I was right – Greens want to shoot the cows
Yesterday I was at a Business Roundtable conference, giving a presentation on the media and public policy issues. The main topic I focused on was how well had the media done in covering and analysing the debate on what the emissions reduction target should be – especially the campaign by the Greens and Greenpeace to have it at 40% below 1990 levels.
I did my normal calculations of how this is actually a reduction from the business as usual case of 57%, and that to do this one would need to ban every car, bus and truck in NZ, close down every fossil fuel power plant and on top of that hire vigilantes to shoot every third cow.
After the presentation I went back to my laptop and found a new story on NZPA, about the Greens explaining how NZ could make the 40% target they want. My eyes goggled at this bit:
The Greens today floated de-stocking in the dairy sector
I thought I had been taking the piss. I was using humour to make a point. But blow me down, the little fruitcakes are serious. They do want us to shoot the cows. They just use the nice Orwelllian term of “de-stocking” instead.
Then my eyes hit the next part:
along with genetically improving herds toward less emission-prone cows.
Can anyone spell hypocrisy?
And in case you think NZPA got it wrong, the Greens own website says:
If we reduce the average dairy stocking rate from 2.83 cows/ha to 2.3 we save 2.2 Mt
This is a reduction in cows of 19%. I told the Business Roundtable in semi-jest that the Greens want to slaughter one in three cows. It seems that their official policy is to wipe out one in five cows – pretty close.
In 1999 we had around 3.5 million cows. So the Greens policy is to exterminate around 700,000 cows.
I am now a bit worried about the next step in their logic. You see in the 1970s Muldoon introduced “carless” days to conserve energy. Yes it was illegal to drive your car one day a week. Anyway (Sir) Bob Jones wrote a letter to the newspaper suggesting the Government scrap carless days and if they are serious about conserving energy, they merely shoot one in ten motorists.
Now humans don’t fart as much methane as cows, but our overall consumption drives a lot of carbon emissions. So I really hope the Greens refrain from adopting Bob Jones’ 1970s jest as policy.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Satire can be spooky like that.
It reminds me of the Tom Scott cartoon in about 1985 which showed a bunch of kaumatua waiting outside a select committee room. One says: “When I get to the bit about tino rangitiratanga, claiming we own the airwaves, it’s important you all keep a straight face.” Another mutters: “If we pull this one off we’ll have a crack at oxygen.”
It was funny at the time. Scott clearly considered it absurd. Five years later they claimed the bloody radio spectrum – and got it!
[DPF: I remember that cartoon also. A classic]
August 5th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
I was wondering when this post was going to show up
Gotta love the way they casually throw out strategies such as reducing live-stock by 20% without really giving the reader a proper impression of what that would actually mean to their life.
I think they are on to something with the genetically modified cows, though. Just like GM veges feeding the world and nuclear power reducing CO2 emmissions, the net benefit from a small investment in research would appear to be very significant.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
If you had done your homework, you would see that the de-stocking is already occuring because the dairy price has returned to long term trends and the intensification craze of the last few years is proving to be just that – a bubble frothed by high commodity prices. As for shooting the herd – get real.
We have offered a scenario where farmers could be more profitable than they are now and not pay a cent under the current ETS. Your plan, I presume, is to put your head in the sand?
We’re talking about selective breeding, using advanced genetic techniques – not GM cows. That would take too long and be too expensive.
[DPF: My plan is not to shoot one in five cows. I trust individual farmers to decide on how to be profitable rather than have a political party dictate how many cows a hectare one can have.
I support an emissions reduction target that is practical]
August 5th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
>along with genetically improving herds toward less emission-prone cows.
Personally, I’m all in favour of robot cows. They’d be impervious to gunfire and you could program them to do housework while they weren’t dispensing milk.
Just think of the green jobs that would be created designing and building environmentally friendly robot animals!
August 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
um..!..dpf..
you are getting a bit carried away here with yr (emotive/button-pushing) ‘slaughter’-claims..eh..?
to de-stock..you just have to stop breeding..f.f.s..!
..and btw..how many animals were (shock..!..horror..!..) ‘slaughtered’ today..for your ilk to eat..?
..or were they just being processed/packaged..?
yellow-journalism award struck for you..?..on the spot..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
What ever happened to the Greens taxing people and farmers for green house emissions etc?
Clearly their strategy of over taxing people wasn’t going to work, they should be taxing the cows directly!
Now I’m sure even the farmers and tax-payers will support that one!
There you go Greens, go for it!
August 5th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
And by the way, it’s possible to genetically improve animals by using selective breeding. They weren’t talking about using genetic engineering (in the sense that you insert genes from some other species into a cow) to do it, obviously.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
“you would see that the de-stocking is already occuring because the dairy price has returned to long term trends”
So? What you are talking about is forcing any market driven de-stocking to be permamnent. You dont even care that perhaps the real craze is the recent de-intensification. You also assume that prices will remain at current levels in the future.
You build your argument around current circumstances, with little consideration for the possibility of things changing.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that even if farmers had to pay for each cow under an ETS scheme that there might still be a price at which they will be willing to increase the size of their herd? Your solution is to stop this from happening with no justification other than you want it to happen.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
DPF – can you explain to me what ‘an emissions reduction target that is practicle’ actually means? Because they sound like weasle words to me…
[DPF: The Australian targets look reasonable to me. The nature of our profile makes it harder for us to make reductions, so something close to or a bit under Australia should be ok]
August 5th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
From the study:
“An average, all-pasture Waikato dairy farm could decrease emissions by 30-35% while increasing profitability by 60% through higher reproductive performance, better genetic merit cows, and better pasture management. This would enable dropping stocking rate from 3.0 to 2.3 and reducing nitrogen fertiliser to less than 50 kg/ha/yr. ”
They’re not pulling that stuff out of thin air, they’re referencing a Dairy NZ study there.
You can attack the Greens over this all you want, the point they’re making is that with a bit of trying it’s easy to come up with ideas for reducing emissions by 30 – 40%. It’s not nearly as difficult as Nick Smith is making out.
(sorry for submitting this so many times, it looks like wordpress doesn’t like it when i put in html)
August 5th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
NOt1tocommentoften, he has explained it often enough.
FFS, does he have to rewrite every post on a topic in every new post?
You see those Tags in blue up the top? Click the one called “carbon emissions”, and find out for yourself.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
“..Your plan, I presume, is to put your head in the sand?.”
that’s what he did with the global economic meltdown thingy…
..’till just before it broke over our heads..
..despite receiving warnings for..oh..!..ages..!..before that..
i think people make the mistake of not factoring in basic rightwing ideology..
..and national party imperatives..
..when reading the ‘opinions’..
..of the host of kiwiblog..
..and the right/business/agriculture..and all the other vested interests that comprise national..
..are terrified of the ‘costs’ of all this..
..and that it heralds the doom of their very profitable..but environmentally chatastrophic..businesses/industries..
..that class/ideological-riddled self-interest..
..is (partly) what is driving that ‘heads-in-sand’ approach..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I heard Jeanette Fitzsimmons on National Radio this morning suggesting New Zealand should unilaterally offer 30% reduction by 2020 and that this would “be to our own benefit to do so” – or words to that effect.
