Hard News: Climate, money and risk
220 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
Greenhouse gases and limited freshwater and water pollution are all issues with dairy farming
i think this is a point that needs repeating. the effect of dairying on water quality is only tangentially related to the greenhouse question.
dirty dairy is from what we now consider the bad practice of letting waste wash into rivers, while the CO2 issue relates to their eating petrochemical-fertiliser-based grass, and farting the proceeds out into the atmosphere.
at least that's what i think i'm reading
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
logging on regardless...
But diary herds are increasing hugely in New Zealand
Ranked and filed, their leaves rustling, eventfully across the plains, for as far as the 'I' can see......
Blame those book reading clubs - they're leading folk to the diarist outcomes...;- )
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Roman à calf?
diary herds are increasing hugely in New Zealand
It’s all there in black and white! On vellum. ;-)
-
Sacha, in reply to
cause our export earnings to drop significantly
number of cows does not equal number of dollars earned.
not increasing cow numbers further does not mean 'reducing' them.
don't know that I can be any simpler than that. -
In fact, we could even reduce the number of dairy cows and increase our export earnings at the same time.
-
Sacha, in reply to
yes we can
-
what's that Obama chap up to in a few years..?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
In fact, we could even reduce the number of dairy cows and increase our export earnings at the same time.
It's called productivity.
-
I'm finding both Bart's and Lilith's arguments equally compelling.
Surely the desired outcome of the R&D Bart is arguing for would be products, specifically grasses and bacterias, that could then be sold to the world's dairy (and sheep, beef, deer,...?) farmers, earning bucketloads by selling these high tech, high value added products? Wouldn't that earn back the government's initial R&D spend and keep money rolling in for ages as we kept developing newer and better grasses and bacteria? It would also reduce the need for all that supplementary feed, thereby discouraging the slashing and burning of Indonesian rainforest and giving Singapore a break from annual smog crises caused by Indonesian forest fires and many other environmental benefits. None of that looks like a subsidy to dirty dairy to me. Indeed, it looks like a smart investment.
As for what Lilith's saying about water, surely we should be pricing water smarter to encourage dairying in areas like Waikato, Taranaki and Westland that are fairly well suited to it and discourage dairying in areas like Canterbury which are not? And shouldn't we also be putting a cost on pollution of water supplies - both ground water and lakes and rivers - to encourage farmers to clean up their act? I have no idea how to do that, though.
But also, if we're going to invest in R&D of new, better grass and bacteria for dairy farming, surely we should also be investing in R&D of new, better strains of crops suited to areas like Canterbury, so that farmers can make a decent living without having to jump on the dairy bandwagon?
At the very least, couldn't we move from being merely China's dairy and raw log farm into being China's dairy, raw log and cannabis farm? Perhaps even get a slice of the R&D/new product creation/high value added product export game?
And wouldn't all of that help diversify NZ's export base and cut our reliance on low value dairy exports and create new jobs in science and technology and more and new career paths for budding NZ scientists?
Maybe this comment reveals why I'm just a loser* English teacher and not a mega-rich business man, but all of the above looks win-win-win to me.
*don't worry, being a loser has got me a pretty cool, interesting life, I'm quite happy this way.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
surely we should be pricing water smarter to encourage dairying in areas like Waikato, Taranaki and Westland that are fairly well suited to it
That sounds nice in the abstract, but even high-rainfall Westland has had serious cases of dairy overstocking for some time now. The cowboys have pretty much penetrated everywhere. All Westland milk is processed at Hokitika. The large dairy factory at Karamea that opened in 1993 was mothballed later that decade when the giant Hokitika complex opened. Milk tankers travel the 234 kilometers South every day, over a road that still features a number of single-lane bridges. Given the West Coast weather bridges occasionally wash out, leading to long detours through the Buller Gorge.
The last time that I know of the Karamea factory being recommissioned was 14 years ago, when it ran for three months due to Hokitika not being able to meet capacity. Since then the main plant has been expanded, while Karamea is, as far as I know, still kept on standby.
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
Wow. All the more reason to diversify our export base, I think.
-
JLM,
Not wanting to derail a climate change thread further down the GMO path, but as a GM agnostic (and green) I think this is one of the best evidence based summaries I've read on the topic.
-
Martin Roberts, in reply to
We should own up to all the carbon emitted from our imported consumer goods, and repatriate it, if only to see just how much carbon we really do emit.
The best footprint data I have found is from Carbon Footprint of Nations. Sadly they have removed the widget where you could see production/imports/exports for your choice of country, and the data is so hard to compile that they basically only have 2004 numbers.
While the production focus of the Kyoto numbers suits a charge-for-pollution-where-it-occurs approach, I find that the footprint data is better for understanding (and changing) my own role in the tragedy.
-
mccx, in reply to
What you propose is a tax on farmers that they cannot avoid by doing anything other than reducing their herd that will in turn reduce NZ export earnings. Are you volunteering to give up your imported luxurys? Because that is the only consequence.
A consequence that does NOTHING for the planet.
