9:23 am

     Are you for real or a pizz take?
     • Jenny 3.1.1

       9 July 2012 at 9:26 am

       Yes, I think TT will be hearing from the ILF (Insect Liberation Front).
       • Populuxe1 3.1.1.1

         9 July 2012 at 10:14 am

         At the risk of annoying the mods (I apologise in advance), I do love this relevant quote from G. K. Chesterton’s delightful novel The Napoleon of Notting Hill (1904):

         There was Mr Edward Carpenter, who thought we should in a very short time return to Nature, and live simply and slowly as the animals do. And Edward Carpenter was followed by James Pickie DD (of Pocahontas College), who said that men were immensely improved by grazing, or by taking their food slowly and continuously, after the manner of cows. And he said that he had, with the most encouraging results, turned city men out on all fours in a field covered with veal cutlets. Then Tolstoy and the Humanitarians said that the world was growing more merciful, and therefore no one would ever desire to kill. And vegetarianism doomed (‘shedding’, as he called it finely, ‘the green blood of the silent animals’), and predicted that men in a better age would live on nothing but salt. And then came the pamphlet from Oregon (where the thing was tried), and the pamphlet called ‘Why should Salt suffer?’ and there was more trouble.
         • Carol 3.1.1.1.1

           9 July 2012 at 10:28 am

           Actually, more relevant is how humans lived prior to the development of agriculture. When humans were hunter-gatherers, animal food was a small percentage of their diet, and plant food made up the main bulk of their food-supply.

           Agriculture, especially intensive animal farming, has shifted that balance. I don’t think it’s necessary to give up eating meat completely, but I do think western diets are over-reliant on meat and intensive, environment-damaging agriculture.
           • Populuxe1 3.1.1.1.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 10:35 am

             Because Japanese whaling and overfishing are so much better?
             • Carol …

               9 July 2012 at 10:38 am

               Did I say anything about fishing and whaling?

               I’d put intensive fishing, whaling and fish farming in the same category as agriculture and intensive animal farming. I was suggesting plant protein as an alternative.
     • Carol 3.1.2

       9 July 2012 at 9:33 am

       http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet

       As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.

       It says: “Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”

       http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-and-environment.aspx

       Many leading environmental organizations, including the National Audubon Society, the Worldwatch Institute, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and even Al Gore’s Live Earth—have recognized that raising animals for food damages the environment more than just about anything else that we do. Whether it’s the overuse of resources, global warming, massive water or air pollution, or soil erosion, raising animals for food is wreaking havoc on the Earth.

       The most important step you can take to save the planet is to go vegetarian. Order PETA’s free vegetarian/vegan starter kit for tips and recipes to get you started on an Earth-friendly vegan diet today.
       • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.2.1

         9 July 2012 at 9:58 am

         Carol , just pasting slabs of content will get attention of the moderators.
         Do you have some of your own ideas ?
         • Carol 3.1.2.1.1

           9 July 2012 at 10:24 am

           Usually I add comments, gww, but in this case, I thought the quotes spoke for themselves & answered sweetd’s questions: ie that there is a strong argument, based in official stats and reports against farming animals for food – hence there was a serious point to TT’s post,even though there was a slight tongue-in-cheek element to how it was made.

           I really thought I didn’t need to add anything – TT failed to provide evidence in support of her/his comment. I was providing such omitted evidence.
           • Jenny 3.1.2.1.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 11:37 am

             Well done and well put.
       • higherstandard 3.1.2.2

         9 July 2012 at 10:35 am

         Why doesn’t PETA just have done with it and call for the orderly eviction of humans from the earth.
         • Carol 3.1.2.2.1

           9 July 2012 at 10:39 am

           I’m not a great fan of Peta, but in this case, they were referring to reports, stats etc about how damaging animal farming has become.
     • Uturn 3.1.3

       9 July 2012 at 11:28 am

       Who knows what anything means on this site, but at face value TT’s comments are not such an unusual view:

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5waCNdr8sI

       Eating insects is only unusual in the Western world. Here in NZ you’re only likely to find them on the menu of the WildFood festival.

       http://www.wildfoods.co.nz/index.cfm/1,51,0,0,html

       A buddhist of a certain type would find Farming animals reprehensible; the criminal charges part is fair opinion depending on your outlook; farming only for domestic need is fair opinion, even if there is no explanation how this could join to a wider economic system; farming insects is possible and fair opinion; as is comment on emissions.
       • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3.1

         9 July 2012 at 2:02 pm

         farming only for domestic need is fair opinion, even if there is no explanation how this could join to a wider economic system;

         What, exactly, do you mean by join to a wider economic system? Surely, producing food is merely part of the economic system even if we have elevated it to heights it doesn’t deserve in NZ?
   • gorj 3.2

     9 July 2012 at 12:25 pm

     TT, disagree on the point of all livestock farming being morally reprehensible.

     Which is more ethical: Bringing an animal into the world and giving it a happy life free from predators, disease and killing it quickly and painlessly to provide sustenance for humans or not giving the animal life at all. Most farmed animals in this country would not survive outside of farms, they rely on humans for their wellbeing, you can’t set them free.

