Climate Change Opinions
I have written many articles about Climate Change and the more I research the effects of climate change the more I am convinced that a majority of the opinions written about climate change should be headed up as “Climate Craziness” not climate changes.
The first thing that I see in almost every debate around climate change is the effects of our carbon emissions into the atmosphere and how we need to go back to carbon zero or the planet will burn up.
This in my opinion is where the “crazy” starts.
We have been indoctrinated with the lie that CO2 is bad for the environment and that we need to reduce our emissions down to zero if we want to save the planet from burning up.
Well I have to tell you that this is the biggest lie of all and if by some chance we were ever able to get the emissions down to zero that would be the day that life on earth would stop.
"Carbon dioxide is the currency of life, and the most important building block for all life on earth... The optimum level of CO2 for plant growth is about five times higher [than the concentration of CO2 present in the atmosphere today], yet the alarmists warn it is already too high. They must be challenged every day by every person who knows the truth in this matter.
CO2 is the gas of life, and we should celebrate CO2 rather than denigrate it, as is the fashion today."
Let’s look at the facts around CO2:
What percentage is CO₂ in the atmosphere?
Approximately 0.04 percent
It is a naturally occurring chemical compound that is present in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide exists in the Earth's atmosphere at a concentration of approximately 0.04 percent (400 parts per million) by volume.
Water vapour can vary from 0 to 4% and is the dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.
Of all of the CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere, what percentage is produced by humans?
Depending on the estimates anywhere from 3.6% to 5% is produced by humans.
That is actually 3.6% to 5% of that 0.04 per cent in the atmosphere.
If we take the top estimate of 5% that means that human emissions add up to 0.002% of the atmosphere.
What produces the most CO₂?
Main sources of carbon dioxide emissions
- The largest human source of carbon dioxide emissions is from the combustion of fossil fuels.
- 87 percent of all human-produced carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels like coal, natural gas and oil. ...
What are the biggest contributors to global warming?
Fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions.
Whilst climate change is with us and we need to take appropriate steps to reduce global warming, the science does not support the current government position in relation to the introduction of an emissions pricing scheme for biogenic methane emissions from livestock in NZ.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) announced in October 2022 that it accepts research shows climate change is expected to reach just 2.5°C – only half as much as the mainstream media has long assumed.
In a formal statement, the UNFCCC said the world is “on track for around 2.5 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century”.
This new paradigm replaces the long-standing and much-feared presumption of 4 – 5°C by 2021 – which has led to worldwide declarations of a “Climate Emergency” in recent years.
We’ve been told for many years now that New Zealand produces excessive emissions of greenhouse gases, with our world-beating farmers accused of being largely to blame.
Agriculture/food production produces carbon dioxide through what is known as a biogenic carbon cycle.
What is a biogenic carbon cycle?
The biogenic carbon cycle centers on the ability of plants to absorb and sequester carbon. Plants have the unique ability to remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and deposit that carbon into plant leaves, roots, and stems while oxygen is released back into the atmosphere.
CO₂ is the “Gas of Life” the most important building block for all life on Earth. All life is carbon-based, including our own.
It is a fact that there is a distinct possibility that life could come close to extinguishing itself, due to a shortage of CO₂, which is essential for life on Earth.
We know for a fact that CO₂ is essential for life and that it must be at a certain level in the atmosphere for the survival of plants, which are the primary food for all the other species alive today.
It is a proven fact that plants, including trees and all our food crops, are capable of growing much faster at higher levels of CO₂ than present in the atmosphere today. Even at the today’s concentration of 400 ppm plants are relatively starved for nutrition.
The optimum level of CO₂ for plant growth is about 5 times higher, 2000 ppm, yet the alarmists warn it is already too high. They must be challenged every day by every person who knows the truth in this matter. CO₂ is the giver of life and we should celebrate CO₂ rather than denigrate it as is the fashion today.
The argument from the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) has always been that the methane produced by livestock digestion is more ‘dangerous’ than carbon dioxide by a factor of twenty-eight - even though methane is part of a natural biogenic cycle that can be traced back to the dinosaurs.
However, it now turns out those climate change ‘experts’ were wrong, and that the actual figure is only seven, not twenty-eight.
The IPCC admitted the mistake in their Sixth Assessment Report, explaining at page 1016 of Chapter 7, “…expressing methane emissions as CO2 equivalent of 28, overstatesthe effect on global surface temperature by a factor of 3-4”.
