Saturday, March 30, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Politicians all gas no action

Avatar photo
The reaction to the recent report by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton on climate change proved to me our politicians are more interested in headlines and photo opportunities than making real change.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

To put it another way, when it comes to climate change partisan politics are infinitely more important than progress.

Simply, Upton argues there needs to be two classifications for greenhouse gasses: Fossil (industrial) that deals with carbon dioxide and biological for methane and nitrous oxide produced by animals.

Upton adds they need to be treated differently because carbon dioxide remains in the air for several centuries but methane just 12 years.

I agree.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw’s response was there isn’t time to go back and reconstruct the Emissions Trading Scheme into two.

If he was starting again things might be different.

What a massive cop-out.

Farmers have been pleading for years to get methane and nitrous oxide treated differently from carbon dioxide.

Shaw obviously ignored them and instead relied on his crystal ball.

Federated Farmers rightly said it is time to let science rather than politics guide policy planning. It is right but it seems our politicians aren’t interested in science.

Upton believes there needs to be an on-farm tool to measure gas emissions, which I totally agree with. 

The plan by successive governments to put agriculture into the ETS by taxing production is pure rubbish and will change nothing. Any change needs to happen on-farm.

St Peter’s School’s Owl Farm in Waikato has been able to cut emissions while increasing profitability. Many others have as well.

Maybe our politicians should visit some real farms.

With the splitting of the two GHG gas categories Upton makes the valid point you need totally different mitigation strategies for the two gases and forestry won’t work with carbon dioxide

He says while the ETS might be convenient and serviceable it isn’t necessary a sensible basis for long-lasting climate mitigation.

So we’re putting convenience above reality.

Upton also says managing fossil emissions separately from biological sources and forest sinks would make better sense.

He believes farmers should be able to grow trees to mitigate their biological emissions and I agree.

Using forest sinks for a gas that will be around for centuries is, in my view, totally illogical and absolutely unscientific.

Mind you, Greenpeace said the suggestion means it expects champagne corks will be popping at Ravensdown and Dairy NZ, which proves they’re more interested in anti-farmer rhetoric than meaningful change on climate.

So, we have a situation now where we’re lurching ahead with highly intrusive anti-farmer legislation with no strong scientific basis.

Professor Myles Allen of Oxford University is internationally recognised as an expert in climate change. He was in New Zealand recently, talking about the huge difference between carbon dioxide and methane.

He says if a herd’s methane emissions can be reduced by just a third of 1% a year, which can be achieved relatively easily, then they no-longer contribute to global warming.

That means or should mean – no tax.

Dr Jock Allison is well known to New Zealanders. Dr Thomas P Sheahen isn’t. He is chairman of the Science and Environmental Policy Project based in the United States. The two collaborated to write a paper entitled Greenhouse Gases – A More Realistic View.

They also want methane and nitrous oxide removed from NZ’s greenhouse gas inventory.

They say the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concentrates mainly on anthropogenic (human) emissions and ignores the natural contribution of gases from the planet.

They believe the methane from farm animals is largely irrelevant to global warming.

Many scientists question the Government’s direction on climate change.

If, as the government says, carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for over 200 years it is then somewhat ridiculous to claim trees can mitigate that. Methane stays in the atmosphere for just 12 and trees can.

What annoys me most is the spurious concentration on methane and nitrous oxide while totally ignoring the massive global warming from aviation.

In 2017 859 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere by aviation yet we continue to encourage tourists to fly to NZ.

GHG emissions from aircraft increased 87% from 1990 to 2006 yet our politicians ignore that fact. 

Cruise ships, similarly, have a massive carbon footprint yet we continue to encourage their visits.

That is internationally recognised fact. Successive governments’ anti-farmer ranting over methane and nitrous oxide isn’t.

The truth is we’ve reduced our environmental footprint at our place. I know many farmers who have done more. 

Farmers want to mitigate climate change. We don’t want extreme climate events and drought.

It’s a pity our politicians don’t share that view.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading