Opinion: John Pagani asks why is National looking at returning to the days of subsidising our farmers?

Opinion: John Pagani asks why is National looking at returning to the days of subsidising our farmers?

By John Pagani*

It looks like the government is looking at once again backing away from its commitment to bring agriculture into the emissions trading system.

The core issue here is taxpayer subsidies. If agriculture is not in the emissions trading system, that is another way of saying taxpayers should write out cheques and hand them over to farmers.

Every dollar that goes into subsidising agricultural emissions is a dollar someone else has to pay.

There is no easy option here. You can't say 'leave agriculture out and no one will pay.' Someone has to pay for emissions.

At the moment, the government takes all our international credits and all our liabilities, and then allocates them through the ETS. If it allocates free credits to meet agricultural liabilities then someone else misses out on those credits and someone has to pay the liability. (If you say 'no ETS', then you have to explain how you are going to meet your Kyoto obligations.)

Reporters have to stop pussyfooting around the main issue here: Subsidies.

Emissions are a 'who pays' issue.

All of the meaningful argument is around who should foot the bill, and why some people should avoid it.

Framed that way, the farmers' argument seems to be: taxpayers should subsidise agriculture because it's so important to our economy. That is the exact same argument farming used to cling to subsidies in the 80s. 

The most efficient way to resolve 'who pays' issues is to create a market, which is what the ETS does. The least efficient is to put cows on Working for Famiies, which is what 'leaving agriculture out of the ets' amounts to.

Here's why:

Let's say we had a 'petrol trading system' similar to the ETS. 

The government would buy all the petrol coming into New Zealand, and then distribute it. Most people would buy petrol from the government, and the government would then use that cash to pay for the imported fuel. Now say the government decided that farmers are so important to our economy they should have some cheap petrol (or free petrol). What would happen?

The government would still have to pay for all the petrol coming into the country, so everyone else would have to pay more to make up for the lost revenue from farmers getting free gas. Or else taxes would have to be higher. Somehow the government would have to make up the shortfall.

And farmers would use more petrol because it would be so damn cheap. 

They would use petrol generators instead of electricity to milk the dairy herd because the petrol would be free to them - even though it would be more expensive and inefficient for the New Zealand economy as a whole.

We would not contemplate a scenario like this for petrol. Why do we contemplate it for emissions? 

Subsidies need special economic justification.

It is a road to bankruptcy to subsidise your main industry.

====================

*John Pagani is an independent political consultant and writer who has worked as an adviser to Labour Leader Phil Goff. He writes his own blog at Posterous.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

75 Comments

PDK , Steven -  hes just  used the 'p'   word (petrol)  .  Time to blog your  Peak Oil , doublings and overpopulation babble again

Agriculture is the heart of the nz economy we dont want any greeny tree hugger adding extra cost to our production. therefore we can lead nz economy forward

 

Martin Burgess - good on you for using your name.

There the compliments end.

Lead economy forward?  Who fed that rant into your ear? Do you have a brain of your own?

For the squillionth time round here - growth is exponential (and calling it 'forward' doesn't disguise it, any more than does 'vibrant') and cannot be continued on a finite planet.

The last three doublings go from 1/8th to finished, for any finite resource. In flow-rate terms, 50% is the peak, at which point flow will decrease, accompanied by depleting quality, reduction of scale, and increasing dispute over ownership (either fiscal or physical).

Forward. What a load of Goebbels-type tripe.

Able to be maintained at present rates......now there's a goal.If you think about it, it's the only valid one.

Isnt  NZ one of the few thats including agriculture, ie  cow farts?  So as long as NZ is grass fed we pprobably produce at the least CO2 cost....seems silly in a way.

regards

" John Pagani is an independent political consultant and writer who has worked as an adviser to Labour Leader Phil Goff

Is this guy really an independent consultant???  Somehow, he's reminded me of my Bosch washing machine's manufacturing label "Designed in Germany - Made in PRC" i.e. made in China

No CM he is a mouth-peice for the Labour party and Bernard is quite happily giving him a platform to promote Labours policies.

We've had to endure a vast army of National Party mouthpieces, boosters, shills, astroturfers and apologists for years. It makes a pleasant change to hear from someone different for once.

