Clive Bibby: "Please Explain"

While the world is running around like headless chooks reacting to the Trump phenomenon, most Western World democracies are dealing with another single issue at home which has far greater implications for each economy than anything the US President could have dreamed up.

It is the question of how to react to the climate change threat as it is being promoted by those who slavishly adhere to the Greens mantra of cause and effect.

In countries like ours, where the Greens have a disproportionate influence over Government policy, the economy is in the process of being transformed into something we may not recognise in the future and regret ever having allowed to happen.

Yet, our world is being turned upside down without anyone asking this Government to justify their authority for overseeing this madness.

It is unbelievable that we should be happy being lead like lambs to the slaughter without even challenging the validity of the science upon which this massive deception is based.

So, what are the Greens (this Government) in the process of doing which will result in such an almighty upheaval, particularly in the livestock industry, that should require much more explanation and justification before becoming law.

Here is my simple understanding.

The Greens believe that carbon emissions released into the atmosphere are endangering the future of the planet and they identify CO2 and animal induced methane gases as the main culprits causing global warming or if you prefer, climate change.

Consequently, it follows that there is a responsibility of all governments to do what it can to reduce carbon emissions to almost zero. This call to action is based on the "so called", proven link (correlation) between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.

The theory goes that in order to slow or eliminate global warming or mitigate climate change (both of which are real) we must reduce our carbon emissions to nothing.

So, our Government, having swallowed this bunch of porkies lock, stock and barrow,

proposes legislation that will encourage and countenance any action to eliminate practices that stand in the way of achieving this zero emissions target.

Here are some of the consequences for this country of this misguided act of stupidity.

We will more than likely see our livestock sector (second biggest earner after Tourism, but l believe the largest in net terms) directed to significantly reduce herd and flock numbers (beef, dairy and sheep because they all fart and belch) that could see some of our most efficient producers become uneconomic apart from the associated reduction in earnings from this industry these measures will achieve.

There will be a rush to invest in alternative energy projects irrespective of the cost, reliability or efficiency of the plants that replace the naughty ones such as coal fired which are no longer tolerated as part of our crusade to become clean and green.

That wouldn't be so bad if the focus was on building more hydro plants but that source is also out of favour because of the influence of the Conservation lobby who say "No" to any more developments of that type irrespective of where the dams are built.

The dramatic expansion of exotic forests is already part of this government's strategy to reduce carbon emissions albeit this time based on the distortion of the link between trees and their ability to absorb carbon. The carbon sink theory is real but it is being misused as a justification for all these new plantings that will consume large tracts of farm land that are currently supporting economic livestock units. I speak from experience of being a landowner (farmer) at the epicentre of the recent Tolaga Bay disaster and a veteran of the damage caused by Cyclone Bola so am well qualified to comment on the negative aspects of further forestry expansion.

Also, why should New Zealand be conspicuous as one of the world's smallest polluters, yet on a per capita basis, the world's leading advocate for the donning of sackcloth and ashes with dollops of self flagellation that appears to impress no one.

Now here's the thing.

None of this needs to happen in order to meet our obligations as a contributing member state to the brotherhood of nations dealing with the world's problems that are real.

Why am l saying this?

My research suggests that this call to action mitigating global warming is predicated on a lie. 

A relatively significant group of one of the world's most prestigious scientific groups, the Geological Society and an even bigger number of its counterpart in the USA are seriously questioning the validity of the IPCC endorsed theory that unquestionably links the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to global warming and/ or climate change.

These highly qualified "fellows" want their society to disassociate itself from this theory because they believe it to be untrue. In fact, their research of the data going back millions of years shows there is no correlation between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere at any given time and the rise and fall of temperatures across the planet.

There is unquestionably a need to acknowledge the reality of climate change and / or global warming but we need to be clearly focused on measures that will accommodate this cyclical phenomenon without castrating the patient in the process.

This suggests to me that we are fools to be allowing this Government to destroy much of our economic infrastructure without at least asking them to justify their actions by providing the undeniable evidence that we are on the right track.

It would appear that the growing number of world states who have either ignored or withdrawn from the obligations of the Paris agreement suggests they have already made their decisions as to what is in their own best interests.

We should be demanding our Government does the same before it is too late. 

Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.