Farm emission plan announced, expect to pay more for your food...

[Praktica]

Did you know that the paris agreement forbids any measures to tackle climate change that affect food production?
NZ will be in breach of this.

Our groundswell protest had great support from the public with many passers by tooting their horns for us.

I heard it was mainly voices for freedom and other conspiracy nutters who went along. That you were part of it just confirms that.

[Lilith7]

I thought that after their last protest, Groundswell said they'd be moving away from the VFF lot.

This may explain it...


https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1302420...ng-protest


"Broadly speaking, Voices for Freedom is having an identity crisis.

A group that harnessed energy by opposing public health measures during a pandemic has an obvious problem: What public health measures? Right now, VFF and the Government essentially have the same position on the pandemic.

To sustain its own existence, VFF has been forced to cast a wider net in an effort to re-energise its user base.

It tried with a campaign to get its supporters to run in local body elections, which was, for the most part, a failure. Early last month, it attempted to relive its glory days with a large pamphlet drop about face masks, only for mask mandates to be dropped days later.

This lagging energy is reflected in its engagement numbers. In recent months, viewership of VFF’s video content has fallen off a cliff.


Since being banned from Facebook, VFF’s largest social media following is now on Telegram, where it has a respectable 33,000 subscribers. But unlike Facebook, Telegram is not driven by algorithms - it is very difficult for users to be subconsciously nudged towards a group like VFF.

This is a major barrier to recruitment and likely explains why the group, despite claiming to have a principled objection to Facebook, has tried and failed to sign up again."

[harm_less]

This article says it all very well...
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/john-macdo...D5UPO5T3E/

And this, I already have a friend who sold his farm because it was uneconomic to upgrade to new regulations.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advo...2OV64HLSM/

All from a country that contributes 0.17% of global greenhouse gases, most of our emissions are carbon neutral, methane turns back to CO2 within 12 years and plants absorb back.
Farmers dont get to claim carbon credits from their pasture and for some stupid reason, NZ is not counting a great deal of our native bush in the south towards our carbon credits.

So in your argument the methane converts to CO2 which then a small percentage of it promotes pasture growth which feeds livestock who produce more methane from it. Your point was what?

---

I think I would rather pay higher prices knowing it was about climate change mitigation, than lining the pockets of some anonymous middlemen...

Essentially with our current emission levels we are bearing the emissions burden for producing a lot of exported food. Only fair to pass the costs of doing so onto those consumers. The more efficiently we produce the cheaper our goods will become to those who consume them. Taxation will drive that change.

[C_T_Russell]

So in your argument the methane converts to CO2 which then a small percentage of it promotes pasture growth which feeds livestock who produce more methane from it. Your point was what?

---

Thats like you saying burning wood converts to CO2 which then a small percentage promotes pasture growth who produce more methane from it.

Its a closed loop cycle (the carbon cycle)

Burning wood is considered OK because its carbon neutral, so is the methane from the cows.
The only issue that some might find is its half life which means the methane lasts about 10-12 years, but thats not really a big deal.

Grass -->cow-->methane-->CO2-->Grass/trees, etc all back to the start!

Did you know that methane is naturally produced everywhere by bacteria? Just think of compost, and all our native bush where decaying matter like leaves exist all rotting down.
Plus we have 8 billion humans farting about 2 balloons worth of gas a day too.
Africa has millions of wilderbeasts emitting gas too, along with elephants, etc, and every other bloody animal is making the stuff to some degree too!

[harm_less]

So in your argument the methane converts to CO2 which then a small percentage of it promotes pasture growth which feeds livestock who produce more methane from it. Your point was what?

---

Thats like you saying burning wood converts to CO2 which then a small percentage promotes pasture growth who produce more methane from it.

Its a closed loop cycle (the carbon cycle)

Burning wood is considered OK because its carbon neutral, so is the methane from the cows.
The only issue that some might find is its half life which means the methane lasts about 10-12 years, but thats not really a big deal.

Grass -->cow-->methane-->CO2-->Grass/trees, etc all back to the start!

Did you know that methane is naturally produced everywhere by bacteria? Just think of compost, and all our native bush where decaying matter like leaves exist all rotting down.
Plus we have 8 billion humans farting about 2 balloons worth of gas a day too.
Africa has millions of wilderbeasts emitting gas too, along with elephants, etc, and every other bloody animal is making the stuff to some degree too!

