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?
I think you have been reading too many economics text books Gwani! Most of what you suggest is likely only to ever exist in science fiction and economist dreams. The planet simply doesn't have alternative energy the resources to power electric aircraft and battery boats. I've got a modern EV and it is amazing but it has its limitations, it is way to expensive for it to replace anything but a tiny portion of our existing vehicle fleet and NZ and the world doesn't have the renewable generating capacity for everyone to own one and drive like they were in a hydrocarbon fueled vehicle. There are lots of sources on google re methane emissions from Amazonia - though there seems to be a fair bit of variance among them. It is of more importance that these policy makers get their heads around basic biology and physics all life (which is almost entirely fueled at its roots by photosynthesis of sunlight and CO2 to create complex carbon compounds that nearly all other life forms digests to live and grown. It is physically impossible for a hectare of land to emit more CO2 and methane than it absorbs each year - excluding releases of CO2 and methane through vegetation clearance - which is a one-off. If you want to read a short item that concisely summarizes the issues around human, bovine and ecosystem methane emissions I would recommend the following https://medium.com/climate-conscious/do-humans-fart-more-methane-than-cows-a0f48c590fb0
And as for synthetic foods all foods require an energy input and a nutrient input and globally we are running out of nutrients because humanity keeps dumping them in the ocean every time the toilet is flushed - synthetic foods will have to derive their energy from some artificial source if they are not photosynthetically based and even "creating" synthetic milk and meat from other plant material requires a substantial additional energy input - even our present "natural" food supply contains nearly ten times as much fossil fuel energy as it does photosynthetically sourced energy - when you look at the embedded energy included in packaging processing and delivery - the world has some far more immediately urgent problems to address than methane - the most immediate of these being population control - we can not keep on breeding - if you look at Africa, Pakistan and much of the Middle East and some of the smaller island states - these populations are already way beyond the carrying capacities of their homelands and are facing catastrophic collapse - and they are not different from the rest of us they have got to that point ahead of us. And we are only cushioned by our access to fossil energy from the same predicament and that is a fate deferred not avoided. Change certainly is inevitable but it is probable that the fanciful futures you envisage may not be on the list of options we have to choose from.
Fossil fuels are certainly the issue at a world-system level. I’m interested in your note that an area of soil can only emit the same C02 and methane that it absorbs. Surely that is not the case for a soil that’s losing its organic components over time? Like the peat soils under Waikato dairy farms, and presumably lots of other soils that require massive synthetic fertilizer application to keep their productivity up?
Yes you are correct about degrading peats etc - I consider that falls under "land clearance". I remain amazed that so few people understand the respiratory/photosynthetic cycle as it is the basis of all but the most unusual forms of life - it is a closed system when in balance, it used to be a basic element of year 7 general science but there does not appear to be anyone in parliament or our public service that understands it. Our emissions problem isn't on the farm it on the streets of Wellington an Auckland. Without farmers NZ doesn't have an economy - Auckland is just an unnecessary expense on the productive parts of the economy that consumes mindlessly and produces little of value to the rest of the nation.
You make a number of good points, but I think we need to look more closely at the claim that NZs economy depends on agriculture. There is a difference between revenue and profit. Export figures are the revenue line only.
From my own close involvement in food and wine I have seen that much large scale exporting is marginally costed and often loss making when fully accounted. Constantly chasing scale without profit pushes up land prices, depletes aquifers, degrades the land, increases use of fertilisers and fossil fuels.
Marginal costing is the reason that we can buy NZ lamb cheese butter fish and wine cheaper in a supermarket in UK than in NZ
In cases like wine and dairy we export up to 90% of our total production but the country would be better off if we substantially reduced that percentage and took the stress off the land prices and the environment.
I agree with all your points - we would be far better off becoming much more self sufficient - starting with energy! Oddly enough poor old Rob Muldoon (well not that poor he was nasty enough to look after himself) was vilified by Jacinda's political forebears - to whom she remains a disciple - for endeavoring to make NZ self-sufficient in fuel electricity steel timber etc. but was torpedoed by the collapse in the price of oil - another politicians pursuing the same agenda today would be seen as visionary - though again Rob stuffed it up by trying to do too many things at once. We may well be on the verge of another major spike in energy prices - in Muldoon's time it approached the equivalent of $300/barrel and everyone is whingeing now when it gets to $100 - the days of cheap energy are gone and our political leadership is more interested in stupid policies around council owned water supplies, building cycleways and stadiums etc
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!
Hi Andrew, I concur! If you haven't seen it, this is a real eye opener around plane emissions, and offsetting. https://theturnstone.substack.com/p/up-and-away (by Melanie Newfield as Bernard refers to in today's Kaka). Cheers! Greg.
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)?
Get involved in community organising for the next election? Especially focus on getting young ppl enrolled to vote? I’m sure there’s more than a few volunteer opportunities around the country looking for people. And you’ll have a unique talent or skill that you could contribute, we all do :)
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
Agreed Mike,
No point in preaching to the choir. This stuff needs to be shared with the wider community.
Yes please! I immediately went to share it before realising it wasn't public. Yet :D
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!
Yes, would be great to see Keith on a hoon to discuss, or a stand alone interview
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?
Can you provide some sources for your initial claims on methane plz?