That is a patently false claim. The benefit of that reduction would be negligible and in any almost entirely accrue to foreign nations. The cost would be enormous and entirely accrue to New Zealand. It will be felt in the form of some combination of massively higher transportation costs, massively higher commodity prices (milk, meat), massively reduced personal mobility, massively higher energy costs, and higher costs for everything that consumes energy. To achieve it by 2020 would also mean forcibly stranding a lot of fixed investment in carbon emitting assets.
What is good is to see the Greens finally starting – just starting – to own up to the massive sacrifices that will actually be required to achieve their utopia, and to see the tensions between their ideas, like their genetically modified cows idea, be made explicit.
What is amazing to me is how the Green movement can exist when it is so completely isolated from reality. That so much political pressure be created and so much policy can be written without these realities ever being made explicit.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Thanks Kimble – do you need to swear so much? I wasn’t aware he had – I’ll look into it now and then comment. That will give you a chance to reply on his behalf again. Calm down dear, have a cup of tea.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Frog did say: “…dairy price has returned to long term trends…”
How long is a trend, year, 5 years, 50 years?
Did you read that the online auction price just went up 26% in this round?
Perhaps the last year of dropping has been the one off and not the last 5 years of growth?
August 5th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Kimble the argument is built around current circumstances AND the average price for milk over the last 10 years. Read the study.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“Now humans don’t fart as much methane as cows, but our overall consumption drives a lot of carbon emissions. So I really hope the Greens refrain from adopting Bob Jones’ 1970s jest as policy.”
I’m all for shooting 700, 000 cows and returning South Island rivers to their former state, i.e. full of both water and trout/salmon.
It is however the other suggestion of DPF (originally of Sir Robert Jones) that I wish to comment on – that of shooting every 10th motorist.
I’d vote for that!
August 5th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
phil(whoar.co.nz)
..why..
..do you write..
..like this..
..It looks stupid and is very annoying..
..any point you make gets lost in the inane writing style..
..please stop..
August 5th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
This is beyond moronic – every living thing emits carbon FFS, get over it.
The fucking carbon cycle (which is not now nor ever has been “perfectly balanced”) is what makes the planet work. I suppose that is the attraction of this BS to the power grabbers if they can find a way of demanding their tribute from every process that ‘emits carbon’ they are going to end very very rich and powerful.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Do you think the Greens might go with a policy of banning cremations because they release CO2 into the air and because burials sequester carbon quite well? Just thinking where all this is heading …
And surely a mandatory policy of taking baked beans and cabbages off the shelves at supermarkets would have a huge environmental benefit …
August 5th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
“Thanks Kimble – do you need to swear so much? I wasn’t aware he had – I’ll look into it now and then comment. That will give you a chance to reply on his behalf again. Calm down dear, have a cup of tea.”
I swear a fucking hell of a lot actually. But this is something that has started to really piss me off. I made a statement the other day that some commenters at The Standard labelled those who weren’t anti-smacking monsters and child abusers, then got challenged to prove it by someone who hadnt even bothered to look himself!
I propose a simple internet rule: Dont ask other people to do work to prove their point when it is very simple for you to do it yourself.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Do you think the Greens might go with a policy of banning cremations because they release CO2 into the air and because burials sequester carbon quite well?”
I think you will see that very same proposal some time in the near future. They will probably try to make it a moral decision for terminally ill people. “Do you want your final act to be pollution?” Then they will act bemused that people would ever find it crass and accuse those people of not taking climate change seriously and insinuating that they are in the pay of Big Oil.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
If the Greens are upset about dairy farming now, they will be apoplectic when they find out about palm-kernel stock feed.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
frog, you really are talking crap. There is no de-stocking underway. Why do you pricks think you know so much about fields in which your total experience is gained from google?
The majority of dairy farmers with whom I deal are steadily increasing cow numbers, based on a sober projection of farmgate prices which have nothing to do with the recent $7.90 aberration.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
My opinion:
http://wrattiesworld.blogspot.com/2008/09/emissions-tax-scam-cost.html
If it’s good enough for Phool ……………..
August 5th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Tom Scott also did a cartoon that depicted Muldoon asking whether anybody thought the country was run by fear and intimidation, and then showing him facing a bunch of journalists staring silently at the floor. Years later Scott commented that he had no sooner done the cartoon than a journo friend informed him of a real-life Muldoon presser almost exactly like that, which led Scott to conclude that satire was redundant in NZ.
It is in that spirit that I refer back to this caption from yesterday:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/caption_contest-8.html#comment-592570
August 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
I thought the greens opposed genetic engineering but now they want to engineer more “efficient” – now there’s a weasel word in this context – dairy cattle?
August 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
AGW is a myth – so this topic really is just ‘hot air’…
August 5th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Crematoria in Brave New World.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
If the Greens (and philu) had even a modicum (thats a small amount phil) of knwledge about making genetic changes in the dairy herd through selective breeding they would be aware of a thing called selection pressure. This is the degree to which you can bring about change in a population and is directly related to the rate of progress.
Consider this
In order to make a genetic change in the population you need to be able to mate as many cows as possible to your carefully selected bulls and CULL out those calves which do not exhibit the desired traits.
CULL phil, means remove from the breeding population and you then get to keep those which are showing the “low fart trait” To CULL these calsves you have to slaughter them.
Now it is conceivable that Sue Kedgely would run a campaign saying that shooting them would be cruel and unconscionable so lets say that they get their throats cut.
So the Greens (and philu) are promoting the large scale slaughter of cute little calves by stabbing. HOW BAD IS THAT
August 5th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
They are a pressure party with (among other things) an environmental agenda.
Does DPF/Kiwiblog have anything constructive to contribute here, by way of perhaps an alternative suggestion, or is it worthwhile enough to just jeer at the Greens / The Left as usual?
[DPF: If a party proposed wiping out 20% of the nation's cows as a responsible measure, of course I am going to jeer. I mean shit you can't make up stuff that barmy. I have posted elsewhere about what I think is an appropriate reduction target]
August 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
“along with genetically improving herds toward less emission-prone cows. Can anyone spell hypocrisy?”
When the Right cancels tax cuts, it’s pragmatism. When the Left changes its views, its either hypocrisy or a flip-flop.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
RRM, certainly, an alternative suggestion: since the ETS is not going to make the slightest difference to world climate trends we should can it and make and save as much money as quickly as possible in order to be able to help whoever is affected by whatever the climate does decide to do.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Alan, the Stern Report (google it), that is from the UK government, made it clear that paying for cleaning up the mess is more expensive than mitigation
August 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
How do cow emissions compare human emissions (total, not just farting)?
Shooting people may be a bit drastic, but what is being done to address or factor in the projected population increase over the period of reductions targets? The current rate is an increase of about 80 million people per year.
And do they factor in the encroachment of arable land by the increasing population?
August 5th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
You are being a little over the top DPF, the greens also want a lower human population, but this does not mean they advocate the shooting of people to decrease numbers.
Anyway, i agree the greens are loopy. I hate being dictated too by people who don’t like progress.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Frog
We’re talking about selective breeding, using advanced genetic techniques – not GM cows.
