Federated Farmers is not supportive:
The Government’s announcement today of a 2035 climate target of a 51-55% emissions reduction has signed New Zealand up for a decade more of planting pine on productive land, Federated Farmers meat and wool chair Toby Williams says.
“In the past, New Zealand has signed up to Paris Agreement targets that are achievable only by either paying billions of dollars for international units or planting large areas of New Zealand in carbon forestry.
“The 2030 target of a 50% reduction in all greenhouse gas emissions in just the next five years is already completely beyond reach.
“Even by 2035, as half of New Zealand’s emissions are from agriculture, a target of 51-55% is still not feasible.
All the target does is commit us to 10 more years of planting pines, because that’s the only way for our country to achieve such a steep reduction.”
Williams says New Zealand’s options for achieving the climate targets are simple.
“We can’t reduce our emissions to the extent required without trade-offs that would see New Zealand worse off.
“Treasury has estimated that the 2030 target, if we were to meet it, would cost up to $24 billion. The Prime Minister, when interviewed on Q+A with Jack Tame late last year, couldn’t commit to hitting the target, as he said it was very challenging.
“So, our only other options are to send billions of dollars overseas to buy offshore credits, or plant pine trees, destroying our iconic and world-famous landscapes.”
Last year, the Climate Commission suggested keeping an all-gases target and at least a 50% reduction, which would mean another 850,000 hectares of land converted to forestry.
“To paint a clear picture: that’s an area five times the size of our country’s treasured Molesworth Station,” Williams says.
“That would be devastating, forever changing the face of New Zealand.
“There is a very real risk that we could become the great pine plantation of the South Pacific – hardly something to be proud of.”
Williams says the Government needs to be setting climate targets that are realistic and achievable.
“Mr Luxon is right now facing an unachievable target for 2030 left to him by the previous Government.
“Signing up to an even more ambitious target for 2035 has simply created the same headache for a future Prime Minister.”
Parliament agreed in 2019 to set ‘split-gas’ targets for greenhouse gas reductions domestically. This means short-lived methane is treated differently to long-lived carbon dioxide.
Taking this split-gas approach to our international targets would see New Zealand in a position to set more achievable targets.
“Federated Farmers wrote to Climate Change Minister Simon Watts in October last year asking for a meeting to discuss a split-gas approach to an emissions target, but we didn’t get a reply,” Williams says.
“That’s extremely disappointing. It seems he doesn’t even want to hear our concerns for rural New Zealand, let alone understand them. It’s wilful blindness.
“We really need the Government to start setting achievable targets that don’t require huge levels of forestry, and we need the Government to use the most up-to-date science on the warming impact of methane.”
. . . B+LNZ Chair Kate Acland says the NDC’s failure to follow a split-gas approach is a significant concern.
“New Zealand is the only country that has split-gas domestic targets and an all-gas aggregated NDC target.
“This creates confusion as to what reductions New Zealand is actually trying to achieve from an emissions reduction perspective from each gas and creates uncertainty for farmers about what future policy objectives will be.
“There was a real opportunity here to address that, but the Government has chosen not to.
“Uruguay, another country with a significant agricultural sector, has adopted a split gas approach so there is a precedent globally.”
In light of the uncertainty, B+LNZ reiterates its call for the Government to amend New Zealand’s methane targets.
An independent panel on methane last year reinforced that New Zealand’s current methane targets are too high and could be revised downwards.
It found that reductions in the range of 14-24 percent by 2050 would see methane not add any additional warming from 2017 levels, depending on how quickly the rest of the world reduces its emissions.
“The panel’s findings were an improvement on the current methane targets but would still be a stretch for the sheep and beef sector,” Acland says.
“B+LNZ has long advocated for a review of the targets based on a warming approach.
“Methane should only be asked to do what is being asked of other gases, which is to achieve no additional warming. We simply can’t leave the current 47 percent target hanging there.
“Farmers are committed to the environment and absolute emissions from sheep and beef farms have reduced by 35 percent since 1990. We know there’s an expectation that further progress is made in reducing agricultural emissions from food production, but farmers need clarity and certainty.
“We need progress on this issue, soon, and we’ll continue to push this case to the Government.”
