Red Alert

Archive for the ‘climate change’ Category

Foreign Affairs = more than trade

Posted by Maryan Street on October 21st, 2011

You could be forgiven for thinking that our only interest in other countries under this government, is how much money we can make out of them.

Yesterday, at an NZIIA seminar at Victoria University, I released our Foreign Affairs policy. MurrayMcCully had given the opening speech and every country or region he mentioned was couched in terms of our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with them, an emerging FTA with them, the desirability of an FTA or other bilateral economic agreement with them and how well we were doing because of them.

Don’t get me wrong – I am a great supporter of FTAs as long as we don’t concede our sovereignty and they can be negotiated in a more open way which engages the non-government sector as well. But for Labour, Foreign Affairs is also about peace, security, conflict resolution, disarmament, multilateralism, human rights, climate change, environmental protection and restoration, disaster relief, good governance and democratic representation, and most importantly, people to people exchanges and relationships.

Without a viable and secure planet, all the global supply chains you can think of count for nothing.

Our independent foreign policy is a source of great pride for us. It has been most enhanced in our history by great Labour Prime Ministers: Peter Fraser, Norman Kirk, David Lange and Helen Clark. We will build on that tradition.

We will bring human rights and a commitment to multilateral international decision-making back to the fore again. They have been languishing on the back burner under the National government.

Have a look at the policy – comments are welcomed.

Oh – and for those who wonder why there is no mention of Afghanistan – that is simply because our position on that is well known, has been well reported and has been the same since late 2005. In case you have missed it (!) : Labour would not have sent the fourth rotation of SAS troops back to Afghanistan. The SAS should no longer be deployed there. A Labour government will bring them home. We will progressively withdraw our Provincial Reconstruction Team as well, in an exit strategy worked out in consultation with other forces with whom we are working in Bamyan. The fight can only be won in Afghanistan if the government there wins the hearts and minds of the people. That hasn’t happened. Time to come home.


Renewable energy – we can do better

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 31st, 2011

Yesterday the National government released their much anticipated Energy Strategy. The first draft that was released for consultation was pretty poor, and the final version is even worse.

While they claim they are still committed to the goal of having 90 percent of our electricity generated from renewable sources, most of their actual plan heads in the other direction.

We have an abundance of renewable energy sources in New Zealand. We could be world leaders in renewable energy. Instead the National government want to focus on extracting more fossil fuels like gas and oil.

It’s a short-sighted approach that does nothing to insulate us from the inevitable price increases that are on the way, not to mention the damage it will do to our environment.

National trumpets the fact that the amount of electricity we’ve generated in the last few years from renewable sources has increased, never mind the fact that it’s rained quite a bit. What happens when we get another dry year? We need more wind, more solar, more local generation, and more of a focus on energy efficiency.

It’s great that the National government have at least said they agree with the 90% renewable target put in place under the last Labour government, but we need to do a lot better if we’re going to meet it.


Generation Zero

Posted by Brendon Burns on July 21st, 2011

Catching up on emails I noted one from a new advocacy group, launched this week, Generation Zero www.generationzero.org.nz.  

I would have thought it deserved some media coverage but despite a cute photo op outside Parliament, it looks like this only appears to date on their Facebook page.

Good on them for putting the effort into getting up the website. Generation Zero are calling for zero carbon emissions by 2050 and binding targets en route.  NZ’s current goal? 50%. of 1990 levels. On current tracking we have about as much chance of reaching that as our 2020 commitment of reducing to 10 or 20 percent below 1990 emission levels. (In fact we are increasing.)  Across the ditch, Julia Gilliard’s carbon tax has set a 80% reduction target. And Britain’s Tory government has a similar goal. In fact there, it’s bipartisan.

Yet Gillard’s plan is going down like a bucket of sick under the constant attacks of Tony Abbott (who bowled former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull because he tried to back Labor’s earlier wider-ranging, less subsidising ETS.)

Generation Zero’s guru is James Hansen, who visited here recently. I’m currently reading the book he has devoted to his grandchildren – effectively Generation Zero.

As Australia illustrates, the politics and potential outcomes of this debate are horrible. Attempts to encourage/require change from our carbon-fueled lifestyles are politically fraught; not doing so puts the very existence of Generation Zero – and their grandchilren – at extreme risk.