The problem is that "small percentage" of either CO2 or methane that is returned to vegetation growth as the remainder escapes to the atmosphere where it contributes to the 'greenhouse effect'. The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production as in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it that the carbon cycle is able to cope with. That 10-12 years of methane is a big deal, which our children and grandchildren will be forced to survive with, as will farmers over future decades.

Moreover methane is mostly produced in anaerobic surroundings such as ruminant digestion, landfill decomposition and fossil fuel deposits. While a relatively small amount of methane is emitted from leaf litter the net effect of this environment is positive in terms of such factors as slowing rainfall runoff, diversity of habitat for a multitude of organisms and as a net carbon sink in terms of humus generation.

By the way, elephants aren't ruminants and besides the huge populations of herbivores in natural habitats are generally migratory so their moving herds ensue that their emissions are sparsely distributed and easily dealt with/absorbed by the environment. They also don't pug and otherwise compact their grazing areas as happens in intensive farming systems, a phenomenon which also promotes anaerobic soil conditions and so methane production.

[C_T_Russell]

Thats like you saying burning wood converts to CO2 which then a small percentage promotes pasture growth who produce more methane from it.

Its a closed loop cycle (the carbon cycle)

Burning wood is considered OK because its carbon neutral, so is the methane from the cows.
The only issue that some might find is its half life which means the methane lasts about 10-12 years, but thats not really a big deal.

Grass -->cow-->methane-->CO2-->Grass/trees, etc all back to the start!

Did you know that methane is naturally produced everywhere by bacteria? Just think of compost, and all our native bush where decaying matter like leaves exist all rotting down.
Plus we have 8 billion humans farting about 2 balloons worth of gas a day too.
Africa has millions of wilderbeasts emitting gas too, along with elephants, etc, and every other bloody animal is making the stuff to some degree too!

The problem is that "small percentage" of either CO2 or methane that is returned to vegetation growth as the remainder escapes to the atmosphere where it contributes to the 'greenhouse effect'. The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production as in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it that the carbon cycle is able to cope with. That 10-12 years of methane is a big deal, which our children and grandchildren will be forced to survive with, as will farmers over future decades.

Moreover methane is mostly produced in anaerobic surroundings such as ruminant digestion, landfill decomposition and fossil fuel deposits. While a relatively small amount of methane is emitted from leaf litter the net effect of this environment is positive in terms of such factors as slowing rainfall runoff, diversity of habitat for a multitude of organisms and as a net carbon sink in terms of humus generation.

By the way, elephants aren't ruminants and besides the huge populations of herbivores in natural habitats are generally migratory so their moving herds ensue that their emissions are sparsely distributed and easily dealt with/absorbed by the environment. They also don't pug and otherwise compact their grazing areas as happens in intensive farming systems, a phenomenon which also promotes anaerobic soil conditions and so methane production.

I still think in the grand scheme of things its not enough to affect things, we could make better efforts with re-forestation, banning palm oil and products that contribute to de-forestation.
We once had more trees which would have absorbed the CO2, just like we have more humans breathing out CO2 and less trees than 100 years ago for example, thats got to be a bigger deal in itself.

Burning fossil fuel is the No.1 issue to be addressed, taxing the shit out of fuel to discourage drivers is not the solution either, especially when this money isint actually going to any forestation efforts overseas in the amazon, etc.
Intensive farming is not the solution either, we are proud of our grass fed beef and that would be disastrous if we went that way. Animal welfare is the main concern, but its also a poorer product quality and wont demand high market price.
Countries who intensive farm their beef want to buy our stuff because its better!

I fully support re-forestation, but only on areas that are uneconomic to farm and must be native bush, not shitty pine trees.

Yes elephants may not be ruminants, but methane is still produced in the gut of pretty much any animal on this planet.

[harm_less]

The problem is that "small percentage" of either CO2 or methane that is returned to vegetation growth as the remainder escapes to the atmosphere where it contributes to the 'greenhouse effect'. The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production as in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it that the carbon cycle is able to cope with. That 10-12 years of methane is a big deal, which our children and grandchildren will be forced to survive with, as will farmers over future decades.

Moreover methane is mostly produced in anaerobic surroundings such as ruminant digestion, landfill decomposition and fossil fuel deposits. While a relatively small amount of methane is emitted from leaf litter the net effect of this environment is positive in terms of such factors as slowing rainfall runoff, diversity of habitat for a multitude of organisms and as a net carbon sink in terms of humus generation.