Agreed

 

regards

Can John tell us if farmers are getting credits for the pasture uptake of all this dreadful  carbon? Two sides to all discussions we would hope/

If anyone is silly enough to be persuaded by Pagani on this issue he has trotted out to enable him to carry on trying to boost Labour....all you need do is consider what would happen if the entire ETS liability were to be born by the agricultural sector, which is possible if a govt were dumb enough to do it.!

So only farmers would pay....and nobody else would pay..right?...WRONG! The costs born by the farms would be loaded on the food prices which everyone would pay. Pagani skips over this because it damages his brainwave.

He also avoids pointing out the unintended consequences..ie farmers deciding to grow trees and not run stock..end result less output of food..higher food prices...or is Pagani thinking his Labour mates could eat pinus?

We are not subsidising farmers at all. The ETS is a stupid idelogically driven tax on a gas that has been around for 5Bn years. It is not needed in the NZ economy.

We should not be concentrating on dreaming up new taxes, but looking at ways of decreasing spending.

Pagani is a Labour lobbyist but he does have a point.

NZ signed up to Kyoto so we have to pay if we don't meet our emissions targets. This includes nitrous oxide, which is 310 x more potent as a greenhouse gas then carbon dioxide. 

If the emitter doesn't pay then the tax-payer will have to. If the emitter pays then they may be incentivised to change their behaviour or reduce their emissions. I admit that is quite difficult to do for a dairy farmer but there are possibilities. Brian Fallow had a few suggestions this morning in the Herald.

 

If NZ contributes 0.16% of global GG emissions and we reduce that amount by 40% (our target I recall) by how much will that impact world temperature dynamics? (Assuming said dynamics are actually influenced by manmade emissions.)

Let's make it easier, suppose we reduce our 0.16% of global GG emissions  to zero, then what?  

Oh, that's right, we've got to be seen to be doing our bit. If only we realised how bitty our little bit is - 0.16%

As for, "...returning to the days of subsidies." Huh, if you think nil effective property/capital+gains/land taxation isn't an effective subsidy for this large sector of the NZ economy, please tell me why not?

 

Les:  By your reasoning you can divide the world up into little chunks of about 4 million people, all of whom contribute only 0.16% of global emissions, & each of which will make no difference on their own.  So no one does anything.

Its called Tragedy of the Commons.

I agree about farmer subsidies with govt-sanctioned tax avoidance on an impressive scale

Cheers.

Philly - the tragedy is that no matter what we do those bigger chunks that really do the damage will take no notice of what we do or say. We are not even the tail trying to wag the dog, we are but a hair on that tail and need to get things in perspective in terms of leading/following. See comment to steven. 

Two issues, look at 1) Emissions per capita, we are high, 2) Leadership....

Beyond that AGW will make us extinct, now I guess if you have no kids/grandkids you wont care....many ppl Ive met who dont, dont....seems moral issues dont count as much as they should....

Beyond that we are past peak oil, making ourselves a) efficient and b) wholly on renewables are the single biggest things to ensure our economy can survive moving forward.  Consider the effcts on business of $3 or $5 a litre deisel. Now consider if we have bio off tallow etc and only pay $2.....it still hurts but it probably isnt an economy and business killer, $5 will be IMHO. Ditto electricity.....20cents foe a business is going to hurt, 40 or 80cents will hurt a damn sight more.....small pain now saves huge pain later.......

"nil effective property/capital+gains/land taxation" of course it is and there is no good reason ive seen yet for not bringing it in, it should go  I even think GST should be dropped to say 5% or maybe altogether and a land tax brought in to compensate....

regards

NZ should be measured on emissions per rectum, not per capita, while also noting that many of our rectums benefit more than the 4mio NZ capita.

We can barely lead ourselves, eg. the taxation issue. And, given the shape and dimensions of our economy we should not be trying to lead others who will simply ignore us anyway, all while we make ourselves poorer in the process so that we transition yet further away from being a first world society. That said, I'm not keen on abusing our environment either, but NZ not getting this in perspective is dumb. 

 

Les, perspective?  its very simple, in 150 years or so we risk and I mean seriously risk being extinct as a species let alone a society, think on that....