If you want examples of our own Julia or Tony choices, look to the differences between Labour and National on agriculture in the ETS or whether lignite mining in Southland should proceed.   


Every bugger will agree

Posted by Clare Curran on June 2nd, 2011

For those who don’t know, Joe Hockey is an Australian (conservative) Opposition frontbencher. He has appealed for “unity” amongst his colleagues around their views on climate change which are clearly disperate. Look to the New Zealand govt benches to see how “unified” their views are on climate change!

Come back home John Clarke


One Tory PM serious about climate change

Posted by Brendon Burns on May 24th, 2011

John Key attacking our reinstatement of agriculture in the ETS to fund R +D is predictable enough for a former?  climate change doubter.

But contrast him saying agriculture can only come in when others bring it in with his good friend, British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron.

Last week, the Conservative government unveiled the UK’s fourth carbon budget, announcing it wanted to be the “greenest government  ever” http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_41/pn11_41.aspx  , positioning the UK as a leading player in the global low-carbon economy, creating significant new industries and jobs.

The UK is now on  course to cut emissions to 50 percent of 1990 levels by 2027 (the National Government’s target is 20 percent by 2020.) And it vows to reduce emissions by at least 80% by 2050 (National’s target 50% by 2050.)

This from an economy once built on coal and heavily reliant on North Sea oil. The point is that the Brits are committing to make changes to the difficult to tackle sectors of its economy and focussing on a low carbon economy and high-tech future. 

David Cameron is effectively making a mockery of John Key’s promise of the National Government being “fast followers” in responding to climate change. The Conservatives in the UK have laid out an actual plan on how they hope to transition to a green economy.  Meanwhile we are stuck with a government that has no real idea, no real plan, and continues to kick the climate change can down the road for the next generation to deal with.

John Key says he’s been in touch with David Cameron every week by phone or text since meeting in 2009. You have to wonder if he ever questions Cameron’s commitment to address climate change or  is that just reserved for domestic politics?


Reducing emissions just a “fad”

Posted by Brendon Burns on February 16th, 2011

Oh dear, Finance Minister Bill English rather gave the game away on Morning Report this morning when quizzed about the buying the Beamers  Pressed by Geoff Robinson about buying BMWs over say, Aus-assembled Fords or Holdens, Mr English said:”I think it shows that being driven by a fad, which at the time was to have lower carbon emissions….turned out more expensive than they expected” http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport

A fad? Little wonder Colin James wrote last month that Change Minister Nick Smith is not getting the traction he needs in Cabinet to put the environment at least alongside the economy in priorities. “ Most ministers think: the environment or the economy. Smith, though abundantly intelligent and energetic, is not one of the inner cabinet core, where economic growth is king.” http://www.colinjames.co.nz/Dominion/Dominion_2011/Dominion_11Jan24.htm

Bill English’s slip today is another illustration of that.  What he and the inner Cabinet don’t  get is that pushing economic growth at the expense of the environment puts at risk our very economic base. We trade on our ‘clean, green’ reputation – continuing to treat that like a fad exposes us to our trade competitors.

And BTW, English also said this today on Morning Report that he didn’t think a Government “in the current recession” would chose to buy anything more than plain, vanilla cars. Is that a technical slip?


Post # 5 from Cancun: Groser the Censor

Posted by Charles Chauvel on December 8th, 2010

COP16

I was going to use this post to give a general update on progress here, and to respond to one commenter’s request for a summary of the general position taken by China in the negotiations to date.  I thought it would also be useful to talk about the position of other key nations or blocs, although no single country is as important on the climate issue as the US , which is why I devoted the entirety of post #4 to America.  But all that will have to wait, perhaps until tomorrow, except to say that things are chugging along.  Expectations for a deal are so low that ironically, the best outcome will be things ending not with a bang (ie superpower walkout – threat receded; Japanese now apparently unwilling to support the US in such a move), but a whimper (series of low-level technical agreements which will hopefully enable some further progress at COP17 next year in Durban).

Instead, I am going to respond to a NZ Herald report today - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10692830 – of a tetchy reply from our Climate Negotiations Minister, Tim Groser, to my criticism of his dogged insistence that New Zealand should remain a member of the US-led “Umbrella Group” in climate negotiations.  Groser says that “no-one has seen much of me” at the talks, that I have breached a convention not to criticise the Government while overseas, and that I am wrong about the policy.