Essentially you’re talking about not only regulating low emissions from cows, but setting out in advance the technology farmers will need to use to achieve it. I submit that in practical terms that will be ridiculously intrusive regulation. Presumably regulation will have to specify that farmers can do procedures x, y and z to achieve emissions reduction, but not a b or c. It would be nice if you could actually say how you intend to convince (read: coerce) farmers into adopting the practices you think they should.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Progress is just a word for moving in one particular direction.
There are always other directions.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Rimu, the Stern report is about as discredited as BERL’s report on alcohol. Which is to say a lot.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
The major problem with the Stern approach is its unwillingness to adopt a discount factor. Adoption of even quite small discount factors changes the results re: the economics of mitigation.
I currently would like to see a lot more emphasis on ridding the global forestry and energy sectors of the various perverse incentives and subsidies that make GHG emissions worse. I’m not keen on taking a big economic hit in NZ, just so LDC can continue to subsidise the destruction of their forests.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Dilerium, should the comparison you invite reflect your own emissions on this blog?
As for the silly ‘melons, no point in addressing the causes of methane emissions and how they might be addressed immediately and scientifically in a way that is actually cost-effective and provides on-farm benefits is there really. Oh no.
Lets just engage the Ludite lever and turn the emotions knob to “hysterical headline”. Far better to immediately slash incomes by 20% (er, that would be about half the gross profit folks) to a level that will ensure that every dairy farm in the country will turn udders up. Then in about 20 years time when we have genetically “improved” (oops, I nearly said “modified”) a breed of cow that emits no methane irrespective of what it eats, or the soil that grows what it eats, and assuming there is still a dairy industry, she’ll all be good!!
It is ironic that whatever one’s view on the causes of global warming and the validity of the scientific arguments underpinning the ‘melons’ arguments for culling the poor old moo cows, when it comes to solutions they completely ignore the science. Too hard. Now, did I actually remember to engage hyper-hysteria soundbite mode before I shifted that lever to Ludite …??
August 5th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
The idea is that we farm smarter. This does not involve us turning us unto the next Nauru. Do we really want lake Taupo and all our other waterways to be full of algal bloom and nitrogenous wastes.
I suspect the market will solve the problem if we aren’t proactive, there are much more efficient, profitable and sustainable forms of agriculture than dairy cows.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
It’s all just so mindless too. Reducing dairy output in New Zealand to lower New Zealand’s emissions won’t lower demand for dairy products. All it will do is shift the production to the Northern Hemisphere and higher energy input (=higher emissions) farming.
We will make ourselves poor, while increase global emissions.
Just explain to me again why anyone who wasn’t a brain dead people-hater would be in favour of this?
August 5th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
rimu, I am well aware of the Stern Report which uses a totally unrealistic and artificial low discount factor in order to justify a desired political result.
Goklany has refuted its conclusions comprehensively in successive publications. Here is his most recent comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/03/cherry-picking-climate-catastrophes-response-to-conor-clarke/
August 5th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
If you think the milk prices will recover enough to make these practices sustainable, I have to ask WHY you have this imaginary utopia in mind, where our competitors drop their trade barriers and subsidies.
Given that this is what THEY are looking at?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_us/us_farm_scene_dairy_doldrums
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/USDA-raises-dairy-support-rb-1301739367.html?x=0&.v=1
(interesting that they used the same stock picture)
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20090718/ARTICLES/907189949?Title=North-Coast-dairy-cows-sold-to-slaughter-as-milk-prices-fall
http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE56U64A20090731
Now it is possible that the NZ herds can be regarded as immune to this sort of thing, that we can keep on producing while others feel the pain.
It is also possible that the far side of the moon is made of green cheese. The likelihood of it is small.
If the global glut is done with and Fonterra is really ahead of the curve milk prices can rise. Will there be a sustained rise? Over the 10 year average? I wouldn’t be betting on it. The global economy is going to hear another pop sometime before the end of the year. Commodities will not be immune.
Farmers around the world are ALL in the same boat, pushed into overproduction when the price went up, and now in a state of oversupply and low prices. The market isn’t all that efficient given the subsidies provided.
Everyone who thinks there will be an end to those subsidies and that people in other countries will accept that they should import all their milk from us instead, raise your hands.
Right.
Just a sanity check, nothing to worry about.
BJ
August 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Interesting you make the link with “Orwellian” use of words.
Remember the economical explanation of warfare in Orwell’s 1984?
In the 1984 scenario, ongoing war between the three world powers was used as a means to reduce economic output (effectively destroy it) in order to create artificial scarcity, which was then used to sustain strong class differences, and maintain an easy method for creating excessive rewards to party faithfull. At the same time it served to psychologically manipulate the dumb masses.
Now imagine if you have no ongoing wars to achieve that objective, how about a 40% reduction in economic output by creating an environmental hoax? If you can also use that hoax to psychologically manipulate the masses (and we can certainly see that happening), then you are in fact nicely following Orwell’s recipe to create the ultimate socialist state. I reckon the only thing we don’t have yet is the thought police, although TVNZ and the Red and Green rags are doing their damnedest.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
bj “If you think the milk prices will recover enough to make these practices sustainable”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2721698/Milkpowder-price-up-26-pc-in-auction
“Prices in Fonterra’s monthly online milk powder auction jumped almost 26 percent with the dairy co-operative pointing to strengthening demand in albeit volatile global markets.
Fonterra said today the average August price achieved across all contracts and contract periods for whole milk powder was US$2,301 per tonne. This was US$472 per tonne higher than in Fonterra’s July auction. Prices ranged from US$2,235 per tonne to US$2,530 per tonne. Overall average prices rose 25.8 percent.”
There are a lot of people in Asia who are going to be able to afford cheese for the first time . Fortunately their welfare will not be constrained by an ETS.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“the only thing we don’t have yet is the thought police”
Yes we do. The policing of viewers of child porn is exactly that, as is the arrest of anyone who dares to make a joke about terrorists in any airport.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
bchapman
“….there are much more efficient, profitable and sustainable forms of agriculture than dairy cows.”
Like what? Grapes? Citus? Watermelons? Taro?
In 1968 I can recall participating in a cost benefit analysis comparing forestry with dairy farming on central plateau pumice country. Then, they were neck and neck but it is a hell of a long time since timber has come close to milk.
BJchip
You are long on theory and short on reality. The fact is that NZ dairy frmers tend top stay in the inductery for the long haul wheras northern hemisphere producers tend to chase the markets more – it is easier for them to switch to other forms of revenue generation because they are not predominantly pasture based.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“I reckon the only thing we don’t have yet is the thought police, although TVNZ and the Red and Green rags are doing their damnedest.”
Attempts at manipulation and control don’t just come from there. How much large scale advertising do we have that convinces a proportion of the population to purchase and consume things they don’t need, and often would be better off without? There is a significant level of promoted overconsumption.
