Comments on: Greenpeace, climate change and agriculture http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/ hopping along the corridors of power Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:11:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: kahikatea http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40432 kahikatea Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:04:23 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40432 # waymad Says: April 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm > Define a ‘1990 level emission’, on a hypothetical dairy farm (state area, predominant pasture species, stock units etc) in a way that will stand up to a concerted judicial examination. > And if you cannot get this simple definition down pat, how ya gonna have a Policy? it probably isn't a simple definition, and I'm not aware of anyone other than you seeing a need to define it. Why would you? # waymad Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm

> Define a ‘1990 level emission’, on a hypothetical dairy farm (state area, predominant pasture species, stock units etc) in a way that will stand up to a concerted judicial examination.

> And if you cannot get this simple definition down pat, how ya gonna have a
Policy?

it probably isn’t a simple definition, and I’m not aware of anyone other than you seeing a need to define it. Why would you?

]]> By: waymad http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40217 waymad Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:41:48 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40217 Devil's in the details, chapos and chapesses. Define a '1990 level emission', on a hypothetical dairy farm (state area, predominant pasture species, stock units etc) in a way that will stand up to a concerted judicial examination. Because dairy is a corporate activity, with deep pockets for legal eagles and other Predatory Boids. And said examination of definitions is the first step. And if you cannot get this simple definition down pat, how ya gonna have a Policy? Devil’s in the details, chapos and chapesses.

Define a ‘1990 level emission’, on a hypothetical dairy farm (state area, predominant pasture species, stock units etc) in a way that will stand up to a concerted judicial examination.

Because dairy is a corporate activity, with deep pockets for legal eagles and other Predatory Boids. And said examination of definitions is the first step.

And if you cannot get this simple definition down pat, how ya gonna have a Policy?

]]> By: SPC http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40194 SPC Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:57:27 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40194 We should claim an exemption for food we export overseas - this would reduce our Kyoto burden. Given any food they produce locally has a higher footprint than here, our case is strong. We should also claim a rebate for emission increases caused by a population rising from immigration (from other countries). Quite simply if we were treated fairly, opposition to conservation practice in use of scarce carbon would dissipate. We should claim an exemption for food we export overseas - this would reduce our Kyoto burden.

Given any food they produce locally has a higher footprint than here, our case is strong.

We should also claim a rebate for emission increases caused by a population rising from immigration (from other countries).

Quite simply if we were treated fairly, opposition to conservation practice in use of scarce carbon would dissipate.

]]> By: samiam http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40176 samiam Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:34:35 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40176 Born and raised on a farm I can say.... What's needed is a financial reward for farmers who can achieve best practice. If a hill country farmer can plant enough of the worst (and riparian) bits of the farm in forestry to cancel out the emissions from the stock on the best bits of the farm, we are on to a winner. (incidentally she will probably find that stock numbers won't drop at all) That farm should then be accredited with some form of 'Gold Standard" and go to the head of the queue in market access and get premium prices raised by the premium product marketing. Dairy conversions could do the same, best practice= premium product. Born and raised on a farm I can say….
What’s needed is a financial reward for farmers who can achieve best practice.
If a hill country farmer can plant enough of the worst (and riparian) bits of the farm in forestry to cancel out the emissions from the stock on the best bits of the farm, we are on to a winner. (incidentally she will probably find that stock numbers won’t drop at all) That farm should then be accredited with some form of ‘Gold Standard” and go to the head of the queue in market access and get premium prices raised by the premium product marketing.
Dairy conversions could do the same, best practice= premium product.

]]> By: Bryce http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40164 Bryce Mon, 31 Mar 2008 03:03:57 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40164 Hi Frog - the reason I asked for clarification rather than just relying on your original post is that you post appears to contradict other things that the Green Party has said about climate change. The things that contradict your post are the statements by the Greens that: * 'we are not proposing that farming should cover the cost of all its emissions’ * Farmers 'should be largely protected' from charges for their emissions. * Sheep and beef farmers should receive a total exemption and dairy farmers should only pay for about 20% of their emissions This all means that the Greens' stance isn't all that different to the other parties. You guys might be tougher on farmers than Labour and National - but only by a degree. Therefore you aren't exactly differentiated from other parties. Maybe you are buying into the centrist consensus on such issues in order to be "all things to all people". This might be part of the reason that the Greens fail to attract much voter support these days - people just don't perceive you as being much different from the rest of politicians. Bryce www.liberation.org.nz Hi Frog - the reason I asked for clarification rather than just relying on your original post is that you post appears to contradict other things that the Green Party has said about climate change. The things that contradict your post are the statements by the Greens that:

* ‘we are not proposing that farming should cover the cost of all its emissions’

* Farmers ’should be largely protected’ from charges for their emissions.

* Sheep and beef farmers should receive a total exemption and dairy farmers should only pay for about 20% of their emissions

This all means that the Greens’ stance isn’t all that different to the other parties. You guys might be tougher on farmers than Labour and National - but only by a degree. Therefore you aren’t exactly differentiated from other parties. Maybe you are buying into the centrist consensus on such issues in order to be “all things to all people”. This might be part of the reason that the Greens fail to attract much voter support these days - people just don’t perceive you as being much different from the rest of politicians.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

]]> By: toad http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40161 toad Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:49:29 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40161 Suppose that's one way to put it Bryce. Although, as a Green supporter I'd prefer to put it this way: The Greens will require the agricultural sector to pay for all its emissions that New Zealand has an international obligation for under Kyoto. Suppose that’s one way to put it Bryce. Although, as a Green supporter I’d prefer to put it this way:

The Greens will require the agricultural sector to pay for all its emissions that New Zealand has an international obligation for under Kyoto.

