Just support the coalition government in signing up to the recently agreed New Zealand 2035 climate target under the Paris Agreement.
We can all have differing opinions on the urgency of climate change; but this agreement is sacrificing New Zealand's economy for no material benefit in emissions reduction.
This agreement can only be seen as an anti-farming legacy from the Ardern/Shaw government that will see thousands of dollars for every man, woman, and child sent overseas for climate credits.
Which will bankrupt our country!
Background.
In 2021, former Climate Change Minister James Shaw and then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern flew to Glasgow and signed New Zealand up to a climate change/emissions target of a net reduction in emissions of 50 percent (compared to 2005) by 2030.
At the time, no meaningful economic analysis, public consultation, or debate occurred. In fact, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment voiced their concerns saying “we are concerned that insufficient analysis has been undertaken to understand the fiscal and social impacts” of a 45 percent reduction target, let alone the 50 percent that Ardern and Shaw secretly agreed...
And the targets NZ signed up to included agricultural emissions (i.e. methane). Short of culling cows (and destroying New Zealand's largest export industry), those emissions are impossible to avoid.
Because of our small population and disproportionate reliance on agriculture, New Zealand's emissions makeup is more akin to a developing country and under the UN Paris Agreement; developing countries don’t have to cut emissions in the same way as we have signed up to.
Even if we could cut agricultural emissions, it would be pointless in terms of improving global warming: New Zealand's agricultural sector is the most emissions-efficient in the world. Any calories/meat/milk-powder New Zealand doesn't produce will be done elsewhere, and likely result in an overall increase in emissions.
I have written many articles about Climate Change and the more I study the effects of climate change the more I am convinced that a majority of the opinions written about climate change should be headed up as “Climate Craziness” not climate changes.
The first thing that I see in almost every debate around climate change is the effects of our carbon emissions into the atmosphere and how we need to go back to carbon zero or the planet will burn up.
This in my opinion is where the “crazy” starts.
We have been indoctrinated with the lie that CO2 is bad for the environment and that we need to reduce our emissions down to zero if we want to save the planet from burning up.
Well I have to tell you that this is the biggest lie of all and if by some chance we were ever able to get the emissions down to zero that would be the day that life on earth would stop.
"Carbon dioxide is the currency of life, and the most important building block for all life on earth... The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about five times higher [than the concentration of CO2 present in the atmosphere today], yet the alarmists warn it is already too high. They must be challenged every day by every person who knows the truth in this matter.
CO2 is the gas of life, and we should celebrate CO2 rather than denigrate it, as is the fashion today."
Let’s look at the facts around CO2:
What percentage is CO₂ in the atmosphere?
Approximately 0.04 percent
It is a naturally occurring chemical compound that is present in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide exists in the Earth's atmosphere at a concentration of approximately 0.04 percent (400 parts per million) by volume.
Water vapour can vary from 0 to 4% and is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Of all of the CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere, what percentage is produced by humans?
Depending on the estimates anywhere from 3.6% to 5% is produced by humans.
That is actually 3.6% to 5% of that 0.04 per cent in the atmosphere.
If we take the top estimate of 5% that means that human emissions add up to 0.002% of the atmosphere.
What produces the most CO₂?
Main sources of carbon dioxide emissions
What are the biggest contributors to global warming?
Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.
Whilst climate change is with us and we need to take appropriate steps to reduce global warming, the science does not support the current government position in relation to the introduction of an emissions pricing scheme for biogenic methane emissions from livestock in NZ.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) announced in October 2022 that it accepts research shows climate change is expected to reach just 2.5°C – only half as much as the mainstream media had long assumed.
In a formal statement, the UNFCCC said the world is “on track for around 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century”.
This new paradigm replaced the long-standing and much-feared presumption of 4 – 5°C by 2021 – which had led to worldwide declarations of a “Climate Emergency” in recent years.
We’ve been told for many years now that New Zealand produces excessive emissions of greenhouse gases, with our world-beating farmers accused of being largely to blame.
Agriculture/food production produces carbon dioxide through what is known as a biogenic carbon cycle.
What is a biogenic carbon cycle?
The biogenic carbon cycle centers on the ability of plants to absorb and sequester carbon. Plants have the unique ability to remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and deposit that carbon into plant leaves, roots, and stems while oxygen is released back into the atmosphere.
CO₂ is the “Gas of Life” the most important building block for all life on Earth. All life is carbon-based, including our own.
It is a fact that there is a distinct possibility that life could come close to extinguishing itself, due to a shortage of CO₂, which is essential for life on Earth.
We know for a fact that CO₂ is essential for life and that it must be at a certain level in the atmosphere for the survival of plants, which are the primary food for all the other species alive today.
It is a proven fact that plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO₂ than present in the atmosphere today. Even at the today’s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition.
The optimum level of CO₂ for plant growth is about 5 times higher, 2000 ppm, yet the alarmists warn it is already too high. They must be challenged every day by every person who knows the truth in this matter. CO₂ is the giver of life and we should celebrate CO₂ rather than denigrate it as is the fashion today.
