The physics & chemistry of our planet are moving much faster than our farmers & politicians can get through the five stages of political grief to the inevitable conclusion of cutting herds & emissions
Thought I'd delete then re-write my comment, didn't realise it'd look like that haha. Anyway, just wanted to say how thankful we are for your work. It's amazing you did all this in the last day! You're an inspiration :D - Samah
As well as subscribing to Melanie Newfield's excellent substack The Turnstone (I love her work!), I've found Keith Woodford has followed the ETS discussions over many years, and puts out regular articles helping explain the intricacies around New Zealand's efforts in a balanced and well explained way. He publishes these at https://keithwoodford.wordpress.com/
It's certainly a complex set of problems - heartfelt thanks for digging into this Bernard.
Cheers, Greg.
P.S. a big +1 from me to let if fly free of the paywall!
Something of a controversial comment, but I wonder if you would consider dialling back the daily emails to three days a week (Mon, Wed and Friday)? You go into great depth when you do your daily pieces (and I am jealous of your ability to turn things around so quickly), though I think we would get even more value from pieces that take that a little extra time to put together.
What this entire daft scheme fails to recognize is that prior to 1850 there were a whole lot of other biogenic sources of methane that were displaced by farming. The amazon forests produces roughly the same amount of methane per sq/km annually from natural processes as does farming. All organic matter (including methane) decays through some natural digestive process to produce carbon dioxide - it just so happens that humanity has diverted the process of decay/digestion from the natural biota to an agricultural biota - of which humanity is a part - the amount of carbon dioxide and methane produced by the annual cycle of photosynthesis and respiration exactly equals the amount absorbed
It also fails to recognize that our problem is fossil fuel based consumption not food production. Our problems also arises from our present population policies - NZ's population has more than doubled since 1950. This population wants to pursue a modern lifestyle - that lifestyle is entirely funded by agricultural production. That lifestyle is funded almost entirely by agricultural exports - and most of that is earned by dairying. We already import more than we export - we run a trade deficit - and this policy will further reduce our exports. At the same time as this foolish policy is put in place our leaders are busting their boiler to get jet airliners back in the air, cruise ships polluting our waterways and letting in low wage migrant labour to subsidise tourism - such raging hypocrisy!! On top of that we are living in an increasingly food-short world. When does this government stop all the stupid stuff and introduce policies to actually change consumption behaviours and to initiate a sensible investment program in renewable energy and transport strategies and reduction in fossil energy use? Also we are buying lots of carbon credits from off-shore - doesn't it seem paradoxical that we have to export coal dried milk powder to pay for these "credits"? Reliance on "market mechanisms" such as the ETS are simply a fudge for not doing something concrete about the problem made worse by the fact that the entire ETS looks like cross between a Nigerian banking scam and a ponzi scheme?
But we are allowing continued use of aircraft putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere (whilst continuing with loyalty schemes to encourage even more damaging travel behaviour) and we are allowing offsetting of that pollutive behaviour for the foreseeable future, during which time said airline(s) are planting up food producing land in trees that we agreed in Paris that we would not do. Yes, farming has to change but so too do other activities - fast - hence the Climate Commission speculating that polluters should not be allowed to offset - bet the house on that? Not likely!
Great comments Bernard. Although the government's plans are limited, one can but hope they don't go the way of other Labour government policies, where an announcement is made, then the opposition pull it to bits and finally the government opts out. This government started early on this with the abandonment of plans to institute a CGTax, but there are many other things that come to mind including the lack of defence to three waters, the similar approach to co-governance where Maori are required to prevent eventual privatisation of our water supply etc.
The physics and chemistry were given a huge push under Julius Vogel's government, to strip the land of old established bush and to plant exotic grasses even in areas that were incompatible with their root systems' tenuous hold on the earth. The New Zealand arable-based economy served our population well while we were ignorant of the effects of such a major and sudden change to the landscape. Trying to reproduce England on a small isolated group of temperate islands. Everyone benefited and the NZ lifestyle was rather good for several generations. Until the strain on the planet started to become evident. So we did it, we must undo it. And yes, science doesn't have a political bone in its body. Science doesn't understand democracy, lobbying, entrenched behaviour, ignorance and it especially doesn't understand greed.
What we can do about it, apart from push and support the legislation, and the parties not captured by the meat and dairy industries? Boycott the meat and dairy industries (doing that already)?
Very helpful thanks. RE the P.S. feel free to take the time necessary to compose articles along these lines. I wonder if 'the government' is now moving on almost every issue but is in a position where it has to rely on public bureaucracies engaged in narrowly defined sectoral negotiations in the absence of a coherent public constituency for the changes you point to in your articles. Could it be that, almost universally, the changes are framed in terms of loss rather than gain?
fantastic analysis Bernard I hope we can share later
An important one to share publicly I think.
Thought I'd delete then re-write my comment, didn't realise it'd look like that haha. Anyway, just wanted to say how thankful we are for your work. It's amazing you did all this in the last day! You're an inspiration :D - Samah
Please share widely Bernard.