August 5th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
If i was not for carbon dioxide this planet would be fucked.Carbon keeps our planet warm.Billions of years ago this planet was covered in a ice sheet covering all the planet.The carbon released from volcanoes melted this ice and hence life was able to form.Volcanoes that constantly spew gases to this day help the planet keep warm,and humans,animals,plants and the sea emit carbon.From the shells of small microscopic fish or plankton who suck up carbon.die fall to bottom of the ocean thenTectonic plates under the sea take a lot of that carbon and return it to the earths core only to return to volcanoes who then erupt after thousands or millions of years to release the carbon and keep this planet warm.The greens ,greenpieceofbullshit, al liar gore have all got this wrong.Also the sun has a lot to do also with warming and cooling the planet and the changing currents of the sea……….there are so many more true facts to dispel global warming i would have to write a book…………………………..
August 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Hicks,
Something being good in moderation does not mean it is good in excess.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
One is reminded of David Lange’s description of the Greens as “Flat-earthers, Rebirthers, Primal Screamers and the aluminium saucepans give you cancer brigade”
August 5th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
bchapman
By “farming smarter” in order to compensate for a 20% reduction in gross dairy incomes, do you mean “pulling money out of your arse”?
August 5th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
The greens could more usefully squeak out about the root cause of climate change – restricting ourselves to two children per couple – but of course Sue Bradford and her FIVE children might be embarrassed by that. Hypocrites.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I am prepared to offer myself and my BBQ to assist in any destocking!
August 5th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“..[DPF: If a party proposed wiping out 20% of the nation's cows as a responsible measure, of course I am going to jeer. I mean shit you can't make up stuff that barmy. I have posted elsewhere about what I think is an appropriate reduction target]..”
yeah..!..and i answered you there..
i have to do it here too..?
ok..you de-stock..by cutting back breeding..
..we don’t need that ‘night of the long knives’ on the cows..
..your blood-drenched fantasies may..u think(?)..advance your/the govts’ desire to do s.f.a..
..but they are just that..
..’blood-drenched fantasies’..
..and esp ironic..coming from a carniovore..
..eh..?
..did you have a ‘blood-drenched’ lunch..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 5th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“…one would need to ban every car, bus and truck in NZ, close down every fossil fuel power plant and on top of that
… hire vigilantes to shoot every third cow.
… shoot the cows
… Orwelllian
… slaughter
… exterminate ”
Oh good, glad to see we’re having a reasoned, logical, non-emotive discussion on emissions again…
So we either get celebrities spouting a number with no solid backing, or you and the BRT spouting absolute falsities about what emissions reduction entails.
While people like the BCSD do thoughtful analysis (regardless of whether you agree) that is ignored.
[DPF: Actually I blogged fairly supportively of the BCSD submission.]
August 5th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
ben (482) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
August 5th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Frog said: “We’re talking about selective breeding, using advanced genetic techniques – not GM cows.”
Ben replied: “Essentially you’re talking about not only regulating low emissions from cows, but setting out in advance the technology farmers will need to use to achieve it.”
I don’t think it would need regulation. Those are just the things farmers would naturally be keen to do for economic reasons if they were required to pay part of the price of emissions credits for their activities. The current government doesn’t want to pass on any of the cost of emissions credits to farmers, and they justify that by saying there’s nothing the farmers could do to reduce emissions in response.
I think it would be most logical for the government to subsidise the research into these techniques, but not do anything other than the cost of carbon emissions to encourage their use.
And the reduction in cow stocking rates in response to the government no longer paying the full cost of emissions credits on behalf of the farmers would be directly analogous to the reduction in sheep stocking rates in the 1980s after the government removed the subsidies.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“or you and the BRT spouting absolute falsities about what emissions reduction entails”
Since the accounting of what emissions actually are is just a figment of various partisan imaginations it is going to be pretty hard for anyone to avoid “absolute falsities”.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Note there are no net CARBON emissions from dairying per se (ignoring diesel in tractors, I’m talking cow emissions). The sun shines on the grass, the grass converts CO2 and the cow eats the grass – its not at all like digging up coal (well actually it’s exactly like digging up coal if you take a REALLY long term view of the closed cycle that gives rise to coal).
As I understand the argument it is the TYPE of emission that cows make that get the warmists all annoyed with them.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Alan, I’m sure you can follow my point that saying we HAVE to ban all transportation, shoot every third cow etc etc is an absolute falsity, yes?
August 5th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
garethw, obviously we don’t HAVE to do anything if that is your point?
August 5th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Oh christ, I’ll leave you all to it on ridiculous semantics.
DPF, I would like a reasoned approach to cost/benefit analysis of various emission levels from people on the right. I look forward to it coming from you
August 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Yeah, it’s not the carbon that’s the problem so much as the form the carbon takes.
You could probably make a significant change to the effect of carbon in the atmosphere if you could snap your fingers and change all the hydrogen the carbon’s attached to (in methane) to oxygen (in carbon dioxide).
August 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
This seems like a bit of beat up – adding the word “modified” to genetic and changing “destocking” to “shoot”. The sheep industry has hugely de-stocked over the last couple of decades and I hadn’t noticed lots of people shooting sheep. However:
“So I really hope the Greens refrain from adopting Bob Jones’ 1970s jest as policy.”
Me too – it would be plagiarism. The McGillicuddy Serious Party was advocating cowless days years ago.
[DPF: There is a big difference between 14,000 farmers each individually making decisions on how many cows they have which happens to lead to an overall decrease, and having the state tell farmers that they have to get rid of 20% of their cows]
August 5th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“It is however the other suggestion of DPF (originally of Sir Robert Jones) that I wish to comment on – that of shooting every 10th motorist.
I’d vote for that!”
No don’t do that, just shoot EVERY boy racer
August 5th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
You could always buy 20% less dairy and meat, and 20% products of alternative uses of farmland.
August 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
A related issue however Ryan, is that if a reduction in our dairy/ruminant herds occur and this creates a global ‘slack’ picked up by US or EU farmers, there will be a net increase in GHG emissions.
So unilateral actions to cut back our dairy output say, will be counter-productive unless coordinated with reductions elsewhere. NZ farmers are more efficient in terms of GHG outputs than US/EU farmers becuase of the lesser reliance on industrial inputs and greater reliance on pasture-based management.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Alan
I am not planning to hang out here, and the Fonterra results are rising towards the 10 year mean which is to say, they are STILL below that mean at present. I heard the news on the radio same as most people here. If you expect it to go above that mean, you have to justify that expectation.
I pointed out that the Chinese have been blowing a commodity bubble. I won’t link more, google it if you doubt me. I am quite sure it IS going to have problems in the 4th quarter. So far it is tracking that trajectory quite closely.
Adolf – I won’t argue about what NZ farmers do, their stick-to-it-ivness and their pasture based agriculture is something I take some pride in, in other places I post. I reckon we do well. I do NOT reckon that we are immune to having increased herd sizes beyond what we would have had prices stayed stable and near the mean. Do you? Nor do I expect us to be immune to the effects of foreign governments artificially propping up their dairy industry with subsidies.
Do they chase the market more than we do? You may well be correct, but they also ARE the market we must sell into.
If they overdo their own culls you may be correct, but their governments will not encourage this, are not encouraging it. They are getting subsidized.
Relying on Asia to consume the excess production, given that they are doing the commodity bubble boogy , is not a good way to plan our production.
