News release

7 Comments
23 September 2009
NZ pushes for Global Alliance on agricultural emissions

Prime Minister John Key says the New Zealand Government is pushing for a Global Alliance to research how to cut world-wide greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.

Mr Key has been participating with other world leaders at the United Nations Secretary-General's Climate Change Summit in New York today.

"To feed the world's growing population, we must find ways to produce more food without growing emissions," says Mr Key.

"It will be agriculture that will have to meet the expected dramatic increase in global food demand over the coming decades, but this presents the world with the twin challenge of ensuring food security while reducing emissions.

"To meet this challenge, there is an urgent need for more international research and investment into new technologies and practices to help reduce agriculture-related emissions, and for greater co-ordination of existing efforts.

"New Zealand considers a Global Alliance on agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation research could meet this need and welcomes partners in this initiative.

"The Government has appointed a former Minister for the Environment and Science & Technology, Simon Upton, as a special envoy to help engage with other countries on the concept," says Mr Key. 

Agriculture Minister David Carter says New Zealand is already well-positioned to make a significant contribution to a Global Alliance.

"Our unique profile for a developed country, with almost half of all emissions coming from agriculture, has given us a firm foothold in understanding pastoral livestock emissions.

"Through a Global Alliance, we can find solutions faster, make better use of the money that is being spent around the world and encourage other countries and companies to do more," says Mr Carter.

Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues Tim Groser, also in New York for the summit, is building support for the Global Alliance proposal at a series of high-level meetings with other climate change ministers and negotiators.

"We are already talking with developed and developing countries with significant agricultural production and/or agricultural research programmes about this.

"Food security is an issue of paramount importance, especially for developing countries, and must not be compromised.  

"My meetings in New York are a valuable opportunity to continue to test interest in a Global Alliance and to forge a path to action," says Mr Groser.


Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Alan Liefting said:
2009-09-23 17:35 - (Reply)

This Global Alliance is essentially to reduce emissions due to livestock. Only so much selective breeding or genetic engineering (if it were allowed) can be done to reduce these emissions. The problem is too many of us want to have too much of the good life. If the world population were to become vegans livestock emissions would reduce significantly. Alternatively, if we all want the good life with high levels of consumption we need to look at what a sustainable population would be. Trying to use technological solutions to fix emissions if what I call the linear thinking approach. We must think outside of the line! Alan Liefting Christchurch

#2 - Peter Williams 2009-12-04 20:54 - (Reply)

So agriculture causes half the nations emissions. What about the carbon credits that farmers should be getting from pasture and crops? Any biologist will know that green leaves absorb co2 and produce oxygen.A thousand hectares of pasture would produce much more o2 than the co2 and methane produced by the livestock grazing that area. The ETS. is a trade barrier thought up by green socialist European MMP.governments.These politicians would starve the people to save the planet.

#2.1 - Alan Liefting 2009-12-04 23:01 - (Reply)

Any biologist will tell you that photosynthesis is not a factor in climate change. Carbon sequestration is the important factor. A pasture does not sequester much carbon since the net increase in biomass is about zero since it is always grazed. However, some carbon can be sequestered in the soil. The ETS is not a trade barrier - it is very poor way of trying to address climate change. "Green socialist European MMP governments"? Which ones? "starve the people to save the planet."? Why would a politicians starve people (ie voters) in order to save the planet. Starving people and dead people don't vote!

#3 - Andrew Atkin said:
2009-12-05 10:05 - (Reply)

John Key: I understand your science advisor is a firm global warming believer? If so, then I think he might be a bad choice - because that's a guaranteed recipe for Mr Key being filled with one-sided bias, and no-one can claim that concerning AGW is proven. I believe you should appoint someone who is neutral on the issue, and prepared to do some serious homework on it first from a neutral position. Or appoint more than one advisor on this issue, or establish some kind of NZ royal commission.

#3.1 - Katie said:
2009-12-05 12:27 - (Reply)

Why can't New Zealand take a stand and wait until such time as the science is proven. All I see is ordinary people having to fork out more of their hard earned cash to support a 'maybe'. The major supporters of the Global Warming theory are employess of the IPCC. I agree, we need more research and a neutral stance until there is a concensus. We all just follow like sheep and should stand out as a voice of reason - become a light in this debate. Some will get very rich while the majority will be paying out more in taxes. And in 50 years time...........???

#3.2 - Alan Liefting 2009-12-05 12:42 - (Reply)

John Key should also make sure that he appoints a science advisor who is neutral on whether or not the earth is flat. Should be plenty of scientists who can fill the criteria....

#4 - andrew Atkin said:
2009-12-05 14:26 - (Reply)

Alan, You didn't make a point - GW science is obvious incomparably more complex and questionable than "is the earth flat". I am not a climate scientists, so I don't know who is or is not lying to me, or sorely mistaken. I suppose somebody is. And I know full well that so-called environmentalists can be as corrupt as any other, so I do not automatically trust "the good guys". Asking for *secure* objectivity is the very least we can do. I have suspicions about the whole GW thing not primarily because of the science, but the unnecessary methods being employed to tackle it. Making biofuels mandatory in America was an extraordinary example (I wrote a letter about this in Investigate magazine several months ago - Lord Christopher Monckton goes on about it in his recent speech, too). It was completely unnecessary because there were other alternatives that can deliver more carbon reductions at less cost, and without starving 3rd-world level poor people to death via the inevitable price-hikes for food. Also, I don't see why we do not need to effectively pay poor countries to commit to reducing our own emissions. What's with the "carbon trading" - why not commit to a local demand-control tax, with appropriate regulations? This, amongst many other key things has made me very suspicious about this GW movement. The responses have been inconsistent with the proclaimed problem. There's something very funny going on with all this.


Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.