     Unfortunately a lot of farming, battery and meat chickens especially, is done with little regard for the welfare of the animals so I don’t eat a whole lot of meat unless it’s free range/organic. In these cases I think it is more ethical to eat the meat than not eat it.

     Also if I think you are going to be eating your chops and steaks, you should be prepared to eat all other parts of the animal, liver, kidneys, offal, brains and all that. You should honour the life of the animal and get the most out out of it cheers.
     • felix 3.2.1

       9 July 2012 at 1:04 pm

       “Which is more ethical: Bringing an animal into the world and giving it a happy life free from predators, disease and killing it quickly and painlessly to provide sustenance for humans or not giving the animal life at all.”

       Not “giving it life” at all, whatever you think that might mean.
4. Jenny 4

   9 July 2012 at 9:08 am

   Methane produced by ruminants is New Zealand’s number one leading contributer to global warming, molecule for molecule, thirty times more dangerous to the climate than CO2.

   Other than ignoring this reality, which is the Feds favoured option….

   What can be done about it?

   What practical steps can be taken?

   The ETS is an obvious failure making no impact at all on either CO2 emissions or any other greenhouse gas emissions.

   The only outcome of a pollution trading scheme is to burden the population with the cost of not meeting our international obligations.

   Some other major central government policy direction is obviously required.

   Due to the dearth of any policy related to Methane pollution from either of our nation’s two main political parties, or even the Greens.

   I would humbly like to start the debate.

   In my opinion what is needed is legislative curbs on any more dairy conversions in the South Island, particularly on land poorly suited to dairying like the Canturbury Plains.

   Going further than that, returning dairy conversions back to cropping, more suited to the climate of this area. Being less polluting and in less need of intensive irrigation needed by dairying in this area of the many over exploited and degraded south Island braided rivers in a rain shadowed semi arid area.

   What crop could replace dairy?

   Soy is a universally demanded crop. Not only this it’s refinery with some rejigging could take advantage of the already existing dairy factory infrastructure and workforce without any loss of jobs.

   Other benefits could be, taking the pressure off of rainforest destruction for soy farms to meet the international demand for soy. The destruction of rainforest in Latin America for massive industrial scale soy farming being a major environmental threat in its self.

   Such inniatives as this would enhance New Zealand’s international reputation for being ‘clean’ and ‘green’.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 4.1

     9 July 2012 at 9:28 am

     And growing soy (- beans) in the Canterbury plains wont need irrigation?
     • Jenny 4.1.1

       9 July 2012 at 10:22 am

       And growing soy (- beans) in the Canterbury plains wont need irrigation?

       ghostwhowalksnz

       Of course it will, Ghost, but nowhere near as much irrigation as Dairy. Making it more sustainable and less polluting in the long run. Which currently threatens to exhaust the underground aquifiers as well seriously degrading the Canturbury Plains river systems and water quality generally.
       • ghostwhowalksnz 4.1.1.1

         9 July 2012 at 12:29 pm

         Rice paddies are a big source of methane, no animals required.

         What should rice farmers shift their cultivation to ?
         • Matthew Whitehead 4.1.1.1.1

           9 July 2012 at 6:06 pm

           One option is to switch their crops, sure. Another is to cease all-year flooding of paddies and allow them to dry up at natural times, cutting off the methane-producing bacteria for the dry period. In synergy with other methods to fight climate change a less intense push for rice farming wouldn’t mean that nobody you know would ever eat rice again, especially if combined with sensible means to slow and reverse population growth.
   • Psycho Milt 4.2

     9 July 2012 at 10:08 am

     Soy requires intensive processing to make it edible by humans – if you think shifting to a diet consisting mainly of highly processed food would benefit the environment, you haven’t thought it through very well.
     • Jenny 4.2.1

       9 July 2012 at 10:45 am

       Soy requires intensive processing to make it edible by humans -….

       Psycho Milt

       Kia ora Psycho. Firstly. thanks for becoming involved in the debate. I think that I have addressed that issue of the necessary intensive processing of soy, by advocating the conversion of the existing Southland dairy factories.

       …. if you think shifting to a diet consisting mainly of highly processed food would benefit the environment, you haven’t thought it through very well.

       Psycho Milt

       Granted, but Psycho I am talking here of practical and realistic transistional steps of going from most damaging, to least damaging. Particularly as regards to climate change. And with the least impact on working people reliant on the Dairy Industry for their livelyhoods.

       Maybe as well as giving a critique it would be good to see your solution. (Or anyone else for that matter. Who has some ideas for alternative solutions to the methane menace. How about it JAMES).
       • higherstandard 4.2.1.1

         9 July 2012 at 10:49 am

         “…alternative solutions to the methane menace.”

         Get on with your life and stop tilting at windmills ?
         • Jenny 4.2.1.1.1

           9 July 2012 at 11:43 am

           Get on with your life and stop tilting at windmills

           higherstandard

           People said this to me when nuclear ships were in port, and racially selected sports teams were running on our fields.

           Proudly I can say I ignored them, as I will you.
           • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2.1.1.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 12:36 pm

             Will you be campaigning against rice farmers , because they too emit methane from the paddies ?

             Will they say , of course YOU are right before and this makes you right again ?
             • Populuxe1 …

               9 July 2012 at 12:46 pm

               Actually Jenny is not wrong.
                