The argument from the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) has always been that the methane produced by livestock digestion is more ‘dangerous’ than carbon dioxide by a factor of twenty-eight - even though methane is part of a natural biogenic cycle that can be traced back to the dinosaurs.
However, it now turns out those climate change ‘experts’ were wrong, and that the actual figure is only seven, not twenty-eight.
The IPCC admitted the mistake in their Sixth Assessment Report, explaining at page 1016 of Chapter 7, “…expressing methane emissions as CO2 equivalent of 28, overstates the effect on global surface temperature by a factor of 3-4”.
Thus, it is highly likely that the total emissions calculated for New Zealand globally are overstated on a global warming basis. The oft quoted figure of 50% of emissions coming from agriculture is only correct if the wrong figures are used (methane emissions calculated as CO2 equivalent of 28).
Policy such as the emissions pricing scheme for methane emissions from livestock in NZ should be based on science and when the science changes good policy should be changed accordingly.
This mistake by the IPCC has never been acknowledged or corrected by New Zealand officials and in fact those false assumptions from the IPCC have continued to underpin the Net Zero policy agenda, and consequently the emissions pricing scheme for methane emissions from livestock in NZ.
Global Warming Potential (GWP) requires a baseline period to estimate emissions over. The short lived nature of methane means that if livestock numbers are constant (or in the case of New Zealand sheep and beef falling) then the biogenic methane contribution to global warming is zero or close to it. This has recently been calculated for the sheep and beef industry and presented in peer review papers. See Mazetto et al. 2023:
Mazzetto AM, Falconer S, Ledgard S (2023) Carbon footprint of New Zealand beef and sheep meat exported to different markets. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98, 106946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106946.
These authors clearly show that the GWP for New Zealand sheep production is at or near zero over a 20 year period In fact the calculated reduction in methane emissions from this sector has been 30% in total since 1990 and 30% per unit of product since 1990. Thus, the sector most disadvantaged by the emissions pricing scheme as proposed, is the only sector in New Zealand that has met or exceeded reductions in global warming potential since 1990. Similar representation was shown by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in 2021 who indicated the sheep GWP had decreased since about 2000.
The Paris Accord aimed to keep global warming below 1.5 °C. Thus, it is the global warming potential that needs to be considered in any assessment of greenhouse gas contributions to global warming. Given livestock numbers in New Zealand are stable then based on GWP their contribution to warming is zero.
Indeed the published science suggests biogenic methane particularly that from sheep and beef farming in New Zealand, is not contributing to global warming.
That in itself should be a reason to proceed with caution given the evidence showed that pushing ahead with the emissions pricing scheme had the real possibility of penalising our economy and rural livelihoods without reducing global warming.
Recent publications (Mazetto et al. 2022) of the GWP for dairy also state that NZ has smallest GWP of the countries able to be assessed. These countries represent the major global producers of dairy – and so any reduction in NZ dairy can be expected to be replaced by a less efficient system.
Thus, in the case of dairy there is a strong possibility that a reduction in production will be substituted by a less efficient production system offshore, which will lead to greater global warming?
Primary production will always be the major export from New Zealand.
There have been moves to transition agriculture away from commodities to higher value crops over many years however; this is not an option for hill and high country regions where soil types and topography factors mean the land is only suitable for sheep and beef farming or forestry.
The current policies being adopted will drive the market towards more forestry. This has generational consequences.
Agriculture in New Zealand will continue to be innovative and adapt to climate change. In doing so it is likely to reduce GWP and contribute to global reductions.
Professor Dave Frame who advises the government and farming industries, and has been an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) participant, admits that New Zealand’s total emissions from all sheep, beef, dairy and deer ruminant methane over the last 100 years have caused some nonsensical fraction like one, one-thousandth of a degree centigrade change; In other words, an immeasurable, utterly insignificant amount per year.
In December 2020 NZ’s then Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, called climate change ‘one of the greatest challenges of our time’ and pledged a carbon-neutral government by 2025
Her government passed the Zero Carbon Act 2019 which committed New Zealand to reducing emissions, and set up a Climate Change Commission tasked with putting the country on a path to net zero emissions by 2050 – made New Zealand one of few countries to have a zero-emissions goal enshrined in law.
Compared to the use of fossil fuels, farms have a ‘negative' position in relation to CO2 emissions. Below is an example of some research into the levels of farm emissions.
According to a paper published called Phase 3 Multivariate analysis of Greenhouse Gas emissions from sheep and beef farms – April 2020 it takes up to 7 tonnes of CO2 to grow a hectare of grass on the farm, through the process called photosynthesis where plants use CO2, sunlight, water and mineral salts to develop.
The farm turns those 7 tonnes of CO2 per hectare into enough feed (pasture) for 10 ewes. Those 10 ewes each emit about 20 – 22 grams of methane a day which means they produce in total 80 kgs of methane per year. It is accepted that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 – generally regarded as 7 times stronger. If we multiply our ewe’s 80 kgs of methane by 7 we get 560 kgs of CO2 equivalent.
