Planet Rugby Forum

deadduck wrote:The solution to the methane problem will probably come from either genetic modification or some kind of vaccination. In order for that to work, this government needs to support our agresearch sector and with the luddite Greens in the coalition the likelihood of that seems low. It's time for the moratorium on GM to end.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:The solution to the methane problem will probably come from either genetic modification or some kind of vaccination. In order for that to work, this government needs to support our agresearch sector and with the luddite Greens in the coalition the likelihood of that seems low. It's time for the moratorium on GM to end.

How much government funding is too much and how much is too little? Direct funding to agresearch from MBIE alone was $67m in 2017. That probably excludes a whole host of income from other government sources, research subsidies to other agricultural entities such as Fonterra, Ravensdown, PGG Wrightson, Plant & Food and agricultural research at Lincoln & Massey University. In comparison, for the same financial year, the Health Research Council - which dishes out the bulk of research funding for health research in NZ - only distributed $90m.

So, in what way is this government failing to support agricultural research in a fundamentally different way from how the previous government was failing to support agricultural research?

deadduck wrote:The Nats should have changed the law when they got the chance, but Labour-NZF-Greens are in Government now. They're the ones with the ability to make the changes, and the Greens in particular will never allow it even when it's a solution to a problem they are passionate about solving.

Scaremongering about GM is analogous to being a climate change denier. The science simply doesn't support that side of the debate. The Greens (like many political parties to be fair) are guilty of cherry picking science to back the policies they are in favour of, and ignoring it when it supports policy positions they oppose.

Mr Mike wrote:

deadduck wrote:The Nats should have changed the law when they got the chance, but Labour-NZF-Greens are in Government now. They're the ones with the ability to make the changes, and the Greens in particular will never allow it even when it's a solution to a problem they are passionate about solving.

Scaremongering about GM is analogous to being a climate change denier. The science simply doesn't support that side of the debate. The Greens (like many political parties to be fair) are guilty of cherry picking science to back the policies they are in favour of, and ignoring it when it supports policy positions they oppose.

Isn't the solution passing it with NZF and National support? The Coalition Agreements gives the Greens no meaningful control over the Government.

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

deadduck wrote:The Nats should have changed the law when they got the chance, but Labour-NZF-Greens are in Government now. They're the ones with the ability to make the changes, and the Greens in particular will never allow it even when it's a solution to a problem they are passionate about solving.

Scaremongering about GM is analogous to being a climate change denier. The science simply doesn't support that side of the debate. The Greens (like many political parties to be fair) are guilty of cherry picking science to back the policies they are in favour of, and ignoring it when it supports policy positions they oppose.

Isn't the solution passing it with NZF and National support? The Coalition Agreements gives the Greens no meaningful control over the Government.

I think the problem is that both main parties probably think GM is a vote loser as there are enough anti-1080, anti-vax, anti-science voters out there that they could lose over an issue which has lost visibility in recent years.

Mr Mike wrote:

deadduck wrote:The Nats should have changed the law when they got the chance, but Labour-NZF-Greens are in Government now. They're the ones with the ability to make the changes, and the Greens in particular will never allow it even when it's a solution to a problem they are passionate about solving.

Scaremongering about GM is analogous to being a climate change denier. The science simply doesn't support that side of the debate. The Greens (like many political parties to be fair) are guilty of cherry picking science to back the policies they are in favour of, and ignoring it when it supports policy positions they oppose.

Isn't the solution passing it with NZF and National support? The Coalition Agreements gives the Greens no meaningful control over the Government.

- National Party: 45% - (Up 1%)
- Labour Party : 43% - (Up 1%)
- Green Party: 6% - (Steady)
- New Zealand First: 3% - (Down 2%)
- Māori Party: 1% - (Up 1%)
- ACT: 1% - (Steady)
- New Conservative: 1% - (Steady)
Don't know (11%) or refused to answer (3%).

deadduck wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:The solution to the methane problem will probably come from either genetic modification or some kind of vaccination. In order for that to work, this government needs to support our agresearch sector and with the luddite Greens in the coalition the likelihood of that seems low. It's time for the moratorium on GM to end.

How much government funding is too much and how much is too little? Direct funding to agresearch from MBIE alone was $67m in 2017. That probably excludes a whole host of income from other government sources, research subsidies to other agricultural entities such as Fonterra, Ravensdown, PGG Wrightson, Plant & Food and agricultural research at Lincoln & Massey University. In comparison, for the same financial year, the Health Research Council - which dishes out the bulk of research funding for health research in NZ - only distributed $90m.

