This is another attempt at international agreement on global warming. There is no chance of any agreement and it is an indication of how things have changed that there is almost no media coverage of this. Compared to the sickening display we had at Copenhagen last year the media silence is a welcome change.
It is fair to say that there is no chance of any binding agreement ever being agreed to internationally. Any global initiative on global warming is a dead duck. But we still have our ETS and agricultural emissions are in it. There is growing optimism that Nick Smith is finally getting the message that livestock emissions are harmless. He is not admitting this but is giving himself an out by saying NZ may delay agriculture’s entry into the ETS until other country’s include agriculture and science gives agriculture the means to mitigate its emissions.
These excuses are a crock because he has repeatedly said in the past that we will include agriculture regardless of what other country’s do because we have such a unique profile with half our emissions coming from agriculture. This has not changed so why has he changed his tune?
He has also said that NZ has to be seen to do its bit and so does agriculture so that other country’s will buy our products and that is why agriculture must be in the ETS despite not being able to mitigate them. Again this has not changed so why has he changed his tune?
I would like to think we have made a difference and all the letters written by all the farmers disputing the science of livestock’s contribution to global warming have got through to him. The science we have put up is indisputable and I suggest his advisors have had to admit to him that we are right. Of course they will not want to admit that they were wrong so an excuse is needed. Hence the excuses he is coming up with.
But agriculture will not be removed from the ETS, its entry may be delayed only. An election in 2014 could give us a Labour Green Govt, and so it is vital we get agricultural emissions removed, not delayed.
One way to do this is to get them removed from any post Kyoto agreements or accords. These will be non binding (as is Kyoto) but Nick Smith has repeatedly and doggedly stuck to Kyoto commitments even though the science we have put up undisputedly demonstrates that including livestock emissions in Kyoto was a mistake.
Tim Groser is the Minister for International Climate Change Negotiations. He is in charge at Cancun. I have written him this letter. If you would like to do something to help the cause and get enteric methane at the least kicked out of any post Kyoto agreements or accords you can email him. Tell him about the science of methane and the folly of including it. It can’t hurt, he is no fool and he may be more open to reason than Nick Smith or John Key appear to be.
You might find some of the information in the following letter useful.
Every little thing makes a difference, send an email and make a difference.
Dear Mr Groser
I would like to know what position NZ is adopting at the international negotiations to take place in Cancun in regard to enteric methane.
As you are aware enteric methane was included in the Kyoto agreement. However it is unanimously agreed that enteric methane from steady state source is neutral to the atmosphere in terms of global warming.
This is because steady state emissions simply maintain atmospheric levels of methane, they do not increase it. Methane breaks down to CO2 over eight to ten years and so when livestock belch methane they are simply replacing methane that was belched some years before. This has been confirmed by Keith Lassey, Principal Scientist Atmospheric Services, NIWA. It has also been confirmed by Dr Clyton Moyo, Climate Change Analyst for Dairy NZ and David Whitehead, Science Team Leader Global Change Processes for Landcare Research. Many more have confirmed this but more importantly not one scientist in NZ or internationally has disputed this. Not one scientist or research study done anywhere in the world states enteric methane from a steady state source causes an increase in the atmospheric concentration of methane.
The UNFCC and the IPCC definition of climate change require an anthropogenic activity to alter the composition of the atmosphere. Virtually all enteric methane produced in NZ is from a steady state and therefore does not alter the composition of the atmosphere. This information is available from the Ministry for the Environment’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2008 and shows enteric methane production has increased by 3.8% since 1990. Figures I have taken from The Ministry for the Environment website also show that annual enteric methane production is 468.5 Gg lower than it was in 2001. This indicates that less enteric methane is being produced by the 2008 population of livestock than was produced by their forebears in 2001. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere would be reducing as a result of this because 468.5 Gg CO2e ( 22,285.7 tonnes CH4 ) of the enteric methane produced in 2001 is not being replaced by current livestock when it oxidises to CO2. It is then of course removed from the atmosphere to grow the grass the cows eat.
Obviously things change from year to year but the overall view is that most, if not all, enteric methane produced in NZ is from steady state and therefore has no impact on the atmospheric concentration of methane and can not be contributing to global warming.
The methodology adopted at Kyoto states that because CO2 is converted to methane and methane has a higher Global Warming Potential than CO2, then in this process more CO2equivalents are returned to the atmosphere than are removed. The extra CO2 equivalents are blamed for global warming and are quantified by this Kyoto methodology as being 32 % of NZ’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Unfortunately for NZ the people at Kyoto did not think to reconcile their theoretical units of these CO2equivalents, and the reality that there is no more real carbon, no more real CO2 and no more real methane in the atmosphere. They therefore can not contribute to any global warming that may be happening.
The different Global Warming Potential of methane and CO2 are quite irrelevant because the argument that this causes global warming just because methane replaces CO2, fails to take into account the reality of a real atmosphere. A real increase in the atmospheric concentration of methane has to occur before the atmosphere is altered and global warming is possible. Despite huge amounts of these theoretical CO2equivalents being theoretically produced, there is no corresponding increase in any real greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. In short the theory, as adopted at Kyoto, does not reflect reality.
My question is are the current negotiators aware that most if not all of NZ’s enteric methane is produced from a steady state source and can not be responsible for any global warming that may be happening?
Including enteric methane in Kyoto was a mistake and maybe one mistake is forgivable. Although I suggest that this mistake has cost NZ dearly and I can only hope the people involved are no longer involved.
My concern is that this mistake is perpetuated in future agreements and this I suggest would be unforgivable. The methane cycle and the theory of global warming are not difficult concepts. For the sake of NZ and its future generations I request confirmation of the position NZ’s negotiators will take on enteric methane at the next International negotiations in Cancun and subsequent attempts to forge agreement.
I would also like to know what NZ’s position in terms of enteric methane is in regard to any extension of Kyoto.
To save some correspondence I can tell you that no Government Department has been able to explain away the inconsistency between what is happening in the real atmosphere with real methane, and this theoretical model which attributes large amounts of theoretical CO2equivalents being added to a theoretical atmosphere when in fact the real atmosphere experiences no real change. They have tried to explain their confusing positions by claiming that agricultural production has increased, and so too has the atmospheric concentration of methane. This explains nothing because my questions relate to steady state agricultural emissions. Increases or decreases in production are another matter and quite irrelevant because it is these Government Departments that are claiming that enteric methane from a steady state of production produce emissions that are responsible for global warming. They also state that enteric methane from steady state production does not increase (alter) the composition of the atmosphere by increasing methane levels. These two positions are in contradiction with each other, and by definition one of the Government’s positions on this is indisputably wrong.
The Government attributes 32 % of NZ’s emissions to enteric methane of which most if not all has no effect on the atmosphere at all, other than to maintain current levels. In fact the most recent figures show that they are not even doing that.
And may I remind you that maintaining current levels of the concentration of a greenhouse gas does not fit within the definition of an anthropogenic activity as defined by the UNFCC and the IPCC, and should not be included in any international agreements.
Summary of my request;
I would like to know what the NZ negotiators at Cancun understand about enteric methane and what changes NZ is seeking to its treatment in any future international agreements, including any extension to Kyoto? .
I would like to say as an aside that while an international agreement on global warming is an admirable goal, if such an agreement includes mistakes such as they made in regard to enteric methane at Kyoto, it would be preferable that no agreement is reached.
Yours sincerely
Robin Grieve.