Thus, it is highly likely that the total emissions calculated for New Zealand globally are overstated on a global warming basis. The oft quoted figure of 50% of emissions coming from agriculture is only correct if the wrong figures are used (methane emissions calculated as CO2 equivalent of 28).
Policy such as the emissions pricing scheme for methane emissions from livestock in NZ should be based on science and when the science changes good policy should be changed accordingly.
This mistake by the IPCC has never been acknowledged or corrected by New Zealand officials and in fact those false assumptions from the IPCC have continued to underpin the Net Zero policy agenda, and consequently the emissions pricing scheme for methane emissions from livestock in NZ.
Global Warming Potential (GWP) requires a baseline period to estimate emissions over. The short lived nature of methane means that if livestock numbers are constant (or in the case of New Zealand sheep and beef falling) then the biogenic methane contribution to global warming is zero or close to it. This has recently been calculated for the sheep and beef industry and presented in peer review papers. See Mazetto et al. 2023:
Mazzetto AM, Falconer S, Ledgard S (2023) Carbon footprint of New Zealand beef and sheep meat exported to different markets. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98, 106946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106946.
These authors clearly show that the GWP for New Zealand sheep production is at or near zero over a 20 year period In fact the calculated reduction in methane emissions from this sector has been 30% in total since 1990 and 30% per unit of product since 1990. Thus, the sector most disadvantaged by the emissions pricing scheme as proposed, is the only sector in New Zealand that has met or exceeded reductions in global warming potential since 1990. Similar representation was shown by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in 2021 who indicated the sheep GWP has decreased since about 2000.
The Paris Accord aimed to keep global warming below 1.5 °C. Thus, it is the global warming potential that needs to be considered in any assessment of greenhouse gas contributions to global warming. Given livestock numbers in New Zealand are stable then based on GWP their contribution to warming is zero.
Indeed the published science suggests biogenic methane particularly that from sheep and beef farming in New Zealand, is not contributing to global warming.
That in itself should be a reason to proceed with caution given the evidence showed that pushing ahead with the emissions pricing scheme had the real possibility of penalising our economy and rural livelihoods without reducing global warming.
Recent publications (Mazetto et al. 2022) of the GWP for dairy also state that NZ has smallest GWP of the countries able to be assessed. These countries represent the major global producers of dairy – and so any reduction in NZ dairy can be expected to be replaced by a less efficient system.
Thus, in the case of dairy there is a strong possibility that a reduction in production will be substituted by a less efficient production system offshore, which will lead to greater global warming?
Globally there was genuine concern at the approach being taken by the NZ Labour Govt. to price biogenic methane emissions and while the pricing scheme would have been a world first, there was no indication that any other country was looking to follow suit.
In fact there were many indications that most countries were seeking to subsidize their farmers to do the things New Zealand farmers are already doing without payment – maintaining high levels of soil carbon under pasture, planting less productive areas to trees, and increasing productivity to reduce emissions intensity.
There has been much scientific debate about how other countries can move their farming systems towards the mixed pasture, legume based systems that dominate in New Zealand.
Many countries are seeking guidance on how to do what we do while this policy seeks to stop our farmers doing it.
Primary production will always be the major export from New Zealand.
There have been moves to transition agriculture away from commodities to higher value crops over many years however; this is not an option for hill and high country regions where soil types and topography factors mean the land is only suitable for sheep and beef farming or forestry.
The current policies being adopted will drive the market towards more forestry. This has generational consequences.
Agriculture in New Zealand will continue to be innovative and adapt to climate change. In doing so it is likely to reduce GWP and contribute to global reductions.
Professor Dave Frame who advises the government and farming industries, and has been an IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) participant, admits that New Zealand’s total emissions from all sheep, beef, dairy and deer ruminant methane over the last 100 years have caused some nonsensical fraction like one, one-thousandth of a degree centigrade change; In other words, an immeasurable, utterly insignificant amount per year.
In December 2020 NZ’s then Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, called climate change ‘one of the greatest challenges of our time’ and pledged a carbon-neutral government by 2025
Her government passed the Zero Carbon Act 2019 which commits New Zealand to reducing emissions, and set up a Climate Change Commission tasked with putting the country on a path to net zero emissions by 2050 – made New Zealand one of few countries to have a zero-emissions goal enshrined in law.
Compared to the use of fossil fuels, farms have a ‘negative' position in relation to CO2 emissions. Below is an example of some research into the levels of farm emissions.
According to a paper published called Phase 3 Multivariate analysis of Greenhouse Gas emissions from sheep and beef farms – April 2020 it takes up to 7 tonnes of CO2 to grow a hectare of grass on the farm, through the process called photosynthesis where plants use CO2, sunlight, water and mineral salts to develop.