So, in what way is this government failing to support agricultural research in a fundamentally different way from how the previous government was failing to support agricultural research?

It's not about money, it's about the legislation.

The current laws make it next to impossible to implement GM technologies in NZ, yet this is the most promising avenue for improving many of the issues the agricultural sector faces.
For example AgResearch has developed a GM ryegrass which has been shown to reduce methane emissions in livestock by up to 23% and is also estimated to add up to$5 billion to the economy. Can they implement this technology in NZ? The regulatory hurdles are simply too high. It'll never leave the lab.
The Nats should have changed the law when they got the chance, but Labour-NZF-Greens are in Government now. They're the ones with the ability to make the changes, and the Greens in particular will never allow it even when it's a solution to a problem they are passionate about solving.

Scaremongering about GM is analogous to being a climate change denier. The science simply doesn't support that side of the debate. The Greens (like many political parties to be fair) are guilty of cherry picking science to back the policies they are in favour of, and ignoring it when it supports policy positions they oppose.

grouch wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:Dairy is in serious trouble. Perhaps not right now but it's coming. The tide will turn for Dairy worldwide and we're way too heavily invested in it, this whole industry has to wake up, right now.
In 30 years time NZ should really be a lot closer than currently to 100% renewable energy as a conventional power source, we should have transitioned a healthy majority of transport to the fossil fuel alternatives, and be looking to hit 2070 with very near 100% for both.

I'm not entirely sure the Paris Accords afford the NZ Dairy industry carte blanche to use the abundance of water resources, fudge every waterway in the country full of Phosphates and Nitrogen, and what could cause in 30-50 years time an overwhelming majority of NZ's planet f**king emissions just to supply China with infant formula.

Time to face facts New Zealand, our Dairy industry is unsustainable, at least in the guise it is now. It's not progressing us and I personally don't see it improving unless there's some seriously radical change and investment in the whole industry. Something entirely radical and unlike what we understand to be farming, and move production indoors to capture methane for conversion to energy perhaps.
Maybe dairying within the organic parameters, maybe local farmers pooling resources and being more self sufficient within a collective framework than being stand-alone. Maybe just less of it.
Definitely changes on the horizon though.


https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... rgets.html

The dairy industry and environmentalists are clashing over the proposed 47 percent methane reduction target proposed in the Zero Carbon Bill.

Dairy NZ chief executive Dr Tim Mackle appeared before the Environment Select Committee on Thursday where he urged MPs to reduce the 47 percent target.
He said while Dairy NZ supports the Bill's purpose to develop a framework to reduce emissions, it doesn't support the range of the 2050 gross methane target of 24-47 percent reduction below 2017 levels.
Dairy NZ is proposing the 2050 methane reduction target be set at up to 24 percent and regularly reviewed against robust criteria. Dr Mackle said it's supported by Fonterra and its Shareholders' Council, among others.

"Farmers want to do what is right. They are ready to go on this journey, but they need a fair target that they can buy into. A 47 percent methane reduction target is simply setting farmers up to fail, if the tools are not available."
Dr Mackle said given the lack of consensus - and that New Zealand is "already a low emissions food-producing nation - we think the Government needs to review their approach with respect to the 47 percent target".

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick - a member of the select committee - asked Dr Mackle if there was a future in which he could see net zero emissions for New Zealand.
He said methane would play a part in that future, but said the 47 percent reduction target would be "going above and beyond what methane should need to contribute".
When asked if Dairy NZ made fair points, Swarbrick told Newshub the perspective brought to the table "was that of Dairy New Zealand and we have a job to go out there and listen to New Zealanders all over the country". "We'll be listening to the submitters and doing everything we can to make sure that we get the most sustainable piece of legislation that improves the wellbeing of New Zealanders that ensures we are creating a climate friendly future."


While Dairy NZ called for the methane target to be lower, Forest & Bird chief executive told the select committee, it should be higher.
"What I want to feature from our submission is if we imagine that we are going to meet any of these targets without making land use change, we're kidding ourselves," he said.
"We heard from Dairy NZ that it would continue the way it has been with incremental tweaking, and this committee needs to reject that approach."
Hague said New Zealand "cannot afford to go easy on methane". He also slammed the Bill's "weakness" around enforceability, urging the committee to make the targets "binding".