             • prism …

               9 July 2012 at 2:17 pm

               gwwnz
               If you’re a ghost then you have no interest in your own life or anyone else’s. If you want to make a point about rice paddies make it yourself – don’t be lazy and ask others on the site to answer all your questions.
               • ghostwhowalksnz …

                 9 July 2012 at 2:24 pm

                 Whats it got to do with you ?
                 Anyway ,either rice paddies are a significant source of methane or they are not.
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   9 July 2012 at 2:33 pm

                   If you’d read my link above, ghost (Scientific American no less) you would know that methane production by paddies can be dramatically reduced by improved cultivation.
       • Populuxe1 4.2.1.2

         9 July 2012 at 10:56 am

         I seriously doubt anything we can accomplish now will moderate or reverse climate change – the genie is well and truly out of the bottle – so going out of our way to hamstring our economy for little benefit seems counterproductive to me, especially as the countries most likely to endure the tribulations of global warming will be the ones with money to pay for relocating communities and massive engineering projects.
         • Jenny 4.2.1.2.1

           9 July 2012 at 12:04 pm

           the countries most likely to endure the tribulations of global warming will be the ones with money to pay for relocating communities and massive engineering projects.

           Populuxe1

           Well that is just factually wrong. For a start as looks likely, the worst affected will be those in the third world. First world countries like England for instance, will get off relatively lightly in comparison to say Bangladesh or sub Saharan Africa.

           Countries in the global North and South (including ourselves) will be better off than those at the equator. There will be exceptions to this general rule, Australia for instance will likely be devastated, already the driest inhabitable continent could me made mostly uninhabitable.
           • Populuxe1 4.2.1.2.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 12:38 pm

             Jenny, get out your dictionary and look up what the word “endure” means.
             • Jenny …

               9 July 2012 at 3:31 pm

               My apologies for my misunderstanding of the meaning of your choice of words.

               In common parlance I understand the word “endure” to mean “suffer”. When you wrote “the countries most likely to endure the tribulations of climate change were those with the money to relocate communities or massive engineering projects” I knew that wasn’t right.

               I am aware now that you meant “endure” as in “survive” or “persist”.

               In that context your words have a much more sinister connotation. In that, countries without “money to pay for relocating communities and massive engineering projects”, will not endure/survive.

               I have never read a more cold hearted calculation for continuing climate change.

               How many millions are you talking about here?

               Again I apologise for not comprehending the shockingly monstrous and inhuman message of your words.
               • Populuxe1 …

                 9 July 2012 at 3:42 pm

                 What a load of melodramatic bumf. If developing nations are to survive they will need all the help they can get from the more technologically advanced wealthy nations. But while your heart is bleeding all over the carpet, humanity will have to endure. I’m simply outlining the likely scenario – I don’t need you to turn me into H*tler 2.0 for stating the obvious.
                 • Jenny …

                   9 July 2012 at 3:53 pm

                   You flatter yourself I thought of you more as a Quizzling.

                   I have long considered the apologists for continuing policies that cause climate change worse than the deniers and sceptics. Most apologists, cite the economic cost of any serious mitigation measures to combat climate change as the reason for not doing anything. To which you have added a eugenic twist.

                   All projections show that the cost of doing nothing will be far worse. And not just in terms of money, but in human welfare and habitat loss and environmental degradation as well. But in the self centred world view of the apologists, these costs and this suffering will be inflicted not on them personally but on the next generation.

                   Apologists like you are the Quizzlings of Climate Change.
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     9 July 2012 at 4:04 pm

                     I try to avoid arguments with the mad, but I am not in any way against trying to reduce greenhouse emissions, but I think it’s naive to think the damage can be undone. With your head in the sand you expect humanity to die for your dream world.
                      
                   • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                     9 July 2012 at 4:18 pm

                     Ah, but can they spell Quisling?
                   • Matthew Whitehead …

                     9 July 2012 at 6:16 pm

                     The damage can’t be undone, at least not on a shorter-term time scale. What we can do is stop it getting even worse.
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   9 July 2012 at 3:53 pm

                   Also:

                   I have never read a more cold hearted calculation for continuing climate change.

                   WTF!? Who said anything about deliberately continuing climate change? I don’t think we can stop or reverse it now.
                   • Jenny …

                     9 July 2012 at 4:06 pm

                     I don’t think we can stop or reverse it now.

                     Populuxe1

                     That’s exactly what Vidkun Quisling said about the Nazi the take over of Europe.
                   • Jenny …

                     9 July 2012 at 4:22 pm

                     WTF!? Who said anything about deliberately continuing climate change?

                     Populuxe1

                     You accept that climate change is happening and that the damage already done can not be reversed.

                     Pop1, If you are not a climate Quisling;

                     Then now, might be a good time to put forward your ideas for mitigating climate change.
                   • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                     9 July 2012 at 4:28 pm

                     It’s quite clear what Populuxe is saying. Are you deliberately misunderstanding it?
         • Jenny 4.2.1.2.2

           9 July 2012 at 5:15 pm

           I seriously doubt anything we can accomplish now will moderate or reverse climate change – the genie is well and truly out of the bottle – so going out of our way to hamstring our economy for little benefit seems counterproductive to me…..