The farm turns those 7 tonnes of CO2 per hectare into enough feed (pasture) for 10 ewes. Those 10 ewes each emit about 20 – 22 grams of methane a day which means they produce in total 80 kgs of methane per year. It is accepted that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 – generally regarded as 7 times stronger. If we multiply our ewe’s 80 kgs of methane by 7 we get 560 kgs of CO2 equivalent.
The farm is therefore, using approximately 12 times more CO2 than it emits. A car owner cannot say that, or a coal fired boiler, or a private jet going to a climate conference. Farmers are not quite the villains they are made out to be.
New Zealand contributes just 0.017% of global emissions with the biggest source of CO2 emissions being road transport but even so, the Labour government set a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture as part of its overall effort to reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 50 percent by 2030.
New Zealand has the lowest carbon footprint of any food producer in the world. Our agricultural industries produce and export enough food to feed 40 million people around the world.
Our farming methods are unique in that we use more greenhouse gas than we emit and we urgently need a government to go into to bat for our food producers, in international forums.
Particularly in light of the fact that Article 2 (b) of the Paris Agreement that NZ signed said clearly; no government should take steps that “threaten food production”.
NZ’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture as part of its overall effort to reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 50 percent by 2030, threatens our ability to continue producing the current levels of food production.
NZ’s overall goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030 is based on a reliance on moving away from fossil fuels generating energy and into sustainable generation mainly from wind and solar.
Energy is complicated, and electricity is essential to modern society and our quality of life, but our reliance on sustainable generation of energy allowing for us to reach a net zero emissions target is built on a pyramid of deceit.
A classic example of this is seen below in the extracts from a report on Britain’s net zero experiment.
Net zero was sold to Parliament and the British people on claims that wind-power costs were low and falling. This was untrue: wind-power costs are high and have been rising. In the official analyses produced by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility net zero relied on the falsehood that wind power is cheap, that net zero would have minimal costs, and that it could boost productivity and economic growth. None of these had any basis in reality.
Someone who claims that he’s a leader but who has no followers is typically regarded as a fool. It’s different with climate. Politicians parade their green virtue while voters get mugged with higher energy bills.
Government data disproved the Treasury’s contention and demonstrated that increasing deployment of renewable capacity reduced the productivity of Britain’s grid.
The numbers were damning for renewables and demonstrated that they make electricity more expensive and people poorer.
Britain’s energy-policy disaster has lessons for the world. The physics and economics of wind power are not magically transformed when they cross Britain’s borders. Whenever a politician or wind lobbyist touts wind as low-cost or says net zero will boost growth, they become accessories to the wind power scam.
The British data lead ineluctably to a decisive conclusion: net zero is anti-growth. It is a formula for prolonged economic stagnation. Anyone who wants the truth about renewables should look at Britain and the sorry state of its economy. For the last decade and a half, it has been going through its worst period of growth since 1780.
Unlike in business and finance, there are no criminal or civil penalties for those who promote policies based on fraud and misrepresentation. Rather, net zero is similar to communism. Like net zero, communism was based on a lie: that it would out produce capitalism. But it failed to produce, and belief in communism evaporated. When the collapse came, it was sudden and rapid. The truth could not be hidden. A similar fate awaits net zero.
The reality for New Zealand is that farming along with the New Zealand public, is being dealt a rotten hand by the people who are supposed to represent it and the previous Labour Government did nothing to help the industry given their continued use of incorrect facts as a basis for making emissions policies, including their declaration of a climate emergency.
We had a change in government last year and yet we still see both central and local government departments relying on false assumptions from the IPCC which have continued to underpin the Net Zero policy agenda This mistake by the IPCC which was admitted in October 2022, has never been acknowledged or corrected by New Zealand officials and in fact those incorrect figures are still being used to underpin the predictions for climate changes effects in New Zealand going forward.
Professor Dave Frame who advises the government and farming industries, and has been an IPCC participant, admits that New Zealand’s total emissions from all sheep, beef, dairy and deer ruminant methane over the last 100 years have caused some nonsensical fraction like one, one-thousandth of a degree centigrade change; In other words, an immeasurable, utterly insignificant amount per year.
It seems to tally with what a Dr William van Wijngaarden told Irish farmers recently stating that all the world’s ruminant methane over the next century would only cause 0.17 of a thousandth of a degree C change. Remember New Zealand only has 1% of the world’s ruminants. For this we are proposing slashing our sheep and beef industry by 20%.