Meanwhile, Horticulture NZ argued that the Zero Carbon Bill needs to be amended to include all the Paris Agreement, including safeguarding food production.
New Zealand signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015, agreeing to keep global average temperatures below 2degC and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5degC.
"The full Agreement makes it quite clear that countries need to find ways to adapt to climate change "in a manner that does not threaten food production," chief executive Mike Chapman said at select committee.

Details of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, led by Greens co-leader James Shaw, were announced in May.
It includes a 10 percent reduction in biological methane emissions by 2030 with a provisional reduction ranging from 24 percent to 47 percent the aim by 2050.
Earlier this month the Government announced the farming industry would start being taxed on emissions by 2025.

There's numerous examples all over the country of " family farms" de-stocking , reducing inputs , carbon farming and reducing ruminant methane .

Dairy Biz , doesn't want to know because it's heavily corporatised and run by accountants who don't know how to farm sustainably.

Plums.

grouch wrote:

deadduck wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:I don't blame Helen for preferring commercial flights. Probably more comfortable and best of all more likely to actually get there.

What do we think of the new gun laws? From what I saw briefly yesterday they seem quite sensible.

If you're talking about the registration, it's another case of imposing more rules and costs on the vast law abiding majority and not really impacting the illegal gun owners who are the ones who tend to commit gun crimes.

Do we really think this will achieve anything beyond heating up the gun black market? It's just populism from the government - a "feel good" policy.

Not often I agree with you.

What we are experiencing is unbelievable.

This is poorly thought out legislation being rushed through before the Commission of inquiry has been held.

The police role in pissed poor application of the existing gun laws will be revealed by the inquiry.

Meanwhile a government , full of professional politicians with little or no experience or even secondhand knowledge of life in 90% of New Zealand are falling over themselves to pass legislation that the our over politicised Police force has pushing for 10 years.

There is a rapidly growing resentment for all the current political parties in the hunting/fishing fraternity and I think the the spin doctors & pollsters are grossly under estimating the backlash.

As you've said the grossly inadequate funds allocated for weapon buy back will create a huge black market and it just so happens that organised gang/criminal groups are drowning in cash from the P trade our Police and drug policies have significantly ignored and what better way to deal with your 'cash problem' than buy illegal semi-automatic weapons at real market value.

We're in a bad place if the only Polly making any kind of sense is the Member for Epsom.

Dark wrote:People been keeping an eye on Ihumātao?

To me one of those weird scenarios where I can see the valid points of all sides

Fletchers
Iwi elders
Protesters

Whoever wins it there are losers who don't deserve to be losers

Personally if pushed would have to side with the Iwi elders and Fletchers as anything else would open a massive shitload of ramifications

deadduck wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:Dairy is in serious trouble. Perhaps not right now but it's coming. The tide will turn for Dairy worldwide and we're way too heavily invested in it, this whole industry has to wake up, right now.
In 30 years time NZ should really be a lot closer than currently to 100% renewable energy as a conventional power source, we should have transitioned a healthy majority of transport to the fossil fuel alternatives, and be looking to hit 2070 with very near 100% for both.

No country in the world has ever gone 100% renewable 100% of the time. In fact, in places like Germany, California etc where they've increased their proportion of renewables, what they've found is that they've also had to increase their consumption of gas in turbines for use in making up where renewables fall short or where there are peaks in demand. We could probably get to 90% quite easily and that's about where we should aim.

Tehui wrote:

Dark wrote:People been keeping an eye on Ihumātao?

To me one of those weird scenarios where I can see the valid points of all sides

Fletchers
Iwi elders
Protesters

Whoever wins it there are losers who don't deserve to be losers

Personally if pushed would have to side with the Iwi elders and Fletchers as anything else would open a massive shitload of ramifications

It's certainly the main political subject for Māori at the moment. Sad to see the current division between kaumatua and rangatahi. It has the potential to be this generation's 'Bastion Point' and 'Seabed and Foreshore'.

I find it interesting how the subject has suddenly made more people aware of NZ's racist colonial history, and how British soldiers killed and forced Māori off their land in order to clear a run way for white British settlers.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/archivesnz/17182355043

Ted. wrote:

deadduck wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:

deadduck wrote:The solution to the methane problem will probably come from either genetic modification or some kind of vaccination. In order for that to work, this government needs to support our agresearch sector and with the luddite Greens in the coalition the likelihood of that seems low. It's time for the moratorium on GM to end.