NZ has a clean and green image which is getting a bit tarnished, leading on this and leading into green tech restores the shine, that will help exporters, its good business.

regards

 

Steven can you explain how you are able to make such statements when it is well documented that many the research outputs are being selectively doctored & dished out because the the major players are controlling the agenda. In any subject the material we read is likely to be what is wanted to be seen, with large swathes set as classisfied because it does not suit the arguments which we plebs then get to fight over, and handover more tax dollars to the mega rich companies administering ETS. Likely to be followed by restricive child policies etc, all the while the documentation has been doctored to suit....

Yes we do need to lead on green tech, so can you say why this is not happening, and IMO will not happen.

 

Woop!  Woop!  Conspiracy theorist alert!

Oh Philly do grow up please.

If you enjoy handing over money to entities you know nothing about based on information which is at best debateable on both sides, then please feel free to do so, I will not stop you.

The planet is being killed in many ways, and this must stop I am 100% behind that notion. Where I have a problem is when the solutions are sold on spin & lies, because it is not possible for the people to know the truth, or be allowed to know it on almost any subject you can mention.

In any decision I make I like to have full disclsure of honest accurate information. What do you find so hard to understand about that.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/f1-track-owners-get-tax-break-for-wildlife-1613607.html?cxtype=rss_news

 

Have an example of how the elite get free passes to pollute at the taxpayers expense....

It is "well documented" by the foil tin hat brigade?, rational ppl on the other hand are more uh...rational.  To be honest there isnt much point in us attempting to discuss anything when you see a conspiracy under every mushroom.

Anyway,

ETS is a method to get a price on emissions of C02 and hence its cost is factored into design and production of goods.  Is it the best way? I dont know, will it work? probably not....

Restrictive child policies, yes in theory, 7 billion cant be fed, how would you suggest we drop 2 billion?  starvation? desease? war? or ?  So the former is fairly painless (but I think we are out of time), the last three not nice....we have (had) that choice, but of course we wont make it, so starvation, violent death (riots) and fighting (war) over diminishing resources and fuel seems on the cards and within this decade, actually Im thinking within 5 years.....boat ppl seem the new tourists.....

Green tech, often needs a complex society to support it and one of the pillars of a complex society is population (apparantly). Alos, energy return thats between 15 to 1 and probably not worse than 10 to 1, though some ppl say 8 to 1. Which for transport fuel doesnt look good....so the biggest savings are going to come from not using energy, which takes us back to over-population.

regards

...and so mighty Steven the great Peak Oil man  the man of Limited Peak Oil perspectives who will not be trading anything, since Steven hasn't explained away the coincedence of wants yet...

Dude you havnt even grasped gold in a energy perspective!

What makes you think your not regarded as another USELESS EATER?

Why dont you go google that USELESS EATER and debate it with yourself?

Where were ya 7-8 years ago didnt see you at the oil drum?

Up Kapiti way hanging out with Robert Attak 2005 eh? Didnt see you...

On a Fracken bandwagon set up by others...unwillinging to go deeper why?

Because it disprupts your comfortable feeling of superiorty that Im ok in a post peak world.

Yea your a big man with some smug facts big deal.

I remember  Steven when peak oil was also a TIN FOIL HAT subject... 

 

Where is the credit for CO2 absorbed in the grass by photosynthesis?

Where is the credit for the nitrogen fixed in the soil by the white clover?

Neville:

The CO2 absorbed thru photosynthesis is eaten by animals & belched out as methane, which is a much more potent gas than CO2.  So they have made the problem worse.  Obviously.

Why should there be a credit for nitrogen uptake?  Nitrogen is 80% of the atmosphere, which is no problem to anyone.  On the other hand, the N taken up can be released at nitrates into the water table, causing a pollution problem.  So why would you get a credit for that?

D'oohh!! 

Cheers to all

sort of right Philly...but the methane you refer to reverts back to co2 in less than 8 years so no net gain in co2 levels,

also..not all of grass produced is eaten some rots and returns to the soil as organic matter soil carbon is in effect stored.

it would also be safe to assume that there are less farm animals(stock unit equivelents) currently in NZ than in 1990(the benchmark year) so perhaps we are in credit?