           Populuxe1

           In reply to all surrendering Climate Change defeatists.

           If you will not fight when when the victory is sure and not too costly;

           Then you will come to a time when you will have to fight with the odds against you and only a precarious chance of winning.

           There may even be a worse case scenario.

           We will fight when there is no hope of victory and death is certain, because it is better to die fighting than die on our knees.

           Winstone Churchill
           • Populuxe1 4.2.1.2.2.1

             9 July 2012 at 5:28 pm

             Jenny, if you must quote that racist pisshead, could you at least spell his name correctly.
             Ecclesiastes 9:4
             • Jenny …

               9 July 2012 at 5:38 pm

               Still waiting for you to say what we should be doing other than surrender?
               • Populuxe1 …

                 9 July 2012 at 5:45 pm

                 I’m hardly advocating surrender, I simply think our resources would be better spend preparing for the inevitable rather than pretending we can somehow make it go away by getting rid of all our cows.
                 • Matthew Whitehead …

                   9 July 2012 at 6:18 pm

                   There’s no point spending money on adapting to climate change if we don’t stop accelerating it first.
                 • Jenny …

                   9 July 2012 at 7:16 pm

                   OK Pop1.

                   How do you think “our resources would be better spent preparing for the inevitable…”?

                   Remember that the worst effects of the crisis will fall on the next generation and as you have implied the people in the poorer countries as well.
             • Jenny …

               9 July 2012 at 5:49 pm

               ‘
               http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/9-4.htm

               “…A live dog is better than a dead lion”?????

               What a saying to live by.

               Grow a spine man.
               • Populuxe1 …

                 9 July 2012 at 6:24 pm

                 A spine is only useful to those alive to enjoy it, and it beats the hell out of vainglorious doomed heroics. I firmly believe that our goal should be the futureproofing of this country against the vicissitudes of peak oil and global warming to the best of our ability, not squandering it on feelgood self-hugs.
                 • Jenny …

                   9 July 2012 at 7:18 pm

                   Pop1. Can you tell us what you think this “future proofing” should be?
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     9 July 2012 at 7:38 pm

                     Isn’t that fairly obvious? Tidal barriers, alternative water sources like desalination, evacuation of communities in vulnerable areas, secure renewable energy sources and other infrastructure, prepare for a massive influx of refugees from the Pacific Islands. It’s not like this is a particularly new conversation.
                   • Jenny …

                     9 July 2012 at 8:29 pm

                     Hmm. I particularly like your idea of secure renewable energy sources and other infrastructure. I imagine that you are talking about a huge increase in solar and wind as well as hydro and geothermal, possibly even tidal booms. This shouldn’t be such a big ask as 70% of our power already comes from renewables. I also imagine that by “secure infrastructure” you mean building a decent public transport system so we can still get around.

                     As well as this, a major state housing building program to house the thousands of climate refugees will need to be built.

                     Unemployment will disappear overnight.

                     (And I thought I was being radical suggesting new dairy conversions be banned.)

                     Switching the $billions set aside to be wasted on the Roads of National inSignicance could be a good place to start for the funding needed. There will also need to be a major overhaul of the tax system.

                     So how can we create the political will to achieve all this?

                     Any ideas?

                     At the moment the Greens are purposely not raising the issue of Climate Change in case they are seen as too radical. And Labour still seems to be wedded to business as usual.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     9 July 2012 at 11:34 pm

                     So how can we create the political will to achieve all this?

                     You have to shake the voting middle class, those households with an income of over $80K pa, out of their high consumption entitlement mentality.

                     Good luck.
           • Jenny 4.2.1.2.2.2

             9 July 2012 at 5:35 pm

             At this stage in history we are at Churchill’s second position. Yet still the quislings and defeatists and traitors to humanity oppose taking any action against climate change, refusing to impinge on their own comforts and privileges. Cowardly leaving the next generation to fight climate change from Churchill’s third position.

             Every ANZAC day we gather to commemorate those of the previous generation that gave up, home, family, careers, everything, even their lives to defeat the existential threat of fascism, and they did it for us the generation to come.

             Are we so selfish that we can’t do the same?
             • Kotahi Tane Huna …

               9 July 2012 at 5:40 pm

               You are about forty years too late to this party, Jenny. Abusing your fellow attendees may seem like a swell idea to you, but actually it’s just tiresome.
               • Jenny …

                 9 July 2012 at 8:33 pm

                 I apologise.
             • Jenny …

               10 July 2012 at 7:44 am

               You have to shake the voting middle class, those households with an income of over $80K pa, out of their high consumption entitlement mentality.

               Colonial Viper

               Again with the cloth cap class hatred for the middle classes. I have asked you before and you still refuse to reply. If this section of the population is as self centred as you claim, how do you explain political campaigns like the anti apartheid movement or the anti nuclear movement or the peace movement generally, all political movements dominated by middle class people.

               I might also mention that in times of national crisis this is the class that is the first to voluntarily enlist.
               • Carol …

                 10 July 2012 at 8:02 am

                 CV was talking about the voting middleclass.

                 He’s probably over-generalising. However, I think there are a significant number of middleclass voters who are primarily focused on their comfortable consumer lifestyles. Their vote for the status quo probably makes a big impact on the outcome of elections.