Nope, I am not a farmer. I study macro risks and trends. I’m flagging one for you. I study science and I generally get this sort of thing right.
Good luck.
DPF – The difference between genetic improvement and genetic engineering is pretty clear to the Greens and to most people who actually have any interest at all in the subject. Ignorance is bliss, and you are altogether too happy with your stereotypes.
BJ
August 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
The logic behind this statement needs a little qualification.
If we reduce the amount of dairy product/beef we supply, then the price of dairy/beef increases. This motivates suppliers in other places to produce more dairy/beef. Other places have less carbon efficient production by between 10 & 30%.
Thus the agricultural Greens policy only entails forcing AGW to accelerate.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
niggly (21) Vote: 3 1 Says:
August 5th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
What ever happened to the Greens taxing people and farmers for green house emissions etc?
Clearly their strategy of over taxing people wasn’t going to work, they should be taxing the cows directly!
Now I’m sure even the farmers and tax-payers will support that one!
There you go Greens, go for it!
What a great green idea – presumably the Cows would pay in Cow Shit which would make the greens as happy as Pigs in Shit!
August 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“I pointed out that the Chinese have been blowing a commodity bubble. I won’t link more, google it if you doubt me. ”
That bubble popped in Q3 08.
“Nope, I am not a farmer. I study macro risks and trends. I’m flagging one for you. I study science and I generally get this sort of thing right. ”
I hope you shorted aluminum at $3300/t you must have made a fortune. Probably own your own island.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“The difference between genetic improvement and genetic engineering is pretty clear to the Greens and to most people who actually have any interest at all in the subject.”
So how many generations will it take to genetically “improve” cows? How many times do you have to breed cows to get what you want? How many different “trials” can you run simulataneously? How can you be sure that the genetic moidifications you make using this process doesnt have the same risks as GM?
Just because the changes happen “naturally” doesnt mean they cant have long term negative consequences. Unlike GM the “natural” method of improvement is untargetted, making it MORE likely that something nasty will rear its head in a few decades. Also, because your method is “natural” there will be fewer rather than more studies into the changes. I dont think there is as much risk involved in the “natural” method, but I also think the risks of GM have been MASSIVELY exaggerated.
GM is likely to be faster and less risky.
The Greens are hamstrung by their religious beliefs.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
One lesson that should have been learnt watching the Soviet Union is that production controls are a stupid, wasteful and inefficient way to run an economy. They are silly, counter productive, useless twaddle that have never worked anywhere they have been tried ever. You’d think people would learn, controlled economies are horrible places to live.
Yet here we are debating which production target we are going to set for our grand 10 year plan. The true sons/daughters of the revolution want 56% reduction, but the realists (who form the majority of the politburo) are angling towards a more modest 15%. Truth is comrades, whoever wins we are screwed.
Perhaps on the next planet we inhabit we could try a workable solution, like some sort of capitalist approach to climate change.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
bj: “Relying on Asia to consume the excess production, given that they are doing the commodity bubble boogy , is not a good way to plan our production. Nope, I am not a farmer. I study macro risks and trends. I’m flagging one for you. I study science and I generally get this sort of thing right.”
Unlike you (and me), farmers and Fonterra have skin in the game. If they don’t get it right, they go broke. Which is why it should be them who “plan our production”, not greens or governments.
For good reasons I think you are quite wrong about Asia, but time will tell.
garethw, you don’t HAVE to call me “christ” but I don’t mind. When we can accurately account for our emissions and reliably estimate the consequences of technological, consumer and population changes over the next decades I’ll do the calculations and tell you if DPF’s claim was false. I doubt that’ll be before 2020.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
unaha-closp, very good point.
But I dont think the Greens are really that worried about what other countries are doing. Thats for their colleagues in those contries to worrry about.
The NZ Greens are only concerned with feeling good by being seen to be “acting locally”. Sure, if they had the power they would reduce livestock numbers globally, they wouldnt even care if they had the mandate to do it either. If they had the power they would FORCE people to eat less (then no) meat.
And thats what the Green movement boils down to: if they had the power they would use force to compel others to do their bidding.
Which is why it is so important never to give them a sniff of power.
August 5th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I’ll be looking forward to some cheap steak for a while then!
August 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
This debate nicely exposes (one of) the major fallacies in the ETC/Emissions Reduction strategy.
The rationale is that the private sector will find unknown solutions to a supposedly known problem – and do that much better than governments/central planning can.
The fallacy is that until the solutions are found we have no idea of what the costs will be. And governments have no idea of what realistic targets can be achieved.
Funny, isn’t it?
August 5th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
@ Alan I’d back the private sector to do prety much anything better than governments/central planning can. Other than that I agree with you
August 5th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Bit slow there, DPF:
Of course the Greens want to torpedo the dairy industry. They’ve been saying it for years, but it was such a wacky notion that few took any notice.
You might also want to consider the REAL agenda of the so-called animal rightists. WHY do they want to get us off animals (and it’s not just because they’re animals) — why do they want to remove the backbone of this country’s economy? For what purpose?
August 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Goodness, all these paranoid people think that our proposals yesterday were meant to be regulations. Must be right wing hysteria. We simply showed that farmers would be more profitable if they reduced their stocking rates. We never said that they would have to do it, or how they would do it, or that it was the only way to do it. Get a life people!
August 5th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“Get a life people!”
Yeah – trouble is you watermelons keep trying to control it
August 5th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
You miss the point, froggy.
You want to set an emissions target without knowing how to measure it let alone know much it will cost.
And that is regulation.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Piss off Frog.
This is one place where your lies and bullshit can be questioned, this is one site that believes in free speech.
We have a right to be wary of anything produced by the Greens given your parties record as being the biggest bullshitters and control freaks in the house.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Frog: More profitable by reducing stocking rates? You can really only make that argument if you believe that the most productive carrying capacity of New Zealand Dairy farms is less than the current stocking levels. In otherwords your argument will have to be that the number of kilograms of milk solids per ha is going to be higher with a lower stocking level.
I would certainly appreciate any pointers to research indicating as such. I am 100% for market driven solutions to climate change as I’m sure you are too. I do think the the opportunity for genetic improvement through selective breeding and genetic engineering is huge and should be a key area of focus.
Of course in order to make that hapen we need to appropriately price carbon: the most efficient way IMHO being a Pigouvian tax thereon.
I do look forward to seeing your research on stocking levels though.
August 5th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“We simply showed that farmers would be more profitable if they reduced their stocking rates. ”
Those stupid stupid farmers. All those years of experience, all that capital invested, wasted. The real answer to farm profitability was with the greens all along. Of course those actually doing would be wrong, the guy on the sidelines had all the answers all along!
August 5th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“We simply showed that farmers would be more profitable if they reduced their stocking rates. ”
Yes, we KNOW best what’s good for you good for you we KNOW best what’s good for you good for you we KNOW best what’s good for you good for you we KNOW best what’s good for you good for you we KNOW best what’s good for you good for you we KNOW best what’s good for you good for you we KNOW best what’s good for you good for you … WE KNOW!!!
August 5th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Google David Bellamy and his articles on the difference between animal emissions and fuel emissions. Then you will understand that the greenies will use ANY trick to make their global warming look worse than it ever will actually be.