The Methane Science Accord – a grouping of FARM (Facts About Ruminant Methane) Groundswell, 50 Shades of Green and Rural Advocacy Network (RAN) – is calling for no tax on ruminant methane :
All policy on ruminant methane emissions must be based on current science. As research findings on methane’s impact on the atmosphere are still evolving it is critically important for farming, for rural communities and the New Zealand economy that recent scientific results are recognised and, unless shown to be false, are adopted locally and internationally.
We reject the GWP100 standard for measuring methane as outdated and unscientific and accept the IPCC’s AR6 Report making clear that new science states ruminant methane’s warming ability is exaggerated by 300 to 400%. More recently scientific results released by Happer and Wijngaarden and supported by Sheahen, Coe, May, Allison, Fabinski, Weigleb, Schildknecht et al show conclusively that ruminant methane is too insignificant to have any measurable impact on global temperatures.
We, therefore, reject any attempts to apply any form of taxing or restrictions on ruminant methane unless the most recent findings are proved to be erroneous.
Act and New Zealand First are both talking about making pulling out of the accord their policy in next year’s election.
Pulling out of the accord doesn’t mean abandoning efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. It would be an opportunity to base actions on science rather than politics and bureaucracy and to put the research, science and technology horses back in front of the environmental cart.
Act’s and New Zealand First’s committing to pulling out of the Accord probably wouldn’t affect the rural seats that National holds but it would have a big impact on the party vote.
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
Last paragraph is spot on Ellie. As a former National Party member I have now switched to ACT party voting until National gets itself “de-bullocked “ on this issue.
We have seen a number of very knowledgeable people write on BV on the real science to counter this global climate scam.
Here is my perspective from being in the 'Reading Wars ' for about 50 years. In this debate, last century 99% of academia , the media , the entire Min. of Ed and most of society believed learning to read without phonic direct instruction was correct.
Now the research is overwhelmingly revealing the opposite is true. However we have a couple of generations of NZ ers with very poor literacy which is tragic . Does this country have to be destroyed economically before the truth comes out ?
What I am trying to say is the truth can be completely suppressed or denied by most of society .But truth in science is never about how many support a theory even if the authorities proclaiming the wrong theory have multiple qualifications and experience.
Standing up for truth can at times be lonely and hard . But I am grateful for BV existence to provide the alternative views . There was nothing like this last century.
Former life-long National Party supporters, my wife and I have also switched to ACT. I do not support the statement that ACT and New Zealand First’s committing to pulling out of the Accord may not affect the rural seats that National holds. To retain their seats in rural electorates National Party candidates would have to openly reject their own party's climate target policies..
In effect they would have to make a open challenge to Luxon's leadership.
With what already appears to be a significant reduction in the Party Vote for National ( let's not forget the ongoing Issues in regard to Maori and the ToW), the Party Vote needs to go to ACT/New Zealand First to prevent a return to Labour/Greens/The Maori Party!
This is what happens when you go along with a scam for the sake of a quiet life.
Fed Farmers knew climate change was a scam, designed by UN-infiltrated Marxists to shift wealth from developed to developing countries.
But they went along with it, “seeking to engage” on the details of how their sector would be affected.
Why not just oppose the scam and demand New Zealand pulls out of the Paris Accord before it is too late?
Now they know the Climate Change Minister has drunk the cool-ade (same as the Prime Minister) and neither are interested in debating the scam or considering reversing it.
And yes, they’re prepared to send the country bankrupt and change the face of farmland forever on the basis of shonky computer “models”.
Let’s get real and accept some facts:
1 - There is NO correlation between CO2 concentrations and global warming
2 - Man-made climate change is a myth and mathematically impossible
3 - Climate “scientists” have told lies (as in “lies, damn lies, and statistics!”) but have been caught out.
Happy to provide proof of all 3 BTW.
There’s still time for FF to change tack and develop an effective counter campaign.
Once the carbon credits are purchased (with your taxes) and the farmland planted in pines, there’s no going back.
Let's have a close look at Juliet's 'facts'.
1 - A correlation is a relationship between two continuous variables. It can be positive (one up, the other up) or inverse (one up, the other down). It may be perfect (a correlation coefficient of +1 or -1) or somewhere in between. The square of the correlation coefficient gives you the amount of covariance e.g. a coefficient of 0.71 means that there is 50% covariance.
'Global warming' in itself is not a continuous variable unless you specify exactly what you are referring to e.g. average surface temperature. And there is a significant correlation between those and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations which suggests a covariance of around 70%. So that's one 'fact' shot to blazes.