                 The people who get out on the streets to protest are a minority of that class. The protest movements you mention, Jenny, while being important calls for change, are not the ones most likely to threaten a comfortable middleclass lifestyle.
                 • Jenny …

                   10 July 2012 at 9:51 pm

                   CV was talking about the voting middleclass.

                   Carol

                   Thanks for that Carol. You are right I had overlooked that small qualification.

                   CV is right, in that the middle classes, generally, do tend to vote conservatively, mainly for economic reasons, identifying with those who support small business, less taxation, lighter regulation, cracking down on crime, harsher treatment of benificiaries, rewarding success etc. etc.

                   But on social issues, causes like the environment, schedule 4, anti racism, anti nuclear, these are perceived rightly or wrongly by many working class people like CV as middle class issues.

                   Being better read, with more access to education and information than that generally available to factory hands, road workers, farm labourers, truck drivers etc. As well as this, the middle are usually better paid, work less hours, giving them more time to consider the bigger issues. Working people on the other hand have less time, working generally longer hours and taking less holidays, just to pay the rent and buy groceries. Working people generally have less resources and less time than the middle classes to consider the bigger issues which usually take a back seat to just surviving.

                   If Greens ever did have the courage of their convictions and started raising the issue of climate change they would probably garner quite a lot of middle class support.

                   Unfortunately that has not happened yet. In the last election New Zealand’s environmental party, the Green Party, deliberately decided to avoid raising the issue of climate change. Neglecting the middle class vote to concentrate more on courting the working class vote, previously targeted by the Alliance Party and?or Labour. When asked, why they hadn’t raised climate change as an electoral issue the main reasons given by Green Party supporters are as follows:

                   “It would cost us votes”

                   “We don’t want to be seen as to radical”

                   So while our environmental party morphs into something else, climate change goes unaddressed in the electoral forum. Which is a shame, because if the bigger party politicians were ever challenged openly on the hustings on climate change most would be seen to be sadly lacking.
                   • Jenny …

                     11 July 2012 at 9:07 am

                     Also, what CV’s comment ignores, is the role of leadership. Without any leadership calling for serious reduction in Green House Gas emissions how can anyone of any class respond?
                   • Jenny …

                     11 July 2012 at 9:48 am

                     Leadership is important. In war it can mean the difference between defeat and victory. It can see smaller forces overcoming more numerous and better equipted ones.

                     At present humanity is in an existential war over changing climate, AND WE ARE LOSING

                     Mainly because we have not yet begun to fight.

                     Colonial Viper tries to scapegoat the middle classes as being unwilling to make sacrifices for the general good as the cause, of why humanity as a whole is not addressing this issue. But CV’s claims are not base on fact, and are not supported by this class’s history, especially in this country.

                     We should avoid unsubstantiated scapegoating and look to what I identify as the prime cause for inaction on climate change. LACK OF LEADERSHIP from any of the political parties in parliament.

                     The causes are varied depending on the political party, the Greens don’t want to be seen as to radical. Labour is afraid to challenge the powerful oil and coal companies. And National is the party wedded to these interests.

                     Though all these three mainstream parties agree that the threat is real and that something should be done it.

                     This is why I often mention the example of Churchill, a back bench MP voted into parliament after standing as an independent member of no major party regaining the seat he lost as part of the Liberal Party.

                     Despite being a backbencher and an outsider belonging to no major party he wouldn’t shut up about the danger of the Nazi threat.

                     This was what is called giving a lead, or leadership.

                     From a minority position of one. Churchill by continually and tirelessly debating and challenging his fellow MPs on this issue, exposed all the other leaders as wanting on this issue. Eventually from his minority position without any acceptable moral counter from his opponents winning over the whole of parliament to his point of view and was promoted to the Prime Ministership of the Conservative led parliament.

                     This is the sort of leadership we need in parliament now.
       • Psycho Milt 4.2.1.3

         9 July 2012 at 11:39 am

         Maybe as well as giving a critique it would be good to see your solution.

         My solution to what? The existence of animal life on this planet isn’t a problem in need of a solution.
         • Jenny 4.2.1.3.1

           9 July 2012 at 11:45 am

           Your solution to climate change.
           • Kotahi Tane Huna 4.2.1.3.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 12:43 pm

             If destructive weather and peak oil don’t mitigate it nothing else will.
             • Colonial Viper …

               9 July 2012 at 6:37 pm

               The Great Recession will do it.
               • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                 9 July 2012 at 8:40 pm

                 No, it won’t. There are still considerable amounts of oil that can be got at and burned, and the likelihood is that we’re going to do exactly that, sooner or later. A downturn in the economy means there is still economic activity going on, just at a lower level – so emissions fall a few percent – not enough. Once we’ve torched all the oil, the real question is: what are we going to do with the coal?
   • higherstandard 4.3

     9 July 2012 at 10:30 am

     Any idea what converting NZ from a dairy exporter to a soy exporter would do to our export revenues ?
     • Carol 4.3.1

       9 July 2012 at 10:32 am

       Does it need to be just soy? As I understand it, there are several kinds of beans that can be a good source of protein in a meat-free, or low-meat diet?

       http://vegetarian.about.com/od/healthnutrition/tp/protein.htm
       • higherstandard 4.3.1.1

         9 July 2012 at 10:47 am

         Any idea what converting NZ from a dairy exporter to a soy exporter (or the several other kinds of beans) would do to our export revenues ?
       • Populuxe1 4.3.1.2

         9 July 2012 at 10:51 am

         Yes, but unless somebody wants to buy your beans in the first place there’s precious little incentive to grow them.
         • Jenny 4.3.1.2.1

           9 July 2012 at 11:18 am

           Pop, there is a huge demand for soy and soy products is in global market. For which, to meet that demand, vast tracts of virgin rain forest have been sacrificed. Particularly in Latin America.