The farm is therefore, using approximately 12 times more CO2 than it emits. A car owner cannot say that, or a coal fired boiler, or a private jet going to a climate conference. Farmers are not quite the villains they are made out to be.
New Zealand contributes just 0.017% of global emissions with the biggest source of CO2 emissions being road transport but even so, the Labour government set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture as part of its overall effort to reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 50 percent by 2030.
New Zealand has the lowest carbon footprint of any food producer in the world. Our agricultural industries produce and export enough food to feed 40 million people around the world.
Our farming methods are unique in that we use more greenhouse gas than we emit and we urgently need a government to go into to bat for our food producers, in international forums.
Particularly in light of the fact that Article 2 (b) of the Paris Agreement that NZ signed said clearly; no government should take steps that “threaten food production”.
NZ’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture as part of its overall effort to reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 50 percent, threatens our ability to continue producing the current levels of food production.
The reality for New Zealand is that farming along with the New Zealand public, is being dealt a rotten hand by the people who are supposed to represent it and the previous Labour Government did nothing to help the industry given their continued use of incorrect facts as a basis for making emissions policies, including their declaration of a climate emergency.
We had a change in government in 2023 and yet we still see both central and local government departments relying on false assumptions from the IPCC which have continued to underpin the Net Zero policy agenda This mistake by the IPCC which was admitted in October 2022, has never been acknowledged or corrected by New Zealand officials and in fact those incorrect figures are still being used to underpin the predictions for climate changes effects in New Zealand going forward.
Professor Dave Frame who advises the government and farming industries, and has been an IPCC participant, admits that New Zealand’s total emissions from all sheep, beef, dairy and deer ruminant methane over the last 100 years have caused some nonsensical fraction like one, one-thousandth of a degree centigrade change; In other words, an immeasurable, utterly insignificant amount per year.
It seems to tally with what a Dr William van Wijngaarden told Irish farmers recently stating that the entire world’s ruminant methane over the next century would only cause 0.17 of a thousandth of a degree C change. Remember New Zealand only has 1% of the world’s ruminants. For this we are proposing slashing our sheep and beef industry by 20%.
The idea New Zealand can or will get to a 50 percent reduction by 2030 is No dream it’s a real nightmare.
To hit the 2030 target emissions would have to fall by five percent per year!
How much is the 2030 target going to cost households?
What Ardern/Shaw signed us up for means that missing the target (and there is absolutely no doubt we will miss it) determines how much New Zealand is going to have to pay for international emission units.
Up to $24 billion is the latest official estimate for the 2030 deadline.
$24 billion is more than the current cost of NZ Super. $12,000 per household!
And that's not even counting the cost of lost economic growth, higher energy costs, and lost exports.
It’s 34 times larger than the total new spending allowance Nicola Willis has set for this year's Government budget.
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts has just announced that he is committing New Zealand to even harder targets for 2035!
Simon Watts is set to sign NZ up for a second eye-watering bill for 2035.
Once signed-up, it means New Zealand will have to pay a second time for a target that Christopher Luxon / the National Party have previously said is totally unachievable!
It's bad enough that New Zealand is hopelessly off track when it comes to meeting the existing 2030 target, and the $24 billion bill left by Ardern and Shaw, but to do it all over again is nothing short of economic sabotage.
The USA under its new government has pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord; the other major emitting countries such as India and China have refused to do anything until at least the year 2050 so why are we doubling down?
It makes no sense for the New Zealand government to sign up for a second round of ‘ambitious’, sorry, 'impossible' targets if they are serious about growing the economy.
New Zealand is already one of the most emissions-efficient countries in the world. More than 80 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources. Our farmers are the most emissions-efficient at what they do. We already have an emissions trading scheme that covers more greenhouse gas emissions than any other country in the world. Of course, we need to keep up the momentum, but it's not right to say we're not already 'doing our bit'.
Comparing 2019 to 2020 emissions dropped from 81.6 to 78.8 million tons of CO2-equvilent, or 3.43%. Source: Stats NZ.
Paying the rest of the world billions of dollars serves to make New Zealand poor – it doesn't serve to solve global warming when the US, China, and Russia are not part of the same agreement/commitment.
Christopher Luxon, our current Prime Minister, gets this – well he did when he was Opposition Leader anyway.
The $24 billion dollar cheque could buy 12 Dunedin Hospitals. It could build 16 Transmission Gully Motorways. It could build 40,000 new school classrooms. It could even be used to fund more in-country climate initiatives!
Simon Watts just turned what was a $24 billion liability into a potential $48 billion liability.
We are reducing spending on infrastructure, health, and education investment due to the fiscal crisis can we really afford to burn billions on an unobtainable climate target?
The end result will be Bankruptcy for NZ!
.svg){kind=logo}
By Andy Loader, Poke the Bear