Some good points in the subsequent paras, though we'd need to consider aspects such as:
1. Market trends towards plant-based 'milks and meats' over the next 10 years
2. International carbon (COe) border adjustment mechanisms & their implications for BAU.
3. Upscaling of electric (short haul) and sustainable aviation and shipping fuels (long haul).
I'm sure you're aware that some of these renewable energy/transport policies and strategies are already in play.
Change is inevitable, the only debate is over the planning, pace and relative pain of the transition.
I think you have been reading too many economics text books Gwani! Most of what you suggest is likely only to ever exist in science fiction and economist dreams. The planet simply doesn't have alternative energy the resources to power electric aircraft and battery boats. I've got a modern EV and it is amazing but it has its limitations, it is way to expensive for it to replace anything but a tiny portion of our existing vehicle fleet and NZ and the world doesn't have the renewable generating capacity for everyone to own one and drive like they were in a hydrocarbon fueled vehicle. There are lots of sources on google re methane emissions from Amazonia - though there seems to be a fair bit of variance among them. It is of more importance that these policy makers get their heads around basic biology and physics all life (which is almost entirely fueled at its roots by photosynthesis of sunlight and CO2 to create complex carbon compounds that nearly all other life forms digests to live and grown. It is physically impossible for a hectare of land to emit more CO2 and methane than it absorbs each year - excluding releases of CO2 and methane through vegetation clearance - which is a one-off. If you want to read a short item that concisely summarizes the issues around human, bovine and ecosystem methane emissions I would recommend the following https://medium.com/climate-conscious/do-humans-fart-more-methane-than-cows-a0f48c590fb0
And as for synthetic foods all foods require an energy input and a nutrient input and globally we are running out of nutrients because humanity keeps dumping them in the ocean every time the toilet is flushed - synthetic foods will have to derive their energy from some artificial source if they are not photosynthetically based and even "creating" synthetic milk and meat from other plant material requires a substantial additional energy input - even our present "natural" food supply contains nearly ten times as much fossil fuel energy as it does photosynthetically sourced energy - when you look at the embedded energy included in packaging processing and delivery - the world has some far more immediately urgent problems to address than methane - the most immediate of these being population control - we can not keep on breeding - if you look at Africa, Pakistan and much of the Middle East and some of the smaller island states - these populations are already way beyond the carrying capacities of their homelands and are facing catastrophic collapse - and they are not different from the rest of us they have got to that point ahead of us. And we are only cushioned by our access to fossil energy from the same predicament and that is a fate deferred not avoided. Change certainly is inevitable but it is probable that the fanciful futures you envisage may not be on the list of options we have to choose from.
Fossil fuels are certainly the issue at a world-system level. I’m interested in your note that an area of soil can only emit the same C02 and methane that it absorbs. Surely that is not the case for a soil that’s losing its organic components over time? Like the peat soils under Waikato dairy farms, and presumably lots of other soils that require massive synthetic fertilizer application to keep their productivity up?
Yes you are correct about degrading peats etc - I consider that falls under "land clearance". I remain amazed that so few people understand the respiratory/photosynthetic cycle as it is the basis of all but the most unusual forms of life - it is a closed system when in balance, it used to be a basic element of year 7 general science but there does not appear to be anyone in parliament or our public service that understands it. Our emissions problem isn't on the farm it on the streets of Wellington an Auckland. Without farmers NZ doesn't have an economy - Auckland is just an unnecessary expense on the productive parts of the economy that consumes mindlessly and produces little of value to the rest of the nation.
You make a number of good points, but I think we need to look more closely at the claim that NZs economy depends on agriculture. There is a difference between revenue and profit. Export figures are the revenue line only.
From my own close involvement in food and wine I have seen that much large scale exporting is marginally costed and often loss making when fully accounted. Constantly chasing scale without profit pushes up land prices, depletes aquifers, degrades the land, increases use of fertilisers and fossil fuels.
Marginal costing is the reason that we can buy NZ lamb cheese butter fish and wine cheaper in a supermarket in UK than in NZ
In cases like wine and dairy we export up to 90% of our total production but the country would be better off if we substantially reduced that percentage and took the stress off the land prices and the environment.
I agree with all your points - we would be far better off becoming much more self sufficient - starting with energy! Oddly enough poor old Rob Muldoon (well not that poor he was nasty enough to look after himself) was vilified by Jacinda's political forebears - to whom she remains a disciple - for endeavoring to make NZ self-sufficient in fuel electricity steel timber etc. but was torpedoed by the collapse in the price of oil - another politicians pursuing the same agenda today would be seen as visionary - though again Rob stuffed it up by trying to do too many things at once. We may well be on the verge of another major spike in energy prices - in Muldoon's time it approached the equivalent of $300/barrel and everyone is whingeing now when it gets to $100 - the days of cheap energy are gone and our political leadership is more interested in stupid policies around council owned water supplies, building cycleways and stadiums etc
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!
Hi Andrew, I concur! If you haven't seen it, this is a real eye opener around plane emissions, and offsetting. https://theturnstone.substack.com/p/up-and-away (by Melanie Newfield as Bernard refers to in today's Kaka). Cheers! Greg.
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)?
Get involved in community organising for the next election? Especially focus on getting young ppl enrolled to vote? I’m sure there’s more than a few volunteer opportunities around the country looking for people. And you’ll have a unique talent or skill that you could contribute, we all do :)
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