Submission to the Climate Change Commision, HM
My name is Helen Mandeno and I am a drystock farmer from South Waikato. Our farm is 902 hectares.
My submission relates to; targets aimed at reducing ruminant methane emissions.
Earth is 4.54 billion years old and I would like to highlight that the climate has never been stable in this time. It is either warming or cooling, it is never static. Humans are good at adapting, there is no reason why we cannot adapt to a changing climate. Trying to change the weather by reducing the amount of naturally occurring flatulence and belches emitted from a nutritious human food source makes no sense. As a farmer I notice that the climate is constantly changing, morning to night, season to season, year to year, it is never the same and we farm according to what we have, there is no reason that global government policies cannot operate the same.
Professor David Frame has modelled the warming contribution of New Zealand ruminants to be 4 millionths of a degree C per year. A figure which is inconsequential, insignificant and utterly irrelevant. Note: other scientists have modelled warming figures much smaller than Professor Frames.
The current government targets are to reduce ruminant emissions by 10% by 2030 and 24-47% by 2050.
Let’s calculate these into warming reductions:
• To trim emissions by 10% per year equates to 0.000,000,4 (0.4 millionths) of a degree C per year.
• To trim emissions by 24% per year equates to 0.000,000,96 (0.96 millionths) of a degree C per year.
• To trim emissions by 47% per year equates to 0.0000018 (1.8 millionths) of a degree C per year.
If we look at the aims of AgriZero which are to reduce ruminant emissions by 30% by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2040 we are talking about spending billions of dollars of New Zealand’s money (on research and biotechnology tools) to reduce global temperatures by a total amount of 0.000006 of a degree C and 0.00006 of a degree C respectively. Meanwhile China is busy building hundreds of coal-fired power plants.
Can anyone else notice the economic suicide this will cause our country with no measurable effect on global temperatures?
The argument that everyone has to play their part:
New Zealand has 1% of the worlds ruminants. If we include all of the other 99% of the worlds ruminants emissions it equals 0.00396 degrees C warming per year.
If the rest of the worlds ruminants also lowered their emissions to the same maximum target of New Zealand that equates to 0.0019 degrees C warming per year.
As you can see, these temperature reductions are extremely trivial and so small they are impossible to measure.
I will state it again, trying to reduce New Zealand ruminant methane emissions makes no sense and will not contribute a measurable reduction in global temperatures.
I would like to highlight this information from Clintel (Climate Intelligence foundation):
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In the future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth:
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Biotechnology tools under current research:
I see only warning signs regarding the development of fast-tracked novel biotechnology tools in the name of methane mitigation. There is huge risk for very little gain. Advancing biotechnology in the name of climate change is only ever going to serve those with commercial interests in the biotech companies. Trying to trim millionths or even thousands of a degree warming which is a temperature difference virtually impossible to measure, is both illogical and unjustifiable. The benefits are an expensive illusion.
Methane vaccines:
While vaccination for unwanted diseases is a common practice, an additional vaccination that has no benefits to the animal and that targets a naturally occurring rumen organism could well face consumer, regulatory and animal welfare hurdles. What thought has gone into the fact that the rumen is a complex, dynamic ecosystem. These microbes have a symbiotic relationship with the host and display niche specialization in terms of nutrient utilization. Why would you want to tamper with this highly evolved and efficient ecosystem?
GE/GMO pasture:
Emerging new biotechnologies (NBTs) or GE technologies are potentially fraught with unintended and off-target effects showing deleterious mutations. Is temperature reductions of millionths of a degree worth the risk?
Methane mitigation Biotechnology tools:
Has a risk to benefit analysis been done for these ‘never before used biotechnology tools’? What price do you put on an entire industry that stands to lose everything if these novel biotechnology tools are released and then subsequently found to be unsafe and or unwanted? Are biotech companies held liable if safety concerns arise further down the track? Or will NZ farmers have to pick up the bill for that too?
As a farmer facing incentivised ruminant methane reductions in the future, I can ensure you that we will not be incorporating any methane reduction measures on this farm. We have the perfect product, grass fed, pasture raised, minimal antibiotics and other chemicals. We have a product we can be proud of, there is no need to change it. We are getting clear signals from overseas end consumers that they do not want methane vaccines, methane boluses, feed additives or GE grasses in the food chain of the NZ meat that they consume.
The ‘Taste Pure Nature’ campaign becomes null and void if you go down the track of incorporating artificial biotechnology products into a natural food source.
As a farmer I would like to explain the current economic reality our business is facing. We are currently experiencing huge inflationary costs and weak returns. Insurance costs were up 36% this year, following an 18% rise last year. Our business has been cored back to the absolute basics in order to survive. It is unlikely that we will be making a profit this year, we will be lucky to break even, just like the majority of farmers in New Zealand at the moment.
I would like to remind you that farming is a commodity market, we are price takers. We must absorb all costs that our business faces. We cannot pass on our costs. I think you are out of touch with reality if you think that farmers can even afford methane mitigation tools. Will farmers be forced to choose between methane vaccines or replacing worn tyres on their 4 wheelers? Worn tyres are an immediate health and safety hazard. Methane vaccines will impart no tangible benefit to their business, the health of their stock or make any difference to the word’s temperature. There is no place for virtue signaling costs in farming.
If discretionary funds become available to farmers they would far prefer to be spending it on improving their waterways by fencing and riparian planting – resulting in a tangible benefit for all New Zealanders.
Our farm will not be using methane vaccines, methane boluses or feed additives. This is because we whole heartedly believe they are unsafe and unnecessary. We will not be incorporating low methane genetics into our breeding stock as we have looked at the research trial results and it would decrease the desired traits of our flock that we have been selectively breeding for decades to suit our climate and farming system.
We will not be incorporating any kind of methane reducing virtue signaling tools into our business. If this means that our business becomes unprofitable then it will be a loss to the national and local economy of jobs, money and food. It will be a loss to the local community in terms of our family support to our local hall, sports groups and neighbours. What price do you place on that?
It is time for the New Zealand government to concentrate its efforts on reducing the nations debt and improving the lives of our citizens. Government policy intent on chasing methane reductions from a nutritious human food source should be treated as criminal malfeasance.