Comments on: As you sow… (aka the “bugger” moment)

By: Le Chat Noir

Le Chat Noir — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:36:07 +0000

“Forget about the rest, the issue revolves around fossil fuels and not much else.”

So you’re saying that NZ agriculture doesn’t use fossil fuels then?

By: Bandersdad

Bandersdad — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:07:14 +0000

Which gets us back to the point about sheep and trees etc.
The real problems only occur when we start putting back into the atmosphere the accumulated effect of sunlight over a very long timeframe. Forget about the rest, the issue revolves around fossil fuels and not much else. If we got rid of the distractions around the edges and looked soley at how we’re going to replace our fossil fuel dependance we would be moving forward a great deal faster. Which, given many of the answers are already round, is pretty ironic. And what are we spending our time, energy and money on as a country? You got it, sheep and trees. See how far you get trying to put in solar in NZ; no, sheep and trees again. I could go on, but the answer will still be sheep and trees, pathetic.

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:55:03 +0000

Just further to why you have to tackle transport – 20% of current fossil electricity generation converted to renewable or nuclear (which is tougher than just 20% of total) by 2020 for US, would only result in an 8% drop in CO2 emissions. Thats only a meaningful reduction if india and china (and other developing nations) dont increase. Why would they buy into such a pathetic reduction?

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:53:53 +0000

“Where do you get your facts from”.

Mea culpa. I didnt look it up, sorry and I agree you are right. More like remembering a tearoom conversation of dairy “more than lamb”, “more than beef”, which is no substitute for actually checking the facts before posting. My apologies. I like to think I am usually more careful.

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:19:53 +0000

A lot of merit in that. I’ll vote for anything that is actually effective and I doubt that any proposals so far are likely to be that effective. You need something though to get transport emissions down (and push electrification).

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:47:17 +0000

“I frankly dont know the details of how ETS or other schemes work”

A: They don’t really work. A NZ ETS can place a ‘cap’ on emissions from NZ. But emissions from NZ don’t really matter. A NZ ETS can never cap global emissions. An EU ETS can never cap global emissions. A US ETS can never cap global emissions.

No other nation has included agricultural emissions in an ETS.

It is true that agricultural gases are included in Kyoto. But Kyoto runs from 2008-2012. Will agricultural emissions be in a post Kyoto deal? The Aussies today agreed to write agricultral emissions out of there ETS. The US will also do this. The EU ETS only includes CO2 from certain sources (40% of total EU emissions, 90% free allocation during phase 2 (2008-2012), over 100% free allocation during phase 1 (2005-2007) and does not include agricultural emissions.

A Kyoto 2 can not include any nation in the America’s and likely will only include Japan from Asia.

It makes sense to throw away Kyoto and emissions trading and start with a clean slate (LCA). Agreements should focus on tangible action, ie US commits to ensure 20% of electricity generation is renewable in 2020, NZ commits to invest 20 million in agricultural greenhouse gas research, etc etc. Note NZ is already at 65% renewable generation.

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:38:30 +0000

scaddenp: “Well beef/lamb is small part of the equation for NZ compared to dairy”

Where do you get your facts from? Quick run through New Zealand’s latest submission to the UNFCCC shows dairy emissions are 38% of Ag (18% total) while sheep and beef are around 58% of Ag.

http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/items/4771.php

I know Greenpeace like to think that emissions in NZ end with Fonterra but you should learn that Greenpeace don’t value truth over a good slogan.

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:40:59 +0000

Well beef/lamb is small part of the equation for NZ compared to dairy so I dont think the Indian suggestion has a lot of relevance to reducing our emissions cf transport.

Regarding capture – farmers can only really manage capture of methane from manure which can also be managed for minimal methane anyway (but without a return to the farmer). As I understand it, the bulk of the methane production is burps which would defy capture.

By: Billy T.

Billy T. — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:08:05 +0000

Those numbers may not be inconsistent with the CO2 emissions – the energy used in production (presumably this is not the solar energy converted by plants, but the motive/heating energy that the energy infrastructure has to deliver – since that was the point of McKay’s book) is only part of the story, especially if the meat/dairy production implies large emissions of methane.

Now if dairy farmers could capture some of that methane and burn it they’d reduce their energy consumption AND reduce their CO2e output…

By: scaddenp

scaddenp — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:06:32 +0000

Hmm. MacKay’s book estimates energy for food requirements at 15kWh/p/d for meat eater and 8kWh/p/d for vege. (Energy required for production). If the average NZer spends 50kWh/p/d on transport, I would think that has a higher priority than meat consumption. Dairy is the worst too rather than meat, but here it would appear that meeting Asian demand for milk products rather than ours that is the cause.