As well as subscribing to Melanie Newfield's excellent substack The Turnstone (I love her work!), I've found Keith Woodford has followed the ETS discussions over many years, and puts out regular articles helping explain the intricacies around New Zealand's efforts in a balanced and well explained way. He publishes these at https://keithwoodford.wordpress.com/
It's certainly a complex set of problems - heartfelt thanks for digging into this Bernard.
Cheers, Greg.
P.S. a big +1 from me to let if fly free of the paywall!
Hi Bernard,
Something of a controversial comment, but I wonder if you would consider dialling back the daily emails to three days a week (Mon, Wed and Friday)? You go into great depth when you do your daily pieces (and I am jealous of your ability to turn things around so quickly), though I think we would get even more value from pieces that take that a little extra time to put together.
Townies to farmers: - cut your methane emissions now; cull your herds.
Farmers to townies: - there would be more emission reductions if you stopped buying gas-guzzling double cab utes.
What this entire daft scheme fails to recognize is that prior to 1850 there were a whole lot of other biogenic sources of methane that were displaced by farming. The amazon forests produces roughly the same amount of methane per sq/km annually from natural processes as does farming. All organic matter (including methane) decays through some natural digestive process to produce carbon dioxide - it just so happens that humanity has diverted the process of decay/digestion from the natural biota to an agricultural biota - of which humanity is a part - the amount of carbon dioxide and methane produced by the annual cycle of photosynthesis and respiration exactly equals the amount absorbed
It also fails to recognize that our problem is fossil fuel based consumption not food production. Our problems also arises from our present population policies - NZ's population has more than doubled since 1950. This population wants to pursue a modern lifestyle - that lifestyle is entirely funded by agricultural production. That lifestyle is funded almost entirely by agricultural exports - and most of that is earned by dairying. We already import more than we export - we run a trade deficit - and this policy will further reduce our exports. At the same time as this foolish policy is put in place our leaders are busting their boiler to get jet airliners back in the air, cruise ships polluting our waterways and letting in low wage migrant labour to subsidise tourism - such raging hypocrisy!! On top of that we are living in an increasingly food-short world. When does this government stop all the stupid stuff and introduce policies to actually change consumption behaviours and to initiate a sensible investment program in renewable energy and transport strategies and reduction in fossil energy use? Also we are buying lots of carbon credits from off-shore - doesn't it seem paradoxical that we have to export coal dried milk powder to pay for these "credits"? Reliance on "market mechanisms" such as the ETS are simply a fudge for not doing something concrete about the problem made worse by the fact that the entire ETS looks like cross between a Nigerian banking scam and a ponzi scheme?
But we are allowing continued use of aircraft putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere (whilst continuing with loyalty schemes to encourage even more damaging travel behaviour) and we are allowing offsetting of that pollutive behaviour for the foreseeable future, during which time said airline(s) are planting up food producing land in trees that we agreed in Paris that we would not do. Yes, farming has to change but so too do other activities - fast - hence the Climate Commission speculating that polluters should not be allowed to offset - bet the house on that? Not likely!
Great comments Bernard. Although the government's plans are limited, one can but hope they don't go the way of other Labour government policies, where an announcement is made, then the opposition pull it to bits and finally the government opts out. This government started early on this with the abandonment of plans to institute a CGTax, but there are many other things that come to mind including the lack of defence to three waters, the similar approach to co-governance where Maori are required to prevent eventual privatisation of our water supply etc.
The physics and chemistry were given a huge push under Julius Vogel's government, to strip the land of old established bush and to plant exotic grasses even in areas that were incompatible with their root systems' tenuous hold on the earth. The New Zealand arable-based economy served our population well while we were ignorant of the effects of such a major and sudden change to the landscape. Trying to reproduce England on a small isolated group of temperate islands. Everyone benefited and the NZ lifestyle was rather good for several generations. Until the strain on the planet started to become evident. So we did it, we must undo it. And yes, science doesn't have a political bone in its body. Science doesn't understand democracy, lobbying, entrenched behaviour, ignorance and it especially doesn't understand greed.
Wonderful piece Bernard - high praise when it is good enough for Mike Joy.
Our only real hope, rural and urban, seems to be the young, Spread it widely and maybe get it put into school curricula.( and change the voting.age.)
What we can do about it, apart from push and support the legislation, and the parties not captured by the meat and dairy industries? Boycott the meat and dairy industries (doing that already)?
Very helpful thanks. RE the P.S. feel free to take the time necessary to compose articles along these lines. I wonder if 'the government' is now moving on almost every issue but is in a position where it has to rely on public bureaucracies engaged in narrowly defined sectoral negotiations in the absence of a coherent public constituency for the changes you point to in your articles. Could it be that, almost universally, the changes are framed in terms of loss rather than gain?
Pithy, spot-on, and needed analysis Bernard. Keep up the good work.
+1 For you taking extra time for as excellent deep dives as this one! Ka mau te wehi! Love your work