Methane Advisory Panel and Terms of Reference, HG
Hon Simon Watts,
Hon Todd McClay,
Dear Sir/s,
Re: Appointments on the Methane Advisory Panel and Terms of Reference.
I have attached some compulsory reading from Muriel Newman and Owen Jennings on methane. Once you have read it you might appreciate the waste of money another committee/panel/advisory group is, to decide on the methane targets or emissions from NZ livestock and the real or fabricated threat to atmospheric warming. That is on top of the waste of $180 million already spent on NZ Agri-Zero and the continual support of the delusional academics on our government appointed Climate Change Commission.
The coalition government has a mandate to take the hidden costs out of the productive sector. In this instance it starts with acknowledging the IPCC statement that settings for methane were overstated 3-4 times and the emissions in NZ are not 48%, (or 70% as uttered by Ministry for the Environment only yesterday), but likely of no consequence. An additional requirement is to quantify the warming affect of the methane produced or its longevity in the atmosphere but if the starting point is inaccurate then what will the answer be?
Extract from, Muriel Newman: The impact of greenhouse gases is determined by their global warming potential – how much warming they produce compared with carbon dioxide. For methane, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculated it to be 28: methane, they claim, is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide. But Dr Wilson Flood’s research refutes that claim, finding the real value is only a quarter of that: “Molecule for molecule, methane is seven times more effective at being a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.”
In 2021, the IPCC agreed - on page 1016 of Chapter 7 of their Sixth Assessment Report they concurred: “… expressing methane emissions as CO2 equivalent of 28, overstates the effect on global surface temperature by a factor of 3-4.”
Since methane makes up almost half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions profile, the implications of this correction are profound – as energy expert Bryan Leyland explains:
“If New Zealand accepted the latest information from the IPCC technical reports that tells us that the climate effects of methane have been overestimated by a factor of four, farm emissions would no longer be a problem.
All farmers ask for is some accuracy and honesty from Government and their departments. To set the record straight and put to rest the wailing from the righteous greens and Labour MP's that conveniently twist the narrative to discredit agriculture.
Furthermore there needs a stop to punishing agriculture because other polluting sectors (industry and transport) won't meet their own targets by 2025 or 2050. It is deceitful to expect agriculture to do the heavy-lifting for NZ Inc to cover for sectors that are slow adapters.
Just as an aside Beef and Lamb org, were exposed for signing confidentiality agreements with the ministries that were never disclosed to levy payers over He Waka Eke Noa, and as a result have lost credibility with their levy payers. You could consult fellow agricultural ministers, anyone would advise you of economic conditions for farmers in the sheep and beef industries currently and their inability to pay unjustified emissions taxes had Labour remained in Government and He Waka Eke Noa prevailed. (Specifically had Andrew Morrison remained as Chairman).
Included in the attachments below are papers from Barry Brill and Peter Foster, both with credentials to warrant co-opting them onto the aforesaid methane advisory group to ensure some balance. David Frame has acted in a consultative capacity to the debunked He Waka Eke Noa created by James Shaw and David Parker, so predictably comes onto the panel with pre-determined bias. In fact choosing 2 panel members from Canterbury University is lazy and invites criticism of collusion or are conflicted.
The appointment of 5 people, all academics, and a Secretariat consisting and confined to ministry personnel is astonishing and potentially self-serving. It overlooks the valuable contribution to the proposed methane panel that should come from a broader cross-section of NZ. like from those mentioned above. Be aware of the work the Methane Science Accord does and their website, a group that should be represented on the panel as well.
You must have a cunning plan we mortals/peasants don't understand, or this new panel will just repeat the waffle that has been generated out of NZ's laboratorial conclaves to date. You have missed the opportunity to have a wider representation on the advisory group to objectively settle the differences that currently circulate. Differences that are unhelpful in resolving critical issues that have a significant impact on our agricultural future. You have had a chance to appoint a diverse panel representative of views beyond the tertiary sector and lost it. I thought you were smarter!
I for one have lost confidence in the panel already and the narrow focus of the Terms of Reference, that ignore the economic and social affects for NZ. It also will not report to you on the increase of emissions world-wide that result from mis-targeted taxes here. Commissioner Simon Upton's recent paper to the Environment Society summarised the in-convenient truths that need accommodating for a working profitable economy.
The panel selections, the Terms of Reference and the suffocating secretarial cloister illustrate once again politics and all the brains getting in the road of common sense. I expected you would do better.
Yours faithfully
HUGH GARDYNE