Don:  So eight years of the CO2 being present as methane doesn't do any harm?  Especially considering it is being constantly renewed?  I can't see your logic. 

re grass returned to the soil as organic matter:  the only way that can be true is where the organic matter percentage of soil is increasing.  A rarity I would think on conventionally farmed land.

Third point: less animals now.  Less sheep maybe, but I would imagine a lot more cows.  Which are a lot bigger than sheep.  So another dubious argument.  Plus a strange argument anyway.  You are suggesting that if you had 1 billion cows in a country, & a decade later only 950 million, you are now somehow "green"'

Cheers.

Philly. you dont seem to grasp the concept of a cycle..methane levels  have remained relatively constant..as fast as it is created it is being broken down( agood thunderstorm destroys a fair bit of methane)

good farming practices generally do incease soil organic matter

1990 was  just post farm subsides etc where nz stock numbers reached their peak and have been dropping ever since( " cows are bigger than sheep" REALLY? thanks for that.. do you know by how much?)

Droughts /poor prices/reduced fert inputs have an effect..

the irony is that "urban sprawl" has reduced the avilable farmland(often the best land is located near towns/cities)  so in a way more houses/cars have reduced the number of animals and reduced our  ETS liabilities...

shows you how stupid the whole concept of the ets and taxing animals is really...

 

This is an intersting 'concept'

Grass grows, cows eat it, fart methane/COx , poluution right

But we also have, plants grow, plants die, rot produce methane/COx.

So the question now is should a farmer be charged per cow or per acea of grass rather than per cow?

The same principle goes for a wood fire...does it add to the COx ?

No.. It is a renewable resource and the same COx is returned to grow more wood....Dont confuse the smogg from wood fire as the same polution as the COx they are completly separate issues.

Grass is not a long term sink, barely annual, hence no net difference, hence ignored.

regards

What about Bamboo?

... and your point is??

Bamboo is grass..so growing a Bamboo forest would be a carbon sink...and it's a great multipurpose material...best of all you can sharpen it to a point!

Accepted.  Just wondering what relevance this has to the present discussion.  Are you suggesting that farmers grow bamboo plantations? 

Cheers.

Steven posted.. "Grass is not a long term sink, barely annual, hence no net difference"...

I suspect that you are saying:

1  Bamboo is an effective carbon sink, and is a member of the Poaceae plant family

2 Perennial ryegrass is a member of the Poaceae too

3 So therefore pasture grass must be an effective carbon sink.

Please confirm if I am reading this right.

Cheers

Steven,

The CO2 absorbed in the grass consumed - which means our net agricultural emissions are about half the stated figures - is exported when converted to  saleable products. Meat, milk wool dairy.

Any emissions takes place outside NZ so we are no more responsible than the Ausies are for the CO2 from their coal exports.

As Monkton sad this pm - with China planning to double US total installed generation capacity with new coal fired stations wiping Oz & NZ from the map would have no measurable outcome on future CO2 levels.

The ETS is morally bankrupt while people starve on Africa with no water, no food and no hope.

Taxing our exporters while we plan to borrow another $ 80 + Billion to 2015 then run deficits of 6.9 % on our current account is just plain insanity and will ensure we end up in a Greek meltdown situation.

 

 

Its not the grass that acts as a sink but the humus, ie biological stuff in the soil. The problem is coventional agriculture can kill this with Urea, but Organic ag with no urea promotes humus production

bring on Lord Moncton  -the  eminent Mathematician whom the scientists and Greens cant hack a debate with on AGW

LOL, simple who debates with kooks?....Troll time I guess...

Oh come on....he's a AGW denier, hardly an "eminent Mathematician"  his degree is classics....and has a diploma in jouranlism and is former newspaper editor....

Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician, public speaker. editor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton...

regards

 

 

Sounds like you think he'd be easy to make look foolish then.  Except everyone seems to be afraid of him.

Him, or his arguments?

Afraid? no....its like trying to debate darwin with a fundie christian, you get nowhere, he's arguing religious belief you are arguing science and math, its simply a different argument.

regards

I agree with the comments about this guy with the obvious Labour affiliation getting so much space on Interest.co.nz.