Yes, we do have to do something about pollution caused by burning fossil fuel, but we don’t have to do anything about animal outputs (except where they shit in the rivers and streams we use for water and fishing).
August 5th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@cauld: Did you look at the link at the top? I will quote from it:
And again:
Here are the references:
3. Glassey, C and Clark, D, Milksolids Production per ha vs Profit per ha, Dairy NZ July 2008
4. Beukes, Gregorini, Romera and Waghorn, Modelling the efficacy and profitability of mitigation strategies for greenhouse gas emissions on pastoral dairy farms in New Zealand, Dairy NZ for PGGRC, Dec 2008
August 5th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Repton, the average farm doesn’t exist. Only particular ones do. Odds are that particular farmers understand their own particular farm and finances better than anyone else.
Science like this is just a tool, not a forecast.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Frog, why don’t the greens do something that is constructive. Use your money you all receive from the government, we’re talking millions, and please start up a dairy farm and let’s see this 60 percent profit improvement. Gosh, you have the money, put it to good use. Or is it easier to go on the net and look at reports. Actions speak louder than words. Everytime you greens open your mouths, out come hypothetical dribble. Also, you Greens trying to put more taxes on petrol, but the market itself will drive lower emissions. Petrol is going up and I am sure there will be another source of energy. How about using H20! Have you ever driven a car that has been powered by water? How about hydrogen fuel cells. How much have you guys invested in that?? My guess is nothing. I am probably more green than you when I helped my daughter with a science project making a hydrogen generator to mix with petrol to raise the octane and get 20 percent more fuel effieciency. You clowns just want to control everything.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Right Alan. So telling Dairy NZ and AgResearch, who the farmers do listen to occasionally to improve their farming, that actually they are full of shit contributes what to this discussion? As usual, people think the Greens pulled this stuff out of their bums instead of basing their opinion on the latest science. Science done by and for the very farmers we are talking about.
August 5th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Why don’t you ask some of the board members of the National Party, who actually do employ the very methods we are promoting, how their profits are? Why are you so convinced that this is a left wing conspiracy? Ask the Nats. They do this farming, they do it at a profit and they promote it!
August 5th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Why do the greens think that removing livestock will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. More to the point why is the gas that farm animals belch into the atmosphere considered to be a problem. As I have stated before, the net emissions from a farm animal is around zero. They can only put into the atmosphere the carbon from which the feed they ate consumed from the atmosphere in the form of photosynthesis. The methane gas gets broken down (eventually) into CO2 and H2O. This whole argument is pointless as the facts are wrong.
We have the numbers of livestock that we do as the land we have supports them. The land is a sufficient carbon sink to support the growth and respiration of the said livestock. Sure, grass is not as efficient as trees, but trees do die, decompose and release methane gas and CO2 into the atmosphere as well. If you were to destock our farms, the net effect to carbon emissions would most likely be zero.
The real culprit for admissions are those who consume fossil fuels. Lets get the science right before advocating dumb solutions which are going to have little effect on climate change. It is just socialist success envy.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
DPF, so you actually believe in human-caused global warming? Really?!
For political reasons, or scientific?
And if scientific, may I ask what convinces you of this?
You seem to be playing your cards quite close to the chest on this issue…
August 5th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Again Grizz – if it’s socialist envy, why are key figures in the National Party doing it to be more profitable? Why is our right wing government still saying that agriculture has to admit the science is right and that they need to take responsibility for their emissions? If it was all a hoax, from the idea that low input dairy is more profitable and that the science of climate change is right, why aren’t the Nats rejecting it out of hand instead of embracing it? I think you are imagining reds under the bed. Time to admit that the only bogeyman we all face is our own ignorance.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
froggy: “So telling Dairy NZ and AgResearch, who the farmers do listen to occasionally to improve their farming, that actually they are full of shit”
You seem to have comprehension problems. I said their work was a tool, not a forecast.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Frog, you miss my point. I am highlighting that cows eating grass and belching methane do not contribute to atmospheric methane and hence climate change as it it all part of a carbon cycle. I have heard Nick Smith come out with the same rhetoric as the previous government. Again overlooked is the fact that farmers are taking responsibility for their methane emissions as they are growing the grass which removes the same amount of carbon molecules from the atmosphere. On that basis he is wrong. However, perhaps Nick Smith is actually trying to increase NZ’s marketing appeal to the rest of the developed world who also appear to be devoid of the basics of the carbon cycle.
There are over 100 years of agricultural research in NZ to determine how to best practice farming given local climatic, water and soil conditions. I personally am not an authority in this field. Should there be a more profitable way to manage a dairy farm in the long term I am sure the dairy farmers are made aware of it and there are enterprising ones who are trying different methods.
Why I use the term socialist envy is that in reality, the economic backbone of New Zealand is agriculture and other types of primary production (fishing forestry etc). Economic power in reality is in the hands of the farmers. A scenario the socialists who hijacked the Green party would like to have reversed.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
I always have my head out of the sand so I can read all scientific reports.
The one mostly ignored shows that the planet Mars is also going through a period of warming and um, no cows, coal power etc etc.
Could it be, shock horror, hundreds of cows denied life, all in vain??
I for one am sure of it.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I will never agree with the Greens. They are indeed the “special needs” of politics. As hadicapped as they might be, they are a threat to our economy and our capital. Nationalising cows for the love of God, whatever next? My answer to the next Green telling me what I should do in the name of their great God is, well … fuck off!
August 5th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Frog’s rambling against the capitalist monster would be generously described as unhelpful to the discussion, however this arguement is flawed.
Methane is decomposed in the atmosphere at a rate proportional to its concentration. You increase methane release into the atmosphere, methane concentration raises until its at a concentration where by the rate of decomposition is equal to the new increased methane production level. The atmospheric methane concentration will remain at that higher level until the methane release rate into the atmosphere is lowered. Thus average atmospheric methane concentration is increased.
We should stress it removes the same amount of carbon containing molecules, of which there are different kinds. The net result of farming described by “Grizz” is to lower the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and raise the amount of methane by a similar amount. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Having said all that, it would be foolish to sign up to any treaty that wrecks our farming industry, especially if it just transfers those jobs to an even less efficient 3rd world producer.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
I wonder how much methane is released into the atmosphere by swamps and mudflats in New Zealand? What ever the amount I bet it the amount produced by diary cattle is pitifully wimpish in comparison.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I wonder what happens to atmospheric methane in a thunder storm?
August 5th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Paradigm,
CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H20
Yes the breakdown of methane into CO2 is proportional to atmospheric methane. However, looking at the above equation, the breakdown of methane into CO2 is also inversely proportional to atmospheric CO2. Therefore, removing atmospheric CO2 through photosynthesis as part of a natural carbon cycle will accelerate methane decomposition.
If you want to crack down on atmospheric emissions attack industrial sources such as the burning of fossil fuels, not free range farming.