How much government funding is too much and how much is too little? Direct funding to agresearch from MBIE alone was $67m in 2017. That probably excludes a whole host of income from other government sources, research subsidies to other agricultural entities such as Fonterra, Ravensdown, PGG Wrightson, Plant & Food and agricultural research at Lincoln & Massey University. In comparison, for the same financial year, the Health Research Council - which dishes out the bulk of research funding for health research in NZ - only distributed $90m.

So, in what way is this government failing to support agricultural research in a fundamentally different way from how the previous government was failing to support agricultural research?

It's not about money, it's about the legislation.

The current laws make it next to impossible to implement GM technologies in NZ, yet this is the most promising avenue for improving many of the issues the agricultural sector faces.
For example AgResearch has developed a GM ryegrass which has been shown to reduce methane emissions in livestock by up to 23% and is also estimated to add up to$5 billion to the economy. Can they implement this technology in NZ? The regulatory hurdles are simply too high. It'll never leave the lab.
The Nats should have changed the law when they got the chance, but Labour-NZF-Greens are in Government now. They're the ones with the ability to make the changes, and the Greens in particular will never allow it even when it's a solution to a problem they are passionate about solving.

Scaremongering about GM is analogous to being a climate change denier. The science simply doesn't support that side of the debate. The Greens (like many political parties to be fair) are guilty of cherry picking science to back the policies they are in favour of, and ignoring it when it supports policy positions they oppose.

Spot on DD.

Tehui wrote:

Dark wrote:People been keeping an eye on Ihumātao?

To me one of those weird scenarios where I can see the valid points of all sides

Fletchers
Iwi elders
Protesters

Whoever wins it there are losers who don't deserve to be losers

Personally if pushed would have to side with the Iwi elders and Fletchers as anything else would open a massive shitload of ramifications

It's certainly the main political subject for Māori at the moment. Sad to see the current division between kaumatua and rangatahi. It has the potential to be this generation's 'Bastion Point' and 'Seabed and Foreshore'.

I find it interesting how the subject has suddenly made more people aware of NZ's racist colonial history, and how British soldiers killed and forced Māori off their land in order to clear a run way for white British settlers.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/archivesnz/17182355043

sonic_attack wrote:

deadduck wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:Dairy is in serious trouble. Perhaps not right now but it's coming. The tide will turn for Dairy worldwide and we're way too heavily invested in it, this whole industry has to wake up, right now.
In 30 years time NZ should really be a lot closer than currently to 100% renewable energy as a conventional power source, we should have transitioned a healthy majority of transport to the fossil fuel alternatives, and be looking to hit 2070 with very near 100% for both.

No country in the world has ever gone 100% renewable 100% of the time. In fact, in places like Germany, California etc where they've increased their proportion of renewables, what they've found is that they've also had to increase their consumption of gas in turbines for use in making up where renewables fall short or where there are peaks in demand. We could probably get to 90% quite easily and that's about where we should aim.

That's setting the bar pretty low considering we're over 80% renewable energy already, with practically no solar or battery storage take up.
Not that 90% is particularly bad, but it's not likely to stay there when we all start plugging our lectric cars into the sockets or our population grows. Much like everything else about our halfass bandaid approach.

Dark wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:

deadduck wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:Dairy is in serious trouble. Perhaps not right now but it's coming. The tide will turn for Dairy worldwide and we're way too heavily invested in it, this whole industry has to wake up, right now.
In 30 years time NZ should really be a lot closer than currently to 100% renewable energy as a conventional power source, we should have transitioned a healthy majority of transport to the fossil fuel alternatives, and be looking to hit 2070 with very near 100% for both.

No country in the world has ever gone 100% renewable 100% of the time. In fact, in places like Germany, California etc where they've increased their proportion of renewables, what they've found is that they've also had to increase their consumption of gas in turbines for use in making up where renewables fall short or where there are peaks in demand. We could probably get to 90% quite easily and that's about where we should aim.

That's setting the bar pretty low considering we're over 80% renewable energy already, with practically no solar or battery storage take up.
Not that 90% is particularly bad, but it's not likely to stay there when we all start plugging our lectric cars into the sockets or our population grows. Much like everything else about our halfass bandaid approach.

One nuclear power plant on the outskirts of Auckland and we would be sorted.