By the way, elephants aren't ruminants and besides the huge populations of herbivores in natural habitats are generally migratory so their moving herds ensue that their emissions are sparsely distributed and easily dealt with/absorbed by the environment. They also don't pug and otherwise compact their grazing areas as happens in intensive farming systems, a phenomenon which also promotes anaerobic soil conditions and so methane production.

I still think in the grand scheme of things its not enough to affect things, we could make better efforts with re-forestation, banning palm oil and products that contribute to de-forestation.
We once had more trees which would have absorbed the CO2, just like we have more humans breathing out CO2 and less trees than 100 years ago for example, thats got to be a bigger deal in itself.

Burning fossil fuel is the No.1 issue to be addressed, taxing the shit out of fuel to discourage drivers is not the solution either, especially when this money isint actually going to any forestation efforts overseas in the amazon, etc.
Intensive farming is not the solution either, we are proud of our grass fed beef and that would be disastrous if we went that way. Animal welfare is the main concern, but its also a poorer product quality and wont demand high market price.
Countries who intensive farm their beef want to buy our stuff because its better!

I fully support re-forestation, but only on areas that are uneconomic to farm and must be native bush, not shitty pine trees.

Yes elephants may not be ruminants, but methane is still produced in the gut of pretty much any animal on this planet.

Struggling to follow your logic there chap. We are already farming intensively (e.g. imported feed, undercover feed out facilities, break feeding herds of 100s+) so the degredation to our environment is a result. Also are you saying that well treated animals result in inferior produce? Why do you think then that organic products command such a premium in price, to markets that far outstrip our ability to supply them?

[C_T_Russell]

I still think in the grand scheme of things its not enough to affect things, we could make better efforts with re-forestation, banning palm oil and products that contribute to de-forestation.
We once had more trees which would have absorbed the CO2, just like we have more humans breathing out CO2 and less trees than 100 years ago for example, thats got to be a bigger deal in itself.

Burning fossil fuel is the No.1 issue to be addressed, taxing the shit out of fuel to discourage drivers is not the solution either, especially when this money isint actually going to any forestation efforts overseas in the amazon, etc.
Intensive farming is not the solution either, we are proud of our grass fed beef and that would be disastrous if we went that way. Animal welfare is the main concern, but its also a poorer product quality and wont demand high market price.
Countries who intensive farm their beef want to buy our stuff because its better!

I fully support re-forestation, but only on areas that are uneconomic to farm and must be native bush, not shitty pine trees.

Yes elephants may not be ruminants, but methane is still produced in the gut of pretty much any animal on this planet.

Struggling to follow your logic there chap. We are already farming intensively (e.g. imported feed, undercover feed out facilities, break feeding herds of 100s+) so the degredation to our environment is a result. Also are you saying that well treated animals result in inferior produce? Why do you think then that organic products command such a premium in price, to markets that far outstrip our ability to supply them?

Thats the whole point, you said earlier that intensive farming is a solution to greenhouse emissions.
Why would we want to introduce more undercover farming indoors?
Well treated animals that are permitted to roam free on grass is better for animal welfare and also will give a better quality product.
Our govt doesnt give a shit, or else they would have banned palm kernel imports that are used on stock feed, thats a by-product of something that contributes to de-forestation.

At the other end of the scale, organic products are unaffordable for many and if the greens had their way, we would see all farmers faced to use permaculture methods for farming which would be so cost prohibitive.
The other solution is to force the population into eating insects which we are sadly seeing much more of this promoted as a "solution" to climate change.

[harm_less]

Struggling to follow your logic there chap. We are already farming intensively (e.g. imported feed, undercover feed out facilities, break feeding herds of 100s+) so the degredation to our environment is a result. Also are you saying that well treated animals result in inferior produce? Why do you think then that organic products command such a premium in price, to markets that far outstrip our ability to supply them?

Thats the whole point, you said earlier that intensive farming is a solution to greenhouse emissions.
Why would we want to introduce more undercover farming indoors?
Well treated animals that are permitted to roam free on grass is better for animal welfare and also will give a better quality product.
Our govt doesnt give a shit, or else they would have banned palm kernel imports that are used on stock feed, thats a by-product of something that contributes to de-forestation.