2 - Calling something a myth is hardly a 'fact', rather an example of argumentative rhetoric. 'Mathematically impossible'? We are talking about tangible, measurable physical quantities here,. How would you prove that such a sequence of events as posited by the climate change model is MATHEMATICALLY impossible? (sorry for the caps but the point needs to be made)
3 - Most - make that the overwhelming majority - of scientists involved in climate change are acting in good faith. There may be a temptation to massage some data but the consequences of being sprung are rather severe, viz loss of career, so most won't even contemplate doing that.
I repeat from an earlier comment, I am not a climate change groupie, but I am a very well-informed fellow with advanced analytical skills and I can spot a lame duck argument from a mile off.
Barend, That is no way to treat a lady . Not now not ever .
Instead of your puffery and supposed knowledge gained , why not give a detailed analysis why CO2 is indeed the cause of Climate change etc .
We know you can not because there are no valid , definitive explanations . ONLY statements and NO facts because the long past alarmist catastrophies that will happen have faded into obscurity.
Just because the overwhelming majority of scientists are acting in good faith doesn't convince me at all .They can still all be wrong . It would be difficult to get a job in NEWA if you don't subscribe to the current narrative. Astonishing as it may be academic educationalists persisted in promoting the wrong reading methods for for over 50 years .There was plenty of research indicating they were wrong but the nonsense persisted. One US literacy expert and researcher recently described our sacred cow Dame Marie Clay's research not as massaged but as 'complete crap.' She cheated and lied but because the Whole Language ( WL) ideology was so entrenched nobody could challenge her without losing funding for their research or publishing of papers. The ridicule by other academics was astonishing -doing the devil's work and phonicators.
The cult of WL was broken when a enormously expensive piece of research costing $7 million and involving 100s of thousands of students revealed those students having WL remedial reading were much worse off then those who had no interventions. Henry May a statistician the researcher and WL advocate was astonished at the result but it was undeniable. As it had been all along but academia was thoroughly brainwashed despite their magnificent intellects.
Basil, the 'puffery' is on the part of those who use big words they don't seem to know the meaning of.
Perhaps you would like a 'detailed analysis' of why the Earth is round rather than flat. The point being that it's all out there in print and accessible on line. For anyone who knows what the word 'correlation' means in inferential stats, there is no question about there being a correlation. But, to repeat a fundamental principle of inferential stats emphasised to many undergrad classes, correlation does not necessarily imply causality.
'We know you can not', you say. All that tells me is that your understanding of epistemological issues invoked by the climate change case is rather limited.
Hi Barend sorry, I have to disagree - but perhaps you can prove me wrong:
1 - If there was a significant correlation between average surface temperatures and CO2 concentrations, we would have been presented with a graph with two lines (one temps, the other CO2) both heading skywards on a more or less similar trajectory.
There hasn’t been.
The closest there’s been was the infamous “hockey stick graph”, albeit that showed temperatures only. More about that under 3 (lies…)
2 - How’s this for mathematically impossible?
The proportion of atmospheric CO2 attributable to mankind is 4 to 5% (IPCC agrees, BTW).
So how is it that we could control global temperatures by adjusting this very small proportion when we have no influence over the other 95%?
Just make it a simple answer Barend, for those of us who might be mathematically challenges.
3 - lies. Yep, there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics. I would add graphs and weighting factors to that. The “hockey stick” graph is a fine example.
For those who missed it at the time, that was the media description given to a publicly-released graph of global temperatures over millenia. It more or less flat-lined for centuries, then climbed spectacularly in more recent times in the shape of a hockey stick. Clearly we were all about to boil.
Two American mathematicians wanted to investigate the data and the graphing. They asked for the original data. Initially it was refused, but they eventually obtained it.
Then they wanted the weightings, the factors applied to the data to produce the graph.
The scientists responsible explained temperatures from previous millenia had been “inferred” from ice cores, tree rings and the like. Temperature readings from later times had been given more “weight” because thermometers and subsequently satellites were more reliable.
Fair enough, most thought, until the mathematicians pointed out that this is what produced the graph’s J-shape.
Not only that, they found that by applying the same weightings to RANDOM data, they could produce a similar-shaped graph.
Busted!
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, I reckon it’s not a lame duck at all.
Post a Comment