The special select committee to review the Emission Trading Scheme is not something to get excited about. John Key has said that we will have an emission trading scheme regardless of what the committee recommends. Peter Dunne the Chairman has stated the science that proves anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming. For that reason he says he does not want to re-litigate the science. This is understandable because having to listen to science that conflicts with his overwhelming science would be confusing for him and he may not know what to do.
But Peter, the science is only overwhelming because it is contradictory. There is evidence the globe is warming and there is evidence the globe is cooling. Sea levels are rising according to some evidence and falling according to others. Further more, some evidence shows that sea levels are more influenced by tectonic plate movement than melting ice so any change in the sea level is an indication of nothing in any case.
Even after choosing which of the science is true we still have to decide if what ever is or isn’t happening to the Earth is or isn’t caused by man. Peter may have seen the overwhelming evidence that the globe is warming due to man but I haven’t. Nor do I believe has he. He only believes in anthropogenic global warming. In fact they are the exact words he used, as did John Key and Helen Clark when they declared that they did not believe in God but they did believe in man made global warming. “I believe in man made global warming” they said. Halleluiah I have the answer! It is not science after all, it is religion.
This makes perfect sense because agnosticism deprives agnostics like John and Helen a religion. Yet religion has existed for thousands of years in practically every civilisation that has ever existed. There is clearly a need for it and having no religion has created a void that the religion of global warming has filled. While I do not have a problem with people believing what ever they want, I do have a problem when they build shrines to their belief at my expense. In this new religion the naysayers are heretics and referred to as deniers. The NZ Inventory of Greenhouse Gases is the new gospel and The Kyoto Protocol the new bible. Both are portrayed as documents that are beyond question but I say to John and Helen and Peter you must question your new gospel and your new bible because they are impostors, they are inaccurate and nonsensical documents.
According to Kyoto the environmental impact of a sheep is over six times worse than a lawnmower mowing a given quantity of grass. (see my article Straight Furrow November 11th) This is surely proof enough that the Kyoto Protocol is absurd and must be questioned. Furthermore under Kyoto rules a NZ farmer is responsible for all the emissions that result when people overseas eat our farm produce. But when the same NZ farmer releases carbon to the atmosphere from oil someone else produced overseas he or she is responsible for that as well. This is clearly not fair and another reason to question the protocol. Enteric methane from livestock is included as a greenhouse gas but why? There is not one study or piece of research anywhere in the world to link methane from enteric fermentation to the increase of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. There are only assumptions and assumptions are not good enough at this level.
The NZ Inventory of Greenhouse Gases is an inventory of our emissions prepared by the Ministry of Environment. It is a political document that is misrepresented as being a scientific one. It states that agriculture contributes 48.5 percent of NZ’s greenhouse gases. This is an inaccurate statement because not all greenhouse gases are included in the inventory. If agricultural emissions were compared to NZ’s total emissions the figure would be a lot lower.
The Inventory also attributes agriculture with 96 percent of all nitrous oxide emissions which is a figure that should be questioned. Again not all emissions are included. It ignores all the nitrogen fixed on the lawns and parks in NZ. It ignores all the nitrogen fixed by gorse that flourishes in reverting bush and forestry land. It ignores the emissions from decomposing vegetation on the seventeen million hectares not in agriculture but does include the same emission when it occurs on farmland. If agriculture contributes 96 percent of NZ’s N2O emissions it is only because someone is cooking the books to make it so.
This new religion is a false idol and will not last a thousand years or even a thousand weeks. As long as we challenge it enough, as long as we keep calling the false prophets to account they will be found wanting and this religion will crumble and fall like snow from the sky.
In the meantime Santa Claus has come and gone and for hundreds of millions of good children in the world a stocking full of presents, some biscuit crumbs on a plate and an empty glass of milk is surely evidence that Santa is real, some may even say it is overwhelming.
Kevin Campbell says
Robin
The only political party that NZ farmers should have voted for last election is the ACT party.
It was clear to most through 2008 that National, long considered the farmers great ally, had made a paradigm shift away from its grass roots agricultural support base into Labour territory, simply to get elected. Next election will be no different and National is already cosying up to the Greens because there may be a vote in it.
Whatever happened to good old fashioned principles and values?
During the 2008 campaign ACT went to great lengths to point out to farmers how far National had moved away from them, even blatantly waving an anti farming ETS under their noses.
The reality was that a party vote for ACT was equal to a party vote for National without an emissions trading scheme. It was that simple.
Sadly, many farmers didnt understand that or MMP. Some blindly accepted that a vote for ACT might somehow allow Labour to sneak back in and/or they just couldlnt bring themselves to vote for anyone otehr than National. The National party did its best to spread this fiction among farmers and it did them a great disservice.
It is clear that only ACT’s efforts succeeded in suspending the ETS, gaining a review on climate change for farmers. There has been little recognition for this and without ACT (and a little help from the financial crisis) some form of ETS would probably be under way.
Disappointingly, the majority of farmers have failed to accept or recognise that National is no longer their knight in shining armour.
The threat of an ETS looms large with Nick Smith as climate change minister and the chances of agriculture escaping the insanity of some sort of carbon related impost extremely slim.
At the end of the day the climate change battle has never had anything to do with the facts on climate science, right or worng, its always been about tax and politics.
ACT stand on principles and policies of substance, not politics. We believe that NZ farmers gave National the benefit of the doubt in 2008 but 2011 will be a completely different story.
Regards
Kevin Campbell