At the other end of the scale, organic products are unaffordable for many and if the greens had their way, we would see all farmers faced to use permaculture methods for farming which would be so cost prohibitive.
The other solution is to force the population into eating insects which we are sadly seeing much more of this promoted as a "solution" to climate change.

If you are interpretting what I've written earlier being promotion of intensive farming in regard to greenhouse emissions then your problem is one of comprehension of what you're reading. That's not a risky weakness to have if you're assimilating information from CT online content. Far too easy to get the wrong end of the stick, which may explain a few things.

[C_T_Russell]

If you are interpretting what I've written earlier being promotion of intensive farming in regard to greenhouse emissions then your problem is one of comprehension of what you're reading. That's a risky weakness to have if you're assimilating information from CT online content. Far too easy to get the wrong end of the stick, which may explain a few things.

you said:
"The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production as in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it than the carbon cycle is able to cope with"

If you removed the "as" it would have made total sense.

Anyway, our methane production is a drop in the bucket and is not going to make tiddly squat.
Its purely political why Jacinda wants to do this.

[harm_less]

If you are interpretting what I've written earlier being promotion of intensive farming in regard to greenhouse emissions then your problem is one of comprehension of what you're reading. That's a risky weakness to have if you're assimilating information from CT online content. Far too easy to get the wrong end of the stick, which may explain a few things.

you said:
"The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production as in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it than the carbon cycle is able to cope with"

If you removed the "as" it would have made total sense.

Anyway, our methane production is a drop in the bucket and is not going to make tiddly squat.
Its purely political why Jacinda wants to do this.

If the word 'as' is removed it totally changes what I was claiming. Try again...

The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production because in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it than the carbon cycle is able to cope with.

Do you comprehend my point now?

[C_T_Russell]

you said:
"The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production as in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it than the carbon cycle is able to cope with"

If you removed the "as" it would have made total sense.

Anyway, our methane production is a drop in the bucket and is not going to make tiddly squat.
Its purely political why Jacinda wants to do this.

If the word 'as' is removed it totally changes what I was claiming. Try again...

The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production because in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it than the carbon cycle is able to cope with.

Do you comprehend my point now?

I took it that you meant intensive farming was a way to mitigate CO2 emissions as an example.
Anyway, intensive factory indoor farming is promoted as an environmentally friendly way to produce meat.
I couldnt think of anything worse.

Edit:
I also had this article come my way, looks like regenerative farming is set for failure.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/green-dream-p...s-into-red

[joe 90]

Nz Is really just being used as a huge experiment by UN /WEF to push enviro & extreme socialism onto us as a small nation of only 5 million peple . Todays revelations of the proposed full takeover of local councils & all ratepayer assetts by govt & then controlled by "co governance' with IWI having final say , is the next step .Plus We are the only country to push emission rules onto food growers in didsegard of the paris agreement . The ETS is nothing more than a scam to allow other countries to buy carbon credits for big industry to by pass emission reductions . The only benefit to NZ is govt gets FX $$$$ from it

[king1]

Nz  Is really  just  being used as a  huge    experiment by    UN /WEF  to  push  enviro  &  extreme socialism  onto  us as  a    small nation  of only  5 million  peple    .  Todays revelations  of    the proposed  full    takeover of local councils &  all ratepayer  assetts  by govt  & then  controlled  by "co  governance' with IWI having final say  , is  the next step  .Plus    We are the only country  to push  emission  rules onto    food  growers  in  didsegard of the  paris agreement  .  The ETS is  nothing more than a  scam  to  allow  other  countries to  buy carbon credits  for    big industry  to  by pass emission    reductions    .  The only benefit  to  NZ  is govt gets  FX  $$$$ from it

i didn't see anything in the news I read about " the proposed  full    takeover of local councils &  all ratepayer  assetts  by govt"

[Lilith7]

Nz  Is really  just  being used as a  huge    experiment by    UN /WEF  to  push  enviro  &  extreme socialism  onto  us as  a    small nation  of only  5 million  peple    .  Todays revelations  of    the proposed  full    takeover of local councils &  all ratepayer  assetts  by govt  & then  controlled  by "co  governance' with IWI having final say  , is  the next step  .Plus    We are the only country  to push  emission  rules onto    food  growers  in  didsegard of the  paris agreement  .  The ETS is  nothing more than a  scam  to  allow  other  countries to  buy carbon credits  for    big industry  to  by pass emission    reductions    .  The only benefit  to  NZ  is govt gets  FX  $$$$ from it

i didn't see anything in the news I read about " the proposed  full    takeover of local councils &  all ratepayer  assetts  by govt"

Jeez - surely you know that you need heat to read that invisible ink some of its written in??!