Clean energy powering the entire North Island

Our families drinking water is from a well under our property so dont bother with your anti farming shit Enz .. i couldnt give a fudge

grouch wrote:

Dark wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:

deadduck wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:Dairy is in serious trouble. Perhaps not right now but it's coming. The tide will turn for Dairy worldwide and we're way too heavily invested in it, this whole industry has to wake up, right now.
In 30 years time NZ should really be a lot closer than currently to 100% renewable energy as a conventional power source, we should have transitioned a healthy majority of transport to the fossil fuel alternatives, and be looking to hit 2070 with very near 100% for both.

No country in the world has ever gone 100% renewable 100% of the time. In fact, in places like Germany, California etc where they've increased their proportion of renewables, what they've found is that they've also had to increase their consumption of gas in turbines for use in making up where renewables fall short or where there are peaks in demand. We could probably get to 90% quite easily and that's about where we should aim.

That's setting the bar pretty low considering we're over 80% renewable energy already, with practically no solar or battery storage take up.
Not that 90% is particularly bad, but it's not likely to stay there when we all start plugging our lectric cars into the sockets or our population grows. Much like everything else about our halfass bandaid approach.

One nuclear power plant on the outskirts of Auckland and we would be sorted.

Clean energy powering the entire North Island

Marvelous idea, building a Nuclear plant on an active Volcanic field.

Who knows we might even encourage some immigration from fukushima Prefecture.

eugenius wrote:https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/10931 ... king-water

Another lovely National legacy stacking ECAN with stooges for the farming industry.

Dark wrote:

grouch wrote:

Dark wrote:

sonic_attack wrote:

deadduck wrote:







That's setting the bar pretty low considering we're over 80% renewable energy already, with practically no solar or battery storage take up.
Not that 90% is particularly bad, but it's not likely to stay there when we all start plugging our lectric cars into the sockets or our population grows. Much like everything else about our halfass bandaid approach.

One nuclear power plant on the outskirts of Auckland and we would be sorted.

Clean energy powering the entire North Island

Marvelous idea, building a Nuclear plant on an active Volcanic field.

Who knows we might even encourage some immigration from fukushima Prefecture.

It would be fine

It is pretty much totally dormant atm

And if it all kicked off a nuclear meltdown would be the least of Aucklanders worries.

Sounds like NIMBYism

Mr Mike wrote:TBF it was a pretty confusing article. It appears that the proposal is to impose a specific and lower regional limit in place of the far higher 2008 government standard. Is that it?

What we are starting to see from the National Party is these desperate Australian dirty politics tactics again, and they don't wash with New Zealanders.

Fat Old Git wrote:He should have just called Simon a dick.

JB1981 wrote:Has Grant Robertson thought this statement through? In defending the Prime Minister against Simon Bridges’ remarks on her trip to Tokelau he’s insulting our closest neighbour. Wouldn’t just labelling it dirty politics, if that was the way he felt, be enough?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics ... -robertson

What we are starting to see from the National Party is these desperate Australian dirty politics tactics again, and they don't wash with New Zealanders.

"Regardless of what's happening domestically or locally we have a great team that pick up the reigns when offshore,"

Walking to shore is unusual for a Prime Minister - others have been carried on to the atolls.

Ardern asked not to be, saying she's "not the Queen."

deadduck wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Has Grant Robertson thought this statement through? In defending the Prime Minister against Simon Bridges’ remarks on her trip to Tokelau he’s insulting our closest neighbour. Wouldn’t just labelling it dirty politics, if that was the way he felt, be enough?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics ... -robertson

What we are starting to see from the National Party is these desperate Australian dirty politics tactics again, and they don't wash with New Zealanders.

The people of Tokelau are not "every-day New Zealanders"

BillW wrote:

eugenius wrote:https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/10931 ... king-water

Another lovely National legacy stacking ECAN with stooges for the farming industry.

Did you even read that article before posting the link Eug?

What it says essentially is that the maximum allowable level of nitrate in NewZealand drinking water is 11.3mg/litre.
Ecan is proposing a maximum level of 3.8mg/litre.

Yes!!! That’s right!!! One third of the current maximum!!
So wtf are you on about?

The only thing that some people are moaning about is that the new proposed level is way higher than the current levels of Christchurch drinking water.

Educate yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQBe7iaW-Jg

https://safewater.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/ ... r-nitrate-