However, I agree with you paradigm that it would be foolish to sign a treaty that would wreck our farming industry. All that happens is that the world would outsource farming to a third world country, where trees are felled to stimulate agriculture which would have a greater impact on this theory of climate change.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Andrei, you will be pleased that we have drained 90% of our wetlands. Those babies would have made us one of the worlds largest methane producers. However, to be consistent, that would have been OK as it was just a natural part of the carbon cycle.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
The antidote for Green political fever is a religious revival.
Then these pathologically pessimistic doomsayers can revert in their apocalyptic ravings from warning about the end of “greedy, polluting, wasteful, destructive” capitalistic society plus whales, plus low-lying islands, plus liquid energy, plus frosts in Southland, to their more traditional nightmare that the end is nigh for – well everything, galaxy, universe, the bloody lot.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Rich Prick said: I will never agree with the Greens. They are indeed the “special needs” of politics. As hadicapped as they might be, they are a threat to our economy and our capital.
No, it is actually those of you who choose to externalise the cost of greenhouse emissions who are the greater threat to our economy.
Farmers, like everyone else, should pay for the real economic costs of their activities – not shovel it on to future generations to pay for by externalising it from their acounting. If that makes some types of farming uneconomic in some places, then so be it.
Farmers can move from dairying to forestry, which is what the land they are farming is probably better suited for if it becomes uneconomic if they pay for their carbon emissions. And if they do, they will earn carbon credits, rather than pay for them.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
I can just see you munching on a pine cone when you have stuffed farming and destroyed food production with your mindless meddling Toad.
Where is the tax money going to come from to support all the out of work cockies when you have meddled them out of business?
I have just got through 9 years of fighting a bunch of greedy pricks that bent Benson-Pope gave an aquiring authority over my farm.
Now you think I should have the crap taxed out of me and be put out of business just to satisfy your flawed ideology.
Christ I am sick of you meddling Global Alarm Fest bullshit artists that want to screw our country into the depths of poverty.
Why don’t you fuck off for a walk in the hills and you will see that it is only the concrete jungle that is sick.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Toad, interesting you put carbon credits into the debate. If a farmer sold its farm products overseas, they are effectively transporting carbon offshore. In the process, they have removed more carbon from the atmosphere than were emitted into it (note that land clearances for farming peaked at the end of farm subsidies in the mid 80s). In that case, shouldn’t your average farmer be in position to receive carbon credits, not pay for them?
Just addressing your forestry idea, nice thought, but when the final product is a log that is loaded onto a ship, there is very little added value here. Besides, in a few years, there are going to be vast tracks of radiata pine ready for the chop. Given wood prices at the moment, it may be more economical to use the timber for firewood.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
“Farmers, like everyone else, should pay for the ‘real economic’ costs of their activities”
they do
August 5th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
no they don’t..
(c.f. polluted waterways..just for starters..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 5th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
The Green Party – proudly blurring the line between comedy and policy since whenever
August 5th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Philu (10.47 and 5000 plus other posts) generates more pollution than any farmer I know.
Hot air, burned out keyboards, burned out ADSL modems, burned out computer gear and screens, burned out brain.
If the internet is a cloud, the part above Philu is a gibbering, thermal vortex of posts heavy with full stops and brackets. The absence of capital letters is early warning of what rising temperature can do to such a cyberfanatic.
No carbon offsets by Philu, no planting trees, no research about how to reduce the methane coming out his ears and through the fibre and copper networks and on to our screens.
I call on the Greens to replace thermal Philu with a renewable power source, perhaps a windmill.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
In the unlikely event that Philu turns his back on his lefty-Green mates, perhaps we could set up a supporter group for him — the Philustines.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
The Green Party- proudly making politicians account for their spending since ….2009
August 5th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Grizz, I will make this simple:
That is bad science.
There is not a chemical equilibrium in the atmosphere between CH4 and CO2. There is a strong excess of CH4 in the atmosphere; anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant or a charlatan.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
DPF: My plan is not to shoot one in five cows. I trust individual farmers to decide on how to be profitable rather than have a political party dictate how many cows a hectare one can have.
I support an emissions reduction target that is practical]
A practical chap who can missue his calculator as well as any. Nothing like a little bit of hysteria to get the tractors on the road and fart tax talk thundering again. Like Canute, I suppose, you can turn back the tide and reverse the melting?
Drought will eventually knock the dairying for six, so there will be a return to equilibrium of sorts, ayway, but as in any other times of national emergency perhaps farmers and all will have to get used to being told what to do.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
If the Greens global warming happens, perhaps, Galeandra, our dairy production will increase, with warmer weather allowing Otago-Southland to grow grass all the year round.
Global warming may well prove to be a Gaia-normous delusion.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
It would make a great Greenpeace ad. Keisha Castle-Hughes, walking through the green fields of Godzone with a shotgun, imploring us to make a difference for the planet. At the end of her heartfelt sermon on climate change, she pops the nearest grazing Jersey between the eyes, ejects the cartridge, and smiles for the camera.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
There’s a time and a place for the Green Party. The pages of a history textbook is it.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Fuck off Toad, how many people have you employed with your own capital. None. You and the Greens have no authority to tell me how I might run my businesses. Wankers like you just seek to destroy capital investment. Go hug a tree fuckwit.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Good point Pat, I wonder if she is up for a cull? Would she pull the trigger? I doubt it. Personally if there is to be a cull, I’d start with Green Party members, but I suppose there are laws against euthanising the terminally stupid.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Toad wrote: “Farmers can move from dairying to forestry”
There it is, in one short byte, the reason why the Greens are absolute lunatics. The scary thing is, Toad and his Green cohorts actually believe this shit. They not only want to destroy a food source, they actually want to destroy New Zealands biggest export industry, in order to reduce bovine farting.
Let us pray for an under-5% vote in 2011, and purge these nutjobs from our political system.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:09 am
I just watched Quiche “gud gwobal cittysen” Cassle Hooooes do her Close Up buggery on the TVNZ website.
I raged like a motherfucker.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Paradigm
“There is not a chemical equilibrium in the atmosphere between CH4 and CO2. There is a strong excess of CH4 in the atmosphere; anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant or a charlatan”
Please take your foot out of your own mouth. Here is a list of the chemical composition of atmospheric gases, taken from a table which is duplicated all over the internet. You will note that there is more than 200 times as much CO2 as Methane gas.
Nitrogen (N2) 780,840 ppmv (78.084%)
Oxygen (O2) 209,460 ppmv (20.946%)
Argon (Ar) 9,340 ppmv (0.9340%)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 383 ppmv (0.0383%)
Neon (Ne) 18.18 ppmv (0.001818%)
Helium (He) 5.24 ppmv (0.000524%)
Methane (CH4) 1.745 ppmv (0.0001745%)
Krypton (Kr) 1.14 ppmv (0.000114%)
Hydrogen (H2) 0.55 ppmv (0.000055%)
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.3 ppmv (0.00003%)
Xenon (Xe) 0.09 ppmv (9×10-6%)
Ozone (O3) 0.0 to 0.07 ppmv (0%-7×10-6%)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 0.02 ppmv (2×10-6%)
Iodine (I) 0.01 ppmv (1×10-6%)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 0.1 ppmv
However, the chemical reaction of methane gas decomposing to CO2 is largely unidirectional, strongly favouring the oxidation reaction. I was trying to point out the speed in which it occurs is proportional to atmospheric methane and inversely proportional to atmospheric CO2. On that basis, if photosynthesis were to slow down (think Krakatoa), CO2 would accumulate and the decomposition of methane would slow. However, all things being equal, livestock would starve and die, less agricultural methogenesis and hence less methane emissions and atmospheric accumulation.
