On the minor party leaders debate Don Brash said that biological emissions were sourced from the atmosphere, Russell Norman went into a laughing fit as if Brash had said the most ridiculous thing in the world. Afterwards In the NZ Herald Claire Trevett said “Green co-leader Russel Norman, who sounded credible on the economy and made Act’s Brash look a nincompoop with his theory of the carbon that fed the grass that caused the cow to belch the carbon.”
This is great because it is giving us an opportunity to get our message about these emissions out there. Act has a fairly strong rural influence on the list and on the Board so they are pushing Brash on this issue.
This is what he said at the Party launch
Indeed, there’s a strong argument that biological emissions don’t add to greenhouse gases at all: every unit of carbon emitted by pastures, crops and animals was first absorbed from the atmosphere.
As far as I know he is the only party leader saying this
I did send Claire an email asking her where did she think the carbon came from, and suggested a school science book might help her and I also told her that the billions of dollars Norman claims are being spent on subsidies to emitters don’t exist, and that he was basing his economic policy on cancelling these non existent subsidies.
I haven’t heard back.
The interesting thing is that lots of the comments she got on the website agreed with Brash, which means our message is getting out there. Brash might be the only part leader to have studied this subject but the others might have to look at it now which will be good for our cause.
To see article and comments click here
Neil Henderson says
What a sad day for humanity when people mock someone who is telling the truth. It makes one realise how effective the propaganda program has been.
On the same day Phil Goff addressed the Federated Farmers National Council and had another attempt at justifying why we need livestock emissions in the ETS from 2013. He has admitted he doesn’t undeestand the science and has to trust those who do.Why does he only listen to the likes of MAF who have a vested interest in the ETS as it will keep thier feed trough full?
One can only continue to hope that Joe Bloggs in the street will soon wake up enough to put a stop to this rubbish. This only reinforces the need for the research to show what so many of us already know.
I am goiong to be too busy until after the election, but this issue of who is the nincompoop is screaming for more attention.
Steve Marshall says
Methane is the greenhouse gas created on the farm by ruminant animals. Essentially this is a nitrogen issue, not a carbon one. It’s no wonder Russel (yes, that’s the correct spelling) Norman was splitting his sides.
Robin Grieve says
Are you serious Steve? The issue is global warming, which is suposedly caused by increasing concentration of greenhouse gas. Methane is CH4 (that is one carbon atom and 4 hydrogen). To form that one molecule one CO2 molecule had to be emoved from the atmopshere (unless like Russel you think this carbon atom came from somewhere else?) One atom of carbon removed from the atmosphere and one atom of carbon returned, so no net effect on the number of crabon atoms in the atmosphere. The form this carbon atom is in (CH4 or CO2) is irrelevant because this activity causes no change in concentration of either.
As to nitrogen, that is N there are no carbon atoms in it Steve. Nitrogen is not a greenhouse gas either. I am not trying to be rude but I don’t get what you are on about. If you are saying nitrogen causes the animal to produce methane you moght be off the mark a bit because it is quite irrelevant. The methane is formed to dispose of the hydrogen gas that builds up in the rumen.
Brad Atkin says
Robin, (or anyone else that might know)
In response to your post, do you know and/or can you provide a link to show the relationship between CO2 use by plants in Photosynthesis and the amount of Methane CH4 released by the animal. In other words, the net gain/loss between the two. i.e. Cows ingest ??kg/C/day, and release ??/C/day through CH4 and dairy products.
Cheers
Robin Grieve says
Brad Agresearch have these figures I don’t have a link, if you email me I can send you a copy of it.
Firtsly let me clarify, you ask for kg/C/day. If by C you mean the atom C then it wil be in balance, no cow or anything at all can make the atom C so any emission of it is part of a cycle.
If by C you mean CO2 then the answer is this
10.6 tonne CO2 removed by photosynthesis.
5 tonne CO2 returned by respiration from rotting grass and root material not eaten
Of the 5.6 tonne CO2 that grew the grass the animal eats
0.62kg CO2 is returned to the atmosphere in product when someone eats the product and breathes out.
2.93 tonne CO2 is returned by animal respiration
1.7 tonnne CO2 is returned through faeces
0.1 tonne CO2 returned in urine
0.25 tonne of the CO2 used to grow the grass the cow eats is converted to methane. This is then converted into what the politicians call carbon (CO2 equivalents) by multiplying the 0.25 by the global warming potential figure of 21.
This means that when it is all converted to ‘carbon” (CO2equivalents ) 10.6 tonnes is removed from the atmosphere and 15.6 tonnes CO2e are returned.
All the CO2 that is removed is returned but 2.3% of it is converted to methane and returned that way. This of course then oxidises to CO2 so over time all the CO2 that is removed is returned, no more CO2 molecules or carbon atoms can be created by an animal. Whether any more CH4 molecules are created depend son whether the production is steady state or not, if it is then no new CH4 molecules either.
robin@farmcarbon.co.nz if you want mne to send teh Agresearch info to you
Craig Colton says
Robin and Neil, I would like to thank you both for the great work you are doing in exposing the rort behind the taxing of pasture fed livestock via the fraudulent ETS. Through your efforts you are awakening a seemingly lethagic farming industry into asking the critical question of why their pastures are to be excluded from NZs proposed fraudulent ETS calculations. Keep up the good work, the unjustifiable cannot be justified while people like yourselves refuse to let it be. Your campaign appears to be gaining great momentum, all the best.
Colin McIntyre says
Well said Craig Colton ( 7th December 2011 @ 8.54 am)