           Far better to grow it here. And on land better suited for it, land that traditionally has been used for cropping since the settler days.
           • belladonna 4.3.1.2.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 6:35 pm

             I quite agree with Jenny regarding soy beans. There is a huge market out there. In many other countries in the world people are turning away from eating meat. If you are serious about cutting emissions from cows then stop eating meat then you will go a way to decreasing the 18% of emissions that currently come from cows. You will stop the deliberate cruelty to animals and improve your own and your families health as well.
             • Psycho Milt …

               10 July 2012 at 6:44 am

               Well, in your imagination you’ll improve your health, but isn’t that really just as good?
     • Jenny 4.3.2

       9 July 2012 at 10:48 am

       No idea. But I believe the costs of not addressing climate change have been estimated in the $trillions, not even mentioning the cost to the human and natural environment.
       • higherstandard 4.3.2.1

         9 July 2012 at 10:51 am

         But you are aware, no doubt, that if we converted our entire dairy herd to something such as soy it would have zero impact on climate change/global warming I take it ?
         • Jenny 4.3.2.1.1

           9 July 2012 at 11:21 am

           Extraordinary claims, need extraordinary proof.

           I think you need a citation here H.S.
           • Jenny 4.3.2.1.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 11:23 am

             ……Or at the very least some facts, or reasoning to back up your claim.
             • higherstandard …

               9 July 2012 at 11:49 am

               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions
               http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/gas-emissions-flowchart/gas-flowchart.html
               • Jenny …

                 9 July 2012 at 12:57 pm

                 Ah yes. The ol’ oft repeated excuse that because New Zealand is only responsible for 0.2% of global emissions, we should do nothing.

                 Which is the Fed’s main argument for doing nothing.

                 And it’s true. If New Zealand stopped all green house gas emissions tomorrow it would have negligible beneficial effect on the world’s natural climate.

                 But on the world’s global political climate the affect would be far reaching, if not electrifying. If we can do it, the populations of other first world countries would be demanding that their countries do it too. ‘New Zealand’ would become a template for how a modern industrial state switched to a sustainable carbon neutral industrial economy.

                 Like votes for women, or the welfare state, or even Rogernomics, which all started here first, then swept the world.

                 This is what Sir Peter Gluckman the government’s top science adviser has to say:

                 “The collective wisdom of the scientific community is that action is needed now.”

                 Sir Peter Gluckman Chief Science adviser to the Prime Minister.

                 http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/climate-change/

                 The country’s top science adviser goes on to say:

                 “New Zealand is a small emitter by world standards – only emitting some 0.2% of global green house gases. So anything we do as a nation will have little impact on the climate – our impact will be symbolic, moral, and political”

                 Sir Peter Gluckman Chief Science adviser to the Prime Minister.

                 In effect H.S. you are living in the country that could do the most.

                 So you will have to do a lot better than drop a couple of stale links, to put your case for doing nothing to oppose climate change.
                 • higherstandard …

                   9 July 2012 at 1:21 pm

                   Jenny your idealism would come at a not insignificant cost to the country, and despite your wish that NZ crucifying it’s dairying would have an electrifying effect on the rest of the world it’s more likely to do nothing more than stuff us even more financially while the rest of the world continues on its own merry way.

                   Better that we effect change where we can in a economically and environmentally sustainable manner, such as through the work of those in such places as Agresearch who will no doubt come up with solutions to decrease the methane production per cow.
                   • Jenny …

                     9 July 2012 at 1:31 pm

                     Keep us updated on that H.S.
5. Kotahi Tane Huna 5

   9 July 2012 at 9:47 am

   Sorry to be the bringer of uncertainty, but I wish people would not quote figures such as “30% more dangerous to the climate” in these discussions. They simply have no meaning. Methane is a more powerful GHG than CO2 but decays completely after about 10 years.

   60-75% of the measured CH4 anomaly has been calculated to come from wetlands, and of what is left, there is an increasing body of evidence that points to under-reporting of emissions from the natural gas extraction industry.

   Where this leaves farmers and the ETS I’m not sure. On the one hand I am inclined to the view that the National Party is simply flicking more corporate welfare to bludging farmers, but on the other, well, the farmers can point to the skewed attribution figures and cry foul.

   Certainly polluters must pay, but which ones? Is anyone seriously suggesting that we believe TAG Oil, for example, when they tell us their “fugitive emission” levels and ask us to trust their accuracy?