I have often been critical about Bernard giving the paid mouthpiece of the rich, Roger Kerr, space for his rabid right prescription. 

The same goes for this guy.

I prefer objective and unbiased commentary, not sectarian diatribes.

Cheers to all

Lets also add those promoting insurance sales to the list of those who should have to pay for their advertorial space.

Maybe they are already paying?

Of course. How much do you think Gareth Morgan paid for his promotional book launch.

I have no idea, but it was money wasted on me.

Simple we have Kerr who is right wing well actually far right... and this guy who is left, so balance.

regards

Rubbish Steven....this guy is deeply entrenched in the Labour party and its 3 months out from an election.

Balance would be BH bringing in someone very close to the Nats who used I.co.nz to promote Nat policy.

Or maybe he could ask someone like Slater to do a piece..that would likely spice things up around here.

and kerr isnt? no, of course he's an ACT mouth piece so even further right....so we have a bit more balance.

regards

Steven this election is Nats v Labour, not Act v Labour.

Throwing in the odd piece by Kerr or Cactus Kate doesnt balance regular (almost daily recently) postings by one of Goofs boys.

BTW I find it ironic that you are calling for more taxes on farmers, property owners...almost everybody yet you admit to buying offshore to avoid GST...and flying said products in leaving a trail of carbon in their wake

Bout time you did your bit for the tax base old chap.

 

Gee,

My perception with the Epsom deal was that it was NACT Vs everyone else

Emission tradings schemes etc,  another word for ponzi me thinks!

So which of our trust worthy banking or government outfits makes these pieces of paper up from nothing to sell into a imaginary market created from nowhere?'

Goldman Sacks? The UN? One o Mr Keys old banking buddies? Who ever gave Clark the job at the UN?

Food for thought? I think so...

 

Actually Rothschild Australia Investment Bank is the lead for what they are trying to set up there. ETS is nothing more than a global tax, it has nothing to do with saving the environment in any way shape or form. The same banks are beind the EU scheme also, & anyone who believes saving the planet is the priority needs to grow up.

... why am I not surprised! I didnt know that...

Same share holders in the Federal Reserve, The Crown etc etc...

The Brotherhood. Bloodlines. Rothschild. Greenspan. Benjamin Shalom Bernanke.  Goldmans, John Key, Nicholas Sarkozy, Geithner etc etc.

I think Moncton has been outed as a fraud, so whichever way you want to base your belief, you should leave him out of it.

The point about cows and methane is a bit more complex. Methane has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than CO2, despite its high warming potential while it is there. So there is a case to treat methane differently to CO2.

Leaving out the fertiliser and transport etc, the grass to CO2 is neutral, (well as neutral as growing and harvesting trees).

 

No Tim I think you will find that it is Al Gore the American vice president who was outed as a fraud with the findings that his documentry and book 'An inconvieniant Trueth'.

ref. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ&feature=related

But hey can 30,000 scientists be wrong.

I could go on all night with this but if you want to debate it, tell me how on earth CO2 - plant food, could possibly effect the earths tempurature as the higher the level of CO2 the harder plants work to turn it into Oxygen and the better the plants grow.

CO2 blocks infra red which is how the earth cools, you understand how a blanket works on the bed?  you understand what happens when you put on two?

Yes plants benefit from more CO2, to a limited degree, but thats overwelmed.  The problem is there is too much CO2 being released too quickly for that small counter-balance to work so we get climate change which with higher weather volitilty effects plants far more seriously.

regards

But Steven, we are heading into an ice age and we need all the co2 up there we can muster.

Science to fit blah blah...

You better go tax all the volcanoes erupting then eh?

Perhaps Gore can right a book about it?

Soros can sell tickets to you...

Weather and earth changes have been happening since the creation of the planet, get over it!

The deal is about enviroment condition - no dumbarse ETS scheme is going to change the weather or improve our enviroment if its business as usual, but its not to hard to see how a few will get even more wealth from this scam...

No doubt Goldman Sacks and JP Morgan with blessings from the House of Rothschild have already worked out how to package up ETS credits into CDO's and sell them to the Cullen fund....