I do acknowledge though that atmospheric methane is better at trapping radiated heat than CO2. However, it is the anthropogenic sources of methane (such as coal mining) which are the problem, not agriculture. Believing that agriculture is behind rising levels of atmospheric Methane gas is a myth.
August 6th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Grizz, the science is on your side. Only small quibble is the oxidation rate without a catalyst. But never mind, try that science with a Greenie, I’d give up in a nano-second.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:52 am
Grizz how does that show they are in chemical equilibrium?
Answer: It doesn’t, you’d need to calculate the equlibrium constant to do that, which you have not. Moreover I suspect you don’t know how to.
Rich Prick, get a fucking science degree before mouthing off. Trying to label me a greenie is a sad ad hominem, and is by in large quite inaccurate.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Toad said…
We have offered a scenario where farmers could be more profitable than they are now and not pay a cent under the current ETS.
How the fuck all you Greens know about running a business or understand economics ? Who in the Greens is economically literate or have run big businesses to know these things ? None! All you do is to stifle business growth in this country by protesting about everything and anything that may help businesses to grow. Here is a suggestion, how about you lot build successful businesses like Bob Jones and similar entrepreneurs like him, then you lot can come and lecture the rest of us about how to run a profitable business, because you guys know fuck all.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:33 am
India wants money to fund their Green Push!
So does China. WTF have they done to deserve it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/5977599/India-attacks-British-and-Western-hypocrites-over-cutting-emissions.html
August 6th, 2009 at 7:37 am
“but as in any other times of national emergency perhaps farmers and all will have to get used to being told what to do”
And there we have it. Facists.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:39 am
And can I say as someone with quite a lot of experience of the economics of forestry and dairying that anyone who thinks it’s economic to move from dairy land to forestry land is a moron. Unless your plan is to destroy tens of billions of dollars of national wealth. Oh, wait…
August 6th, 2009 at 7:54 am
Sorry, Grizz, your comment all made sense until it got to this bit: However, it is the anthropogenic sources of methane (such as coal mining) which are the problem, not agriculture. Believing that agriculture is behind rising levels of atmospheric Methane gas is a myth.
I agree that methane from activities such as coal mining are a proble. A far bigger problem is is the frozen methane trapped under the polar permafrost ends up in the atmospehere in any significant quantities due to thawing. But I don’t understand you reasoning as to why agricultural methane is not a problem. Surely increased concentrations of methane are a problem, whatever their source. Sure, each molecule of agricultural methane emitted into the atmosphere is offset by a molecule of carbon dioxide fixed from the atmosphere, but the vastly greater greenhouse potential of methane compared to carbon dioxide makes this offset minimal.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:11 am
If we want to cut down on noxious emissions I float the idea of “destocking” parliament.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:17 am
“I do acknowledge though that atmospheric methane is better at trapping radiated heat than CO2.”
Actually, it isn’t. It’s just that the frequencies that CO2 traps are nearly saturated with atmospheric trappers already.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Paradigm
When you say there is “an excess of methane in the atmosphere” what is your evidence and what is being compared to what.
Methane levels are currently falling and vary from time to time without us knowing why. What constitutes an excess?
Who has established the “norm”? Anyhow atmospheric methane is highest over the rain forest of Brazil and the rice paddies of China and are lowest over Australia and New Zealand. So the methane over New Zealand would appear to be below whatever norm you have in mind.
August 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I’ll listen to the Greens when they start practicing what they preach. All I know is that Metiria Turei spent $19k traveling between Wellington and Dunedin in the first six months of the year. For someone who doesn’t have the excuse of ‘a constituency to look after’, but rather just chooses to live in Dunedin and fly to work… well what can I say…. if the Greens want to reduce carbon emmissions how about they do some basic reduction themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised if Metiria’s carbon footprint is bigger then some farmers.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Sorry, I got that wrong Metiria spent 30K on air travel for six months!! WTF?!
Please Toad, fill me in on how this is even remotely defensible considering all the Greens bleating about global warming.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Toad “Sure, each molecule of agricultural methane emitted into the atmosphere is offset by a molecule of carbon dioxide fixed from the atmosphere, but the vastly greater greenhouse potential of methane compared to carbon dioxide makes this offset minimal.”
Here’s the thing Toad, Methane has a half life of 7 years. It is oxidised to CO2. Then that CO2 is recycled through photosynthesis then cows etc. The net effect of cows on atmospheric methane is therefore nil.
Lets look at it another way. Wetlands, like swamps and rice paddy fields also produce methane gas in large quantities. Arguably plants have been around a lot longer than cows. Probably billions of years. If the methane they produced did not decompose in the atmosphere to CO2 which plants then used for energy and growth, the atmosphere now would be mostly methane gas and we would have an environment similar to Venus.
If Methane gas levels in the atmosphere are rising it is from anthropogenic emission, not because of Old Gert regurgitating her feed between stomach chambers.
August 6th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Owen, it is clearly in excess with respect to chemical equilibria (which is what I am arguing and some here are too ignorant to understand). Indeed were I wanting to be cheeky I’d point out that if the amount of CH4 is presently decreasing, that in its self is proof it was presently in excess. I note it is important to distinguish between chemical equilibrium and a greater equilibrium: that of where the production of CH4 are ~equal to the rate of its destruction or diffusion out of the atmosphere. CH4 close to equilbrium in the case of the latter, but not the former – which invalidiates the argument that removing CO2 significantly shifts the chemical equilibrium and gets rid of some more CH4.
My evidence is based upon statistical thermodynamics:
The equilibrium constant for the reaction CH4+ 2O2 -> CO2 +2H2O is given by
K= ( q(H2O)^2 q(CO2)/ (q(CH4)q(O2)^2) ) exp(-E/kT)
where q(x) is the partition function of species x and E is the energy difference between reactants and products
now it turns out that the various values of q mostly cancel each other out to within one order of magnitude in this case (I did a rough calc and got ~0.5 resulting), but you see that little exponential term sitting ominously in the back? It gives a huge value:
E=(-889E3 +2*41E3 J mol-1) (ie the heat of combustion minus 2xheat of vapourisation for water)
Lets be generous and take T=300K (in reality its gonna be a bit lower than 25C as we move a bit higher in the atmosphere where methane is, so this is a highly conservative calculation)
So plugging the numbers we get
K ~10^140!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
using to extract the equilibrium concs by simple algebra
K =[CO2][H2O]^2/([O2]^2[CH4])
[CO2]/[CH4]=K *[O2]^2/[H2O]^2
Now [O2] is >> [H2O], and K is fucking huge, the equilibrium ratio of CO2/CH4 is going to alot more in favour of CO2 than the present value of ~200 that grizz was so happy to give us.
Thus methane is not in chemical equilibrium; in that regard there is an enormous excess of methane present.