You propose taxing our major export earner in a way that can only reduce the financial viability of our major export earner for NO measurable gain to the planet.Bart, this is where your line matches that of FedFarmers and part of why I think commenters (self included) have disagreed so strongly. Farmers shouldn't have to "avoid" the tax any more than I should avoid income tax by working less or a business should avoid GST by reducing their sales volume. The beginning of an emissions charge, properly developed, doesn't soak up all profitability in the entire dairy industry, it takes some of the already significant profits and redirects them toward national-good or global-good activities (e.g. research). At the margins - all else equal - it might look like it would make some operations unprofitable or slow the expansion of the sector, but, 1) that's probably a good thing for many other reasons, and 2) all else isn't equal - those operations can attempt to find other cuts or efficiencies to offset the cost of emissions liabilities. And farmers could also consider reducing use of nitrogen fertilisers which would reduce n2o emissions (~1/3 of NZ ag's emissions) and lead to other environmental co-benefits - they don't need to wait for a technical solution to that.
More generally, I think it's interesting that the science-policy relationship on the climate change issue is marked by a relatively significant divide: the IPCC and many climate scientists see their role as providing scientific assessments and the real policy work is done in policy and economics. There's awareness-raising and calls for action, but little direct policy advocacy. On the GMO issue though there's less of a divide -- many scientists make clear policy or political statements. Or perhaps the policy and economics driven-aspects of the GMO just haven't raised as much attention as the equivalent climate questions.
-
Ngai Tahu are building New Zealand's Biggest Dairy Farm at Eyrewell and Balmoral. It will be worth $1.2B. 6700 and 9300 hectares worth of dirt being used. 1250 hectares already are in 3 farms.
Water: Water rights from the Waimakariri, and they have bought other water rights from around the district. Storage sites totalling 46 hectares giving 16 days at 5.5mm per day of water use. When water restrictions come on water will be used form the storage system.
They have partnered with Lincoln Uni to monitor leaching of nitrate and nitrogen.
Greens say dairying on leachable soils is a big risk. This scale on stoney soil is not a good land use.
Read and listen here:
-
Today's news: the prospect of parts of Christchurch being underwater within a century -- and consequent "voluntary" or "forced withdrawal" from some neighbourhoods.
When people have to confront things like this, it really does underline how irrelevant clowns like Rodney Hide are.
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
saw similar information being presented by a lincoln uni scientist at a geocoding conference two years back.
the same conference where CERA was trumpetting their $20bil building project in the areas soon to be underwater.
two words; totes cray.
-
Ross Mason, in reply to
When people have to confront things like this, it really does underline how irrelevant clowns like Rodney Hide are.
Yes!! And gosh! Even the insurance companies are factoring that risk into their future assessments.
HEY RODNEY! DID YOU SEE THAT?
-
I have great trouble editing several posts to correct grammar and typos. Have given up on a few as process failed.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Après le déluge...
...areas soon to be underwater.
two words; totes cray.Now that's the kina optimism
that makes this country great!Don't look at the lost land, no,
embrace the gained kai moana!;- )
-
Che Tibby, in reply to
can see the chchers of the future now, gently punting across the bayou.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
your line matches that of FedFarmers
I also find it of deep concern that I am arguing in line with Fed Farmers. I really have no desire to increase our dairy herd I also have no desire to see dirty farming practices continue. I also really do understand that carbon/water/nitrogen are all connected and targeting one will inevitably have a positive impact on the others.
I am just left with the belief that dairying is a special case in NZ. I don't think it's a good thing that it is a special case but I also don't think ignoring that fact is good.
What I am left coming back to is the question of how best to deal with climate change. I see no reason to believe that applying an ETS to farming in NZ will do that. I would much rather spend our time effort and money doing things that really will make a difference to climate change. As far as I can tell no actual emission reduction in NZ will have an effect globally. There is a real participation value in reducing emissions and we can sometimes have political influence. But to have a real impact from NZ anything we do needs to be applicable worldwide, that is the reality of being a tiny country.
You say
takes some of the already significant profits and redirects them toward national-good or global-good activities
but I'm not sure I have seen anything to indicate that the ETS does any such thing. If the ETS encouraged farmer towards better practices I'd be keener, but as far as I can tell a tax based on cow burps leaves the farmer with no behavioural changes that are good and instead almost certainly results in avoidance behaviour. A tax on water use would be different but this is a tax on carbon emissions.
-
Not having cows is a good thing because it reduces emissions. That's the whole point of a tax on a bad thing: to stop people doing the bad thing.
New Zealand has a responsibility to reduce our own emissions in line with our international commitments. We don't have a responsibility to invest in speculative attempts to save the planet through science.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
deliverance from evil...
...gently punting across the bayou.
who needs Key Largo to get bogged down,
when we have Key's largesse jury prevailing... -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
horses for courses
New Zealand has a responsibility to reduce our own emissions...
Livestock reduction urgently needs a Chef d'emission...
After beef, lamb, pig and fowl
have been culled, and served
will we look at ourselves?
Seems to me that farming might need to go back to more diverse mixed cropping and husbandry models, to cover the risks of failed crops in formerly 'stable' climatic regions.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.