]]> By: frog http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40160 frog Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:49:23 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40160 No, if you are looking for a <a href=http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/sydneyjha152636.html rel="nofollow">nutshell</a>, you could return to the statement in my original post which is that the agriculture sector should pay for all emissions above 1990 levels. No, if you are looking for a nutshell, you could return to the statement in my original post which is that the agriculture sector should pay for all emissions above 1990 levels.

]]> By: Bryce http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40159 Bryce Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:36:38 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40159 So, if I've comprehended this all correctly, in a nutshell the Green Party says that: The Greens WON'T make agricultural producers pay for ALL of their emissions, but will make them pay for MORE than other parliamentary parties would. Bryce www.liberation.org.nz So, if I’ve comprehended this all correctly, in a nutshell the Green Party says that:

The Greens WON’T make agricultural producers pay for ALL of their emissions, but will make them pay for MORE than other parliamentary parties would.

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

]]> By: toad http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40157 toad Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:28:51 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40157 Bryce, the <a href="http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other10973.html" rel="nofollow">Green policy</a> re this is: <i>Other than by reducing stock numbers there is no way to avoid methane emissions from livestock at present. Nitrous oxide emissions from farming can be somewhat reduced with new technology but this is still being researched. It is therefore not reasonable to require agriculture to face a carbon price for all its emissions. The growth in dairying is so fast that it threatens not just our Kyoto position, but also water availability, water pollution and other environmental effects. It is therefore reasonable that the agriculture sector face a price for the growth in its emissions above a baseline. However the Green Party believes that it is not reasonable or efficient to expect individual farmers to engage with the world carbon trading system. The Green Party will: 1. Set the baseline for agriculture at the level of their emissions at 1990 because that is the point after which NZ becomes liable for the emissions according to the Kyoto agreement. 2. Exempt the beef and sheep industries from any requirement to purchase units unless their emissions rise beyond 1990 levels as currently their emissions are below 1990 levels. 3. Place the liability for any increased emissions from the dairying and deer farming sectors with the large processing companies rather than with individual farmers. For example if Fonterra processes 90% of our milk, they will be required to purchase enough Kyoto units to cover 90% of the increase in our emissions from dairying since 1990 and remit them to the government.</i> So it essentially requires the agricultural sector to pay for all their emissions for which NZ has obligations during the first Kyoto period, rather than for their total emissions. So unlike other Parties, the Green Party will not have the taxpayer subsidising the agricultural sector's emissions. Bryce, the Green policy re this is:

Other than by reducing stock numbers there is no way to avoid methane emissions from livestock at present. Nitrous oxide emissions from farming can be somewhat reduced with new technology but this is still being researched. It is therefore not reasonable to require agriculture to face a carbon price for all its emissions.

The growth in dairying is so fast that it threatens not just our Kyoto position, but also water availability, water pollution and other environmental effects. It is therefore reasonable that the agriculture sector face a price for the growth in its emissions above a baseline. However the Green Party believes that it is not reasonable or efficient to expect individual farmers to engage with the world carbon trading system.

The Green Party will:

1. Set the baseline for agriculture at the level of their emissions at 1990 because that is the point after which NZ becomes liable for the emissions according to the Kyoto agreement.

2. Exempt the beef and sheep industries from any requirement to purchase units unless their emissions rise beyond 1990 levels as currently their emissions are below 1990 levels.

3. Place the liability for any increased emissions from the dairying and deer farming sectors with the large processing companies rather than with individual farmers. For example if Fonterra processes 90% of our milk, they will be required to purchase enough Kyoto units to cover 90% of the increase in our emissions from dairying since 1990 and remit them to the government.

So it essentially requires the agricultural sector to pay for all their emissions for which NZ has obligations during the first Kyoto period, rather than for their total emissions. So unlike other Parties, the Green Party will not have the taxpayer subsidising the agricultural sector’s emissions.

]]> By: Bryce http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40155 Bryce Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:51:54 +0000 http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/03/31/greenpeace-climate-change-and-agriculture/#comment-40155 Furthermore, although the Greens often trumpet their sound-bite that 'polluters should pay', the party's finer print shows that they are quite soft (by their own standards) on business and farmers. In terms of farmers, the party has said, 'we are not proposing that farming should cover the cost of all its emissions'. The Green Party has in the past singled out sheep and beef farmers for a total exemption and suggested that dairy farmers should only pay for about 20% of their emissions. True or not? Bryce www.liberation.org.nz Furthermore, although the Greens often trumpet their sound-bite that ‘polluters should pay’, the party’s finer print shows that they are quite soft (by their own standards) on business and farmers.

In terms of farmers, the party has said, ‘we are not proposing that farming should cover the cost of all its emissions’. The Green Party has in the past singled out sheep and beef farmers for a total exemption and suggested that dairy farmers should only pay for about 20% of their emissions.

True or not?

Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz

]]>