[Zurdo]

I don't think they know what extreme socialism is. I used to know a guy who went over the Berlin Wall, he thought our socialist government pre Roger Douglas was pretty good, and I don't think there will be as much government control as we had then....everything will still be made in China. I also worked for a guy who spent time in European communist countries in the '60's, it was pretty horrible apparently.

[Praktica]

Nz  Is really  just  being used as a  huge    experiment by    UN /WEF  to  push  enviro  &  extreme socialism  onto  us as  a    small nation  of only  5 million  peple    .  Todays revelations  of    the proposed  full    takeover of local councils &  all ratepayer  assetts  by govt  & then  controlled  by "co  governance' with IWI having final say  , is  the next step  .Plus    We are the only country  to push  emission  rules onto    food  growers  in  didsegard of the  paris agreement  .  The ETS is  nothing more than a  scam  to  allow  other  countries to  buy carbon credits  for    big industry  to  by pass emission    reductions    .  The only benefit  to  NZ  is govt gets  FX  $$$$ from it

Nice and cosy down that rabbit hole? Getting the trash media feed ok?

[Lilith7]

I don't think they know what extreme socialism is. I used to know a guy who went over the Berlin Wall, he thought our socialist government pre Roger Douglas was pretty good, and I don't think there will be as much government control as we had then....everything will still be made in China.  I also worked for a guy who spent time in European communist countries in the '60's, it was pretty horrible apparently.

I've noticed that often, those quick to claim we're a 'socialist country' seem to know very little about socialism or communism. 

[Praktica]

I don't think they know what extreme socialism is. I used to know a guy who went over the Berlin Wall, he thought our socialist government pre Roger Douglas was pretty good, and I don't think there will be as much government control as we had then....everything will still be made in China.  I also worked for a guy who spent time in European communist countries in the '60's, it was pretty horrible apparently.

I've noticed that often, those quick to claim we're a 'socialist country' seem to know very little about socialism or communism. 

They know little about anything - dumb thoughtless dupes.

[BAM]

Thats like you saying burning wood converts to CO2 which then a small percentage promotes pasture growth who produce more methane from it.

Its a closed loop cycle (the carbon cycle)

Burning wood is considered OK because its carbon neutral, so is the methane from the cows.
The only issue that some might find is its half life which means the methane lasts about 10-12 years, but thats not really a big deal.

Grass -->cow-->methane-->CO2-->Grass/trees, etc all back to the start!

Did you know that methane is naturally produced everywhere by bacteria? Just think of compost, and all our native bush where decaying matter like leaves exist all rotting down.
Plus we have 8 billion humans farting about 2 balloons worth of gas a day too.
Africa has millions of wilderbeasts emitting gas too, along with elephants, etc, and every other bloody animal is making the stuff to some degree too!

The problem is that "small percentage" of either CO2 or methane that is returned to vegetation growth as the remainder escapes to the atmosphere where it contributes to the 'greenhouse effect'. The solution is to mitigate CO2 and methane production as in activities like intensive farming and transportation we are discharging far more of it that the carbon cycle is able to cope with. That 10-12 years of methane is a big deal, which our children and grandchildren will be forced to survive with, as will farmers over future decades.

Moreover methane is mostly produced in anaerobic surroundings such as ruminant digestion, landfill decomposition and fossil fuel deposits. While a relatively small amount of methane is emitted from leaf litter the net effect of this environment is positive in terms of such factors as slowing rainfall runoff, diversity of habitat for a multitude of organisms and as a net carbon sink in terms of humus generation.

By the way, elephants aren't ruminants and besides the huge populations of herbivores in natural habitats are generally migratory so their moving herds ensue that their emissions are sparsely distributed and easily dealt with/absorbed by the environment. They also don't pug and otherwise compact their grazing areas as happens in intensive farming systems, a phenomenon which also promotes anaerobic soil conditions and so methane production.

You are incorrect about the "small percentagë"
The carbon cycle is perfectly able to cope with however much methane and CO2 is discharged
It is a closed loop
If Ruminant numbers are not increasing, ( in NZ they are decreasing) there is no contribution to global warming.
Worth noting also that the global warming equations with farming are gross and make no allowance for  increases in soil carbon or product sent off farm.