Yep thats useful for the enviroment, fresh water, wildlife etc...

Tim,

Having heard the Lord speak I think that anyone who suggets the effect of doubling CO2 will result in about 1 deg of warming vs the 2 deg of the " consensus " does not deserve to be labelled a fraud.

It is a perfectly reasonable perspective - even though not all may agree.

He makes similar statements on sea level rise - not that it is zero just that it will be closer to 1' 5"  vs Al Gores 20'.

He also points out as does Lornmberg that using a normal   5 %  discount rates  ( vs Sterns .1 % ) means it is about 40 x more expensive to act now rather than wait and respond when and if  action is required.

The money we choose to spend now could be spent on real poverty issues in Africa that require soluions now.

Tim, I think you owe the Lord an apology.

He may be many things - but fraudster is not one of them.

No, fraudster he is.  He, like most of the deniers has "moved on" from outright denial to "its a minor problem". They recognise they have lost the "no it isnt happeneing argument"....the science for "yes it is" is overwelming....the arguable part has always been how bad.

1) 5% discount rate assumes those in the future will be better off by a considerable margin, to cope with the problem. This with Peak oil isnt the case.  Example if the Global economy shrinks by say 5% per year due to Peak oil, then we should be using a -5%,  and not even 0.1%.   Also the most agreesive rate is 3% and not 5% and thats (at 3%) a  x2 multiplier and not x 40 which you claim.

2) This is morally corrupt, we are making the mess, we should clean it up / stop it.  "Stern accepts the case for discounting, but argues that applying a PTP-rate of anything much more than zero to social policy choice is ethically inappropriate.[41] His view is supported by a number of economists, including Geoffrey Heal,[42] Thomas Sterner,[40]William Cline,[43] and Brad DeLong.[8]  Hal Varian stated that the choice of discount rate was an inherently ethical judgement for which there was no definitive answer.[44]

"He has made the claim that high rates of discounting as the ones proposed by Nordhaus are only consistent with the infinitely-lived-representative-agent approach to economic modeling. Intergenerational justice would require more realistic assumption: one particular view is what Roemer calls the "sustainabilitarian" approach, which seeks to maximize present consumption subject to the constraint that future generations enjoy a quality of life at least as good as that enjoyed by the current generation. He supports the discount factors used in the Stern analysis, particularly the view that discounting should reflect only the probability that the world will end at a given future date, and not the "impatience" of an infinitely lived representative consumer.)[49]

3) Gore didnst specify a time frame....seems at the rate we are going 20feet is possible, though we will be extinct by then  (200~300 odd years)

4) Lommberg, is singular and contrversial in his view and he's at odds witrh most ppl,  "Some economists (such as Brad DeLong[8] and John Quiggin)[9] have supported the Review." 

Its hard to give you any credit when it appears you have greatly exagerated most of the numbers, basically you are twisting much, cherry picking or at best mis-informed.

A good start fo those interested in a more balanced view is,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#Inherent_discounting

regards

Steven

Why do you climate change (I hear thats whats its called these days as the globe isnt actually warming) zealots resort to personal attacks on those who'se opinions differ to yours ?

Can you tell me how much money Gore and Soros have made out of "climate change "?

Can you tell me who provided a large chunk of funding for James Hansens research ?

Can you elaborate on the use of the hockey stick graph ?

Can you expand on the content of the "stolen emails" and whether any data was "fudged" ?

Can you tell me how many polar bears die each year as a result of global warming as opposed to how many are killed by hunters ?

No question we need to reduce pollution but the whole climate change issue appears to have an agenda for redistribution of wealth with the likes of Gore quietly clipping the ticket along the way.

JB you're such a joker - owe 'the lord' !!  an apology. LOL

Check out this disection of his fraudulent ways:

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

If I've got JB right (there aren't many who fit the profile) he's a nuclear nut, and a global-warming denier. In short, pretty narrow, pretty preconcieved. Pity. I suspect he's paid to lobby - as one other is here (at least).

 

 

Global warming right? from what date to when ?

Why did the ice melt 10,000 years ago to many emissions?

The crux of this debate was a court case in England sometime around early 1800's when a group of private land holders took a textile factory to the Crown court.