   The CH4 level in the atmosphere was flat from the late ’70’s to the late ’90’s. During the same period dairy production increased about 44%. Food for thought.
   • Jenny 5.1

     9 July 2012 at 11:07 am

     Tane, You are absolutely correct about the short life of methane in the atmosphere, as you say only ten years, where CO2 can persist for centuries.

     This points out it’s significance in halting global warming. The effects of methane though only short term are very powerful. It has been postulated that drastically reducing methane pollution will counter the growing CO2 footprint. Giving humanity a breathing space in which to address the more intractable problem of CO2 emissions.

     For instance, British figures I have read have calculated that if all their landfills, which are a major producer of methane emissions, were eliminated, this would counter all that country’s CO2 emissions.
     • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.1.1

       9 July 2012 at 12:06 pm

       That may well be so, but given that ‘fracking’ has been “given the green light” – as The Guardian puts it – to go ahead across the UK, it hardly seems likely – especially since NOAA and Howarth/Ingraffea demonstrated last year that CH4 extraction is producing more emissions than the industry is reporting.

       David Archer’s essay “An Arctic methane worst-case scenario” adds some context here I think.

       …the methane worst case does not suddenly spell the extinction of human life on Earth. It does not lead to a runaway greenhouse. The worst-case methane scenario stands comparable to what CO2 can do.

       That isn’t an argument to do nothing – far from it – but it could easily help drive a wedge between farmers and the resource extraction industry, one which could only make life difficult for the National Party. If farmers are being unfairly taxed because of the gas industry’s lies…
     • davidw 5.1.2

       9 July 2012 at 1:45 pm

       “…where CO2 can persist for centuries.” or until a plant sucks it up as a nutrient and converts it to cellulose whichever comes first.

       V interesting this labelling of naturally occurring compounds as “GHG” as if the science is settled and somehow this stuff is nasty. The term was coined to describe the postulate some gasses will trap the sun’s energy inside earth’s atmosphere and cause a temperature increase. That postulate has subsequently not been supported by reality with the result that even those jetting around the world attending conferences have backed off and it is now “climate change” as a bet each way on disaster prediction.

       Accordingly, the term GHG does not describe the current trend in disaster prediction and is just so out of date darling.

       But then there are no theories that describe “climate change gasses” either so the average punter is getting more confused by the day. One thing is for sure though, the climate change disaster prediction industry is losing credibility with every day that passes.
       • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.1.2.1

         9 July 2012 at 4:02 pm

         davidw you don’t actually understand the science at all do you? Do you think the annual uptake and release of CO2 from biological sources is news to anyone? It stands out like a dog’s balls in the annual rise and fall in atmospheric levels, and it’s your trump card? lol someone has been trying to make a fool of you, and it’s working.

         Do you know what a dipole is? Do you know what a dipole does when it moves through an electromagnetic field? What is the physical and electrical structure of a CO2 molecule? Answer these questions? You couldn’t “postulate” your way out of a paper bag.
         • davidw 5.1.2.1.1

           9 July 2012 at 5:03 pm

           No Kotahi, no trump card, just an observation that the language is changing faster than the arguments which has to tell you something if you could get your head out of your arse for a minute or two and look around. (not normally one for ad homs but give and take I say).

           Frankly mate, the science has not been of great assistance as all the models, mathematics, dipoles, Higgs Bosons, tree rings and ice cores have yet to be fitted into a model that actually generates some verifiable predictions. So until they do and the disaster predictors can stop lieijng through their teeth there will be no credibility in the argument.

           So, as I say – stand back and have a long look at the progression of the argument, the shifting ground of the doomsayers and their fast-diminishing credibility before you stuff your foot back into your mouth.
           • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.1.2.1.1.1

             9 July 2012 at 5:14 pm

             “Verifiable predictions” – you don’t actually know what the science says do you? How about the observed polar amplification that was predicted in 1896? Or the correct predictions (1896 again) that winter would warm more than summer, nights more than days, and the Arctic more than the Antarctic?

             Like I said, you can’t postulate your way out of a paper bag, and seem profoundly ignorant. Don’t be upset, ignorance is a condition we all share. Found out what a dipole is yet? Or why it’s relevant to GHGs?

             Sorry about the ad hom but if you’re going to make a fool of yourself I’m going to ridicule you.
           • Colonial Viper 5.1.2.1.1.2

             9 July 2012 at 6:55 pm

             Hey davidw, GHGs are not “nasty” as they prevent the surface of the earth from being -25 deg C on average.
             • Kotahi Tane Huna …

               9 July 2012 at 11:03 pm

               L(1-α) = εσT^4 😉

               Where L = solar luminosity
               α = albedo
               ε = emissivity and
               σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 9 July 2012 at 11:32 pm

                 Thanks for the reminder, but I’ve definitely got no problems with my albedo haha
     • Robert Atack 5.1.3

       9 July 2012 at 5:16 pm

       Afewknowthetruth: will no all about CO2 v methane, I think methane converts to CO2, then hangs around for 1,000 years?
       • Kotahi Tane Huna 5.1.3.1

         9 July 2012 at 5:21 pm

         try 500,000
6. G 6

   9 July 2012 at 10:15 am

   Do you guys all know something I don’t? Apart from using products like Eco N and reducing cow numbers, as far as I’m aware there is little that can be done to reduce methan emissions.
   • Jenny 6.1

     9 July 2012 at 11:10 am

     Practical ways of reducing cow numbers and dairy related pollution is what we’re discussing.
   • prism 6.2

     9 July 2012 at 12:58 pm

     Work is going on by scientists, who are important people Mr Jokey Hen, to identify and change the particular part of grass that results in high methane levels in our cows. I heard something about it a while ago.

