Dr Smith and National are doing the hard sell on the ETS. He uses all the logic he can to justify National’s position on the science of using an ETS.
From his promo;
First, can I give you the Government’s view on the science. We don’t claim a consensus or a perfect scientific understanding of the earth’s climate system. But we are satisfied that enough is known to be of concern and that action is justified to curb our growth in emissions. This is about sound risk management. New Zealanders expect governments to prudently manage risk of phenomena like earthquakes. We all pay EQC levies even though we may not need the billions that have been collected. We see managing the risk of climate change in a similar context.
Risk management is what they are calling it now, and the Government is satisfied that ‘action is justified to curb our growth in emissions’ in case they are causing global warming. A subtle change from ‘the science is settled’.
Earthquakes are real, they happen. Global warming is not in the same category.
The global problem is that mankind is burning fossil fuels and clearing forests at increasing rates, and this is changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. CO2 levels are up 35% on pre-industrial levels already. As developing countries industrialise, these levels are set to be double by 2050 and double again by 2100.
To put our fossil fuel emissions in perspective, every New Zealander emits an average nine tonnes per person per year. Nine tonnes of CO2 is three times the volume of this auditorium. That’s each year, and is for every one of us. And the science tells us that the CO2 will be around in the atmosphere for thousands of years. It would be a brave person who would say we can carry on indefinitely doing this and expect it to have no effect on the atmosphere or climate. The considered science tells us it’s a problem.
Not a word about livestock methane. He only has an argument for fossil fuels. Yes they are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. (and this may or may not cause warming) But he doesn’t mention enteric methane because he knows it does not change the composition of the atmosphere. Therefore there can be no RISK of global warming from them so no need for any Government action to mange that risk.
That removes any need to include enteric methane in an ETS on the basis of the science, so it only leaves our Kyoto commitments as an argument to keep enteric methane in the ETS.
Kyoto was signed by Simon Upton of the National Government of the day and he made a monumental cock up when he included enteric methane, and he knows that. He still has a Government paid job believe it not. A third of the emissions NZ agreed to account for do not change the chemical composition of the atmosphere. They should not be in there, Kyoto in this form was a mistake and NZ should not honour a mistake. If Nick Smith wants prudent, I say it would be prudent to do the research to determine if enteric methane changes the chemical composition of the atmosphere, before spending tens of millions of dollars trying to figure out how to mitigate it.
It is not prudent for a government to fix one mistake (Kyoto) with another (including enteric methane in an ETS). We are not stuck with Kyoto, we are a sovereign nation, and we should tell the world Simon Upton cocked up, we’re sorry but enteric methane should not have been put in it and so we are out!
And any arguments that this will hurt our trade are not based on anything other than imagination and fantasy.
Nick smith has a few meetings to go, dates are
Thursday 8 July at 7.30pm
Darfield Recreation Centre, North Terrace, Darfield
Thursday 15 July at 5.30pm
Heartland Hotel, Waimea Street, Gore
Monday 19 July at 7.00pm
Call 07 5799016 for venue information
Tuesday 20 July at 7:30pm
Call 03 6831386 for venue information
Thursday 22 July at 7.30pm
Call 09 5759842 for venue information
Monday 26 July at 7.30pm
Coronation Hall, Gordon Road, Mosgiel
The one they held in Blenheim sounds as if it was quite lively, apparently they wanted to take a vote and the National MP Colin King who was chairing the meeting wouldn’t let them. Nick Smith told the media that those opposed were in the minority, and the media believed him! If anyone went along, tell us how it went.
For the meetings still happening go along if you live handy, ask the hard questions. Don’t ask about global warming because he has the answer, they are managing risk.
Ask about enteric methane, how does it change the chemical composition of the atmosphere? He should be able to demonstrate how livestock emissions from a steady source (not increased production) increases the concentration of methane.
He won’t be able to do this, to try and fudge things he might explain that yes the methane oxidises to CO2 and so there is no net increase in the methane levels but methane has a greater global warming capacity than CO2 so while the Carbon is in the form of methane you get warming. This is rubbish because you can only get warming if you increase the concentration of something. He has to show how methane in the atmosphere is increasing due to steady state livestock production. If he can’t explain it keep the pressure on him until he cracks. He is not silly he knows enteric methane is harmless, this is his achillis heel! It is also the achillis heel of the whole ETS.
If you want to embarrass the Govt and get the ETS discredited, debate with them about enteric methane, debating about global warming itself will not achieve the same result.
Keep those emails going to John Key so that he is not under the wrong impression that there is not strong opposition from farmers to his ETS.
John.firstname.lastname@example.org is the email I used. Apparently all MP’s have their email as first name. last email@example.com z
Ann used this one and got an automated reply. I think they are both right but she did get a response so might as well use it. This could be his primeministerial email and the other his MP one
Tell him you hate the ETS and enteric methane should not be in it.
Let us know how you get on at the meetings.