The Crown upheld that the textile factory can carry on polluting the private landowners down stream since it was deemed the textile factory provided employment..sound familiar?. The judge got a back hander...?

This set the precedant for today - trash the enviroment for profit and a somewhat shady idea that this is a good thing cause some people have a job (Just On Broke) slaves in other words!

How? why? when? Go check out the land reformation pre 1800 England more laws...

Approach from these Crown ruling changes...

Many waffle off with assumptions on this and that in todays dodgy data and assumptions of BS from both sides...based on ? Its all about Crown law and the psyhcology of the majority forgetting!

Its out there in law if you wanna go look for it! If you dont fine carry on with false assumptions...

Rothbard mentioned that case  in one of his lectures...

If the individual dosn't grasp the historical context you will never grasp the future context...

  

Statements by dissenting organizations

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

 

Of course the infamous "climate science coalition" will not agree but then theyre not of National or International significance.

one missing fact is that the main gas from livestock is methane. This dissolves after 7 years so infact as long as farmer maintain the same stocking rate they are in fact not increasing the global warning.

For the warmies - this looks particularly interesting to those with an open mind.

 

 

PROFESSOR MURRAY SALBY HAS THE CO2 "DEMON" ON THE ROPES- listen here

What Salby found though, was nothing like what was expected

The largest increases year-to-year occurred when the world warmed fastest due to El Nino conditions. The smallest increases correlated with volcanoes which pump dust up into the atmosphere and keep the world cooler for a while. In other words, temperature controls CO2 levels on a yearly time-scale, and according to Salby, man-made emissions have little effect.

The climate models assume that most of the rise in CO2 (from 280 ppmv in1780 to 392 ppmv today) was due to industrialization and fossil fuel use. But the globe has been warming during that period (in fact since the depths of the Little Ice Age around 1680), so warmer conditions could be the reason that CO2 has been rising.

Salby does not dispute that some of the rise in CO2 levels is due to man-made emissions, but found that temperature alone explains about 80% of the variation in CO2 levels.

The up and coming paper with all the graphs will be released in about six weeks. It has passed peer review, and sounds like it has been a long time coming. Salby says he sat on the results for six months wondering if there was any other interpretation he could arrive at, and then, when he invited scientists he trusted and admired to comment on the paper, they also sat on it for half a year. His speech created waves at the IUGG conference, and word is spreading.

A book will be released later this year: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate.

More here

From the Environmental Research Letters I found a report ( 2009 ) by Boucher / Friedlingstein / Collins & Shine , " The Indirect Global Warming Potential & Global Temperature Change Potential Due to Methane Oxidation " ........

...... the authors state that methane gas molecules have a lifeline of about 10 years ......

And they claim that methane gas comprised 715 ppbv of the air in the pre-industrial world ( circa 1750 ) , and this has increased to 1774 ppbv by 2005 .

In case you missed Monckton on The Nation, here's the link. He's followed by McGregor's rebuttal ( very lame though in my opinion )

 

http://www.3news.co.nz/Doubting-climate-change/tabid/1356/articleID/221286/Default.aspx

Blimy. One of the reasons agriculture has been delayed is because of doubt over the measurement of carbon/methane. Animals on different foods also release different levels of methane. A more biological farmer is not going to contribute as much as a conventional farmer and will put a significant amount of carbon into the soil - way more than trees. Its complex and we need to know more. 

Its not as simple as how much petrol you use etc. plus remember that farmers do use vehicles and electricity etc so we are paying towards the ets. Also why should we punish ourselves if no one else is going to (other countries no Ag in ETS type systems). I do have grave doubts with the ETS because "where does that money go". Quite simply it should be going towards the perceived problem that is being paid for whether by research or some other means, not eventually into the pocket of yet another parasite from overseas.

we can farm better and in a healthier way (healthier food) and all the time increase the carbon in the soil.

We shouldn't panic about all these issues, just work towards better solutions on farm, in business etc. Problem is as soon as politics involved the issues are warped.

meanwhile farmers keep filling our rivers with shit and not paying for it. arguments about agw and monckton and gore and cgt and carbon trading are all distractions while producers fill the world's waterways with unhelpful chemicals.