     Probably when listening to the farmers/rural program on Radio nz and there are two – one morning about 6.20 a.m.and one at midday aabout 12.30 pm. Plus other feature items examining in depth. So that’s a good way to keep up with what is a vital part of NZs income and climate change pollution trigger.
     • higherstandard 6.2.1

       9 July 2012 at 1:14 pm

       So will that be an acceptable piece of genetic engineering to those currently decrying the diary herds methane production ?
       • prism 6.2.1.1

         9 July 2012 at 2:08 pm

         HS There is and has been genetic engineering going on for yonks in breeding as plants and animals are cross-bred to get better features. You’re clever hs and you know that. So stop trying to bring up silly questions to get answers that you can put idle questions to because the weather isn’t right to do your garden or some useful occupation you could fill in your time with.

         The sort of genetic engineering people are scared of, is the sort that changes the nature of one species by mixing it with another, or encourages excessive weedkill spray or affects bees collecting pollen or grows super weeds that have resistance to weedkill spray or introduces rogue pollen that has been trade-marked into ‘pure’ crops by wind like catching PSA, or has terminator genes so that seed that used to be viable for further seasons can’t be used again.
         • higherstandard 6.2.1.1.1

           9 July 2012 at 3:31 pm

           http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/403743/Biotech-grass-developed-to-reduce-methane

           http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/ge-clover-doesn-t-have-four-leaves
   • mike e 6.3

     9 July 2012 at 5:34 pm

     G Increasing efficiency on Dairy farms would be very easy as most dairy farms are very poorly managed
7. prism 7

   9 July 2012 at 11:41 am

   I listen often to what farmers are saying and it is not my perception that the hot air they emit has reduced, rather the opposite.
8. Steve Withers 8

   9 July 2012 at 2:48 pm

   It isn’t really a surprise that the Farmer Party doesn’t understand why farmers should pay the true cost of their business.

   The farmer coup at ECAN a couple of years back is a good example of how farmers’ political wing handle shared resources.

   They just take them.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 8.1

     9 July 2012 at 9:42 pm

     “…the true cost…”

     Again, what is that exactly? Certainly the National Party embodies the ethical corruption you describe. but so does the resource extraction industry, and in this particular context, “Big Oil” not to mention Bride of Big Oil – aka gas drilling.

     The farmers are being blamed for a particular percentage of the increase in global CH4 emissions, but this all started with Reagan and “cow-farts” – I’m still not convinced that it’s anything other than spin.

     However, while the science says the farmers must pay, then pay they must. And get ready to sue the living fuck out of anyone who turns out to have been lying about their “fugitive emissions”.
9. Viv 9

   9 July 2012 at 6:47 pm

   Dairy farm emissions are about more than just methane from cows. Milk tankers visit dairy farms once or twice every day, that’s millions of kilometres travelled by large heavy trucks- where do those emissions get counted?
   Milk is processed (dried) an energy intensive process and then shipped overseas to be used in processed foods. CO2 emissions occur when we export food and they occur when we import it. Surely it would make more sense for NZ farmers to grow as much of NZ’s food as possible, using some of the irrigation infrastructure to grow crops, and to only import what we can’t grow here.
   • Jenny 9.1

     9 July 2012 at 8:44 pm

     In fact I believe that the dairy industry is the country’s number one consumer of coal* used in boilers to generate the steam needed for the pasturisation of milk and the drying of milk powder as well as cleaning out all the stainless steel pipe work and heating all the cleaning water needed for cleaning down all the floors and work surfaces.

     *Huntly power station being number 2, and Glenbrook Steel mill number 3.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 9.2

     9 July 2012 at 10:50 pm

     The existing energy economy – based as it is on fossil fuels – is not the fault of the dairy farmer – or anyone else for that matter – it’s been a boon to humanity and the low-cost energy it has provided is part of the reason we understand it at all.

     It’s time to let go. Voluntarily or because the wind just ripped your arms off?
10. Afewknowthetruth 10

    10 July 2012 at 6:36 am

    Given that the ETS doesn’t do what it was supposed to do

    ETS is doing exactly what is was designed to do. It is a financial scam which is designed to allow the international financiers to make short term profits whilst failing to address the core issue -out of control carbon dioxide emissions. (Can’t talk about them, with the entire economic system totally dependent on continued use of fossil fuels).

    Metahne is not the problem at all -well not yet. Methane is rapidly oxidised [in geological terms] in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is building up at a stupendous rate, both in the atmosphere and in the oceans.. Of course, if we put enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere we will trigger positive feedbacks involving semi-sequestered methane -billions of tonnes of it, thereby triggering very abrupt climate change, as explained in:

    http://www.publishme.co.nz/shop/theeasyway-p-684.html

    The whole discussion is fatuous, and is yet another example of failure the present culture to address any of the important issues.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS