Posts by mccx
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Michael Meyers,
Hooten specifically? It's either National or ACT. As he says, his ideological preferences outweigh Dirty Politics and related issues.
Other right-leaning voters? Some could move to the Conservatives and some to NZ First, but for many it's National or nothing, which may be why polls haven't moved drastically.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Bart Janssen,
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.
-
Hard News: Climate, money and risk, in reply to Bart Janssen,
First up, no, for climate change to be controlled we don’t need everyone to contribute, but we do need a significant portion of those who produce greenhouse gasses to contribute. New Zealand produces an insignificant amount of greenhouse gasses, not zero, and certainly more if you count the coal we ship to other places to be burnt. And our dairy industry (and sheep) is only a fraction of that. So if we completely eliminated emissions from dairying it would change nothing, equally if we do nothing about emissions from dairying it we have no impact.
NZ as a country does produce an insignificant amount of greenhouse gases, but per capita New Zealanders produce a significant amount –– well more than the per capita volumes in keeping with meaningful emissions targets. Therefore NZers and the NZ government have an obligation to reduce NZ's emissions. And wouldn't every country want to protect their golden egg as you suggest NZ do with dairying? Where does that leave the global aggregate ability to do something serious about emissions reductions?
There's decent evidence that NZ dairying could reduce its emissions without suffering any significant shock to either the sector or the national economy. That there's no progress on at least slowing the growth of NZ's emissions has more to do with the influence of the ag sector in NZ politics and the political orientation of the current government than any real pragmatic or economic issue.
-
Apologies for that RB. In the time that I was downloading academic journal articles and typing up my post the "debate" 'sploded.
-
Hard News: Done like a dinner, in reply to Farmer Green,
Do you mean the science which says that natural variability is far in excess of any anthropogenic climate signal? That point was made quite clearly.
I read the Economist article, not the NBR article (paywalled), so it's not entirely clear which science you're referring to here. The journal article that The Economist refers to on natural variation in PNAS doesn't say that though. The PNAS paper says the range form 1650-1750 was about 0.1 degrees greater than the 1900-2000 range and that others have overestimated 20th C warming trends by a factor of 2, but that since 1910 the human contribution to warming has been ~0.075 degrees/decade and that 60% of warming in the last 50 years is attributable to humans.
I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see your point being made quite clearly anywhere in that.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
That is not to say that there is not more to do. That’s obvious.
I'd be interested to see historical trends water quality data if you can point me to such a thing. It makes little environmental difference if some practices have improved if intensification and other changes have offset these improvements.
I agree that farmers in general and Fed Farmers are dismissive of uninformed comment.
How quickly you move from "non-farmer" to "uninformed" is telling. It's also a rather vacuous comment. I'd say they're also often dismissive of informed comment - from farmers and non-farmers alike. (Many would be dismissive of your approach wouldn't they?) As for Rowarth's quote, one could just as easily say "lack of farmers' understanding of what NZ society wants in environmental quality is one of the biggest threats facing NZ agriculture." (or substitute environment for agriculture and the end if you prefer)
It's obvious that there needs to be better dialogue between the agricultural sector and those outside it who are interested and concerned about food and the environment. It's easy for the ag sector to say "it's not that easy" when others identify problems or suggest solutions. The problem is that sometimes it's actually not that easy, but sometimes it's used when it's doable but the ag sector just doesn't want to do it.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
But you’re right there is no story yet that is going to generate enthusiasm among those who do not farm. That doesn’t really matter does it?
I didn't say that at all. My point was that saying people concerned about the environment and farmers agree on the issues (as I took you to be saying) is wrong. The LWF may be a step toward this, but even it produced real outcomes (which is still very uncertain) there would be much more to do beyond what the LWF is attempting.
And as others have said, there are plenty of non-farmers who are rightfully enthusiastic and interested about these issues. It appears to me (as a non-farmer of course) that some in the agriculture sector -- including Fed Farmers -- would rather non-farmers didn't have a say and weren't interested in rural land use and environment issues. The longer the status quo continues in NZ farming the better off these interests see themselves as being.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Environmental Protection Society: farming has to change.
Federated Farmers: we know that farming has to change.
Not much of a story there for the chattering classes, is there?Except for there being little or no agreement between the two about what counts as "change", what the goals of this change are, how quickly this change should happen, who is responsible for any positive or negative financial implications from attempting such change, how change could be achieved, etcetera. Not much of a story? Only if you're trying to keep it off the agenda.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Well now I have nothing to disagree with. I suppose there's a lesson to be learned more generally about agreeing on terms before proceeding with what to do about those terms.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Farmer Green,
Yes, I thought that at one time, then I spent 10 years working in rural economies and changed my views on how landowners and rural dwellers manage land and the environment. "Education" can affect this if it's done by trusted parties in a manner that connects to how rural land managers see their situation. Many other things besides education matter too though, often more.
I'd also say that if an urbanite came along and said that what rural land managers needed was more "education" it would get a lot a hackles raised rather quickly.