If the first point were a simple personal attack then I would do what I normally do in politics – yawn and ignore it.  But I think it’s actually quite revealing about how out-of -touch a minister – even one whose ego leads him (unwisely) to blur the line between the political and the diplomatic – can get at talks like these.  I’ve been here since last Monday when the talks began.  Groser got here on Wednesday.  As in Copenhagen last year,  I am not a member of the official NZ delegation, and I paid my own way to get here.  Like last year, I’ve been spending a lot of my time at the venue where most of the NGOs are based (”Cancun Messe”) – or at ’side events’ put on off-site around Cancun by various expert interested groups or by countries with a particular perspective to put forward.  Groser’s been at the Moon Palace (I kid you not – it is really called that), the resort where the national delegations are conducting the actual talks.  I get a  bus here  (pictured) and back every day from my hotel, or to the side events.  There is always a lively discussion on the buses of the issues.  Not sure of the level of majesty (or silence) in which Groser is daily conveyed.

(more…)


Sometimes, the planets align…..

Posted by Maryan Street on November 4th, 2010

I met Hillary Rodham Clinton today. Two weeks ago, in Washington, I met  Melanne Verveer, Hillary Clinton’s appointee to a new position reporting to her: Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues. I was attending a conference, or seminar really – there were only a dozen of us  from nine different countries – to look at some of those irritating issues of no significance compared with guns and bombs and things, like human trafficking, women’s rights as human rights, getting women to participate in peace talks in the world’s hotspots, maternal and child health, the disproportionate effect of climate change on women, etc  etc.

Then I went to New York. There the UN Security Council was discussing Resolution 1325. I can see your eyes glazing over already! That is a ten year old resolution of the UN calling for action on women’s engagement with security and peace. Like having women at peace negotiating tables in the world’s hotspots.

I mean, how can you negotiate peace in the Congo or Afghanistan or Burma without having some of the victims of rape as a weapon of war being engaged in reconciliation processes? Hillary Clinton made a statement with Ban Ki-Moon (UN Sec Gen) about Resolution 1325 and then went on to make a joint statement a few days later with the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs on the same theme before they headed off to a conference on it in Denmark.

So I knew what I wanted to talk to SOS Clinton about: how NZ could work more efficiently and effectively with the US in the Pacific on issues like encouraging women to participate in decision-making, elected or otherwise, how to improve maternal and child health, how we could combat HIV and AIDS which are epidemic in the Pacific, how we could build an enduring peace in our difficult areas. So I did.

You know what she said? “This is music to my ears.” I knew it would be.


“Kickstarting” the biofuels industry

Posted by Chris Hipkins on September 29th, 2010

Yesterday Pansy Wong put out a press statement lauding the National government’s move to “kickstart New Zealand’s fledgling biodiesel industry”. Coincidentally, I’ve been visiting biofuel companies over the past few weeks and they’ve been telling me that the policies of the current National government are doing the opposite – they feel like the rug is being pulled from under them.

Before the last election the Labour government put in place a biofuels sales obligation. It would have required fuel retailers to mix a small amount of biofuels into their blends, thus guaranteeing a market for biofuel producers and ensuring the development of the fledgling industry, whilst at the same time also reducing our carbon emissions from transport.

For reasons known only to them, National repealed the sales obligation as soon as it took office and replaced it with a subsidy scheme for biodiesel. It was an odd move for a government that claims it wants to cut government spending – the sales obligation wouldn’t have cost the government anything, it would have put the cost back onto the oil industry, unlike their subsidy.

Biofuel producers I’ve spoken to have all said the same thing, as soon as the sales obligation was removed the oil companies walked away.Their slick marketing may try to convince us they care about sustainability and the environment, but in reality the mighty dollar rules.

The biofuel sales obligation wasn’t perfect, and I think companion legislation ensuring the sustainability of the feedstock (the material the biofuels are made from) was also needed. But recent history has shown that left to its own devices without any sort of government regulation, the oil industry has no intention of supporting biofuels. Gerry Brownlee’s biodiesel grants scheme has been a flop. It’s time to go back to the drawing board.


Innovation in Alicetown

Posted by Trevor Mallard on September 1st, 2010

David Shearer is encouraging Labour MPs to focus on innovative businesses.

Dazza and I went to see a Green Diesel group in Alicetown. Great business with  chance of making it big. Good experience in international oil. Into recyling.

Most important is the ability to massively reduce pollution from diesel – and to use their fascinating testing system to prove the results.

The first bus company or owner of service station chain that gets into this will win big.


Minister Boscawen, meet Mr. Boscawen

Posted by Charles Chauvel on August 19th, 2010

Today in the House, I questioned the new Minister of Consumer Affairs on his past record.

A quirk of Parliamentary procedure is that during Question Time, a Minister is not response for comments that they have made as an MP.

In the case of Mr Boscawen, his comments as a ACT MP run countercurrent to the position of his new colleagues in cabinet.

I guess that Minister Boscawen and Mr Boscawen should meet some time and figure out who is ‘right’ on the costs of climate change.

Today in the House, I questioned the new Minister of Consumer Affairs on his past record.

Environmental Reporting Bill

Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 5th, 2010

This morning I’ve introduced a new Environmental Reporting Bill into the ballot. The Bill does two things. It requires the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to produce a comprehensive report on the state of the environment at least every 5 years. It also gives the Commissioner the power to establish a standardised set of indicators to assess the state of the environment on a regular basis.

A recent report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment found that the quality of data currently available on the state of our environment is patchy at best. Establising a standardised set of indicators will help to remedy this problem. It will also improve the quality of the 5-yearly report the Commissioner will produce.

Improving the quality of information available on the state of our environment has never been more important. We now place a much greater focus on the impact of our actions on the environment. Assessing the effectiveness of our policy responses to issues like climate change will rely on the availability of quality, objective information.

Giving responsibility for establishing what data is to be collected to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment brings some independence to that process. I think it’s really important that the public can have confidence that the data presented has been selected and collected free from any form of political interference and manipulation.

There are still some logistical and resourcing issues to sort out. The Commissioner currently doesn’t have the resources to do this job effectively, so no doubt that will be the topic of some discussion should the Bill make it as far as a Select Committee. Should it be drawn from the ballot I’m hopefully my parliamentary colleagues will at least support the First Reading so that we can have that debate.


Energy from waste

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 26th, 2010

I’ve posted several times about the fledgling New Zealand biofuels industry and how I think the current National government have pulled the rug out from under it. In comments people have often raised concern about the potential for biofuels to create other problems such as food shortages. That’s one of the reasons I’m so keen to see a lot more biofuel development that uses waste product as its feedstock.

But the use of waste to produce energy isn’t limited to biofuels. The Dominion Post had an interesting little story today on its Small Business page about Peter Yealands from Yealands Estate. He’s going to be using prunings from his vineyard to provide energy. This will save 22,000 tonnes of LPG and $80,000 during the vintage. EECA has backed the project with a 40 percent ($200k) subsidy.

The prunings will be burned in two boilers with modified doors that are being imported from the US. They burn clean, releasing no smoke and leaving only about 10kg of ash at the end of each bale. That ash will be mixed with mulch made from the rest of the prunings and put back on the land (only about 10% of the prunings will be burned).

This is the kind of energy innovation we should be encouraging a lot more of. Good to see EECA getting behind it. The question now should be – how do we get more of it?


A future for biofuels?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on July 24th, 2010

In the House on Thursday I questioned Gerry Brownlee on his disastrous Biodiesel Grants Scheme. Only about $230,000 of the $36 million set aside for the scheme has been taken up. Five companies have signed up, but no new companies have joined since July last year. It’s a long way short of Brownlee’s promise to create 240 new jobs and ensure that biofuels play a big part in our ‘energy mix’ of the future.

Brownlee chose to blame the industry for the scheme’s lack of success, despite the fact that he was warned from the very beginning it wouldn’t work. One of his first actions as Minister was to remove the biofuel sales obligation that was put in place by the previous Labour government. That would have generated sufficient demand for the biofuels industry to develop sustainably without the need for government subsidies.

Brownlee’s approach as Minister appears to be to ignore all the evidence about what actually works, only listen to the advice of those he agrees with, and then find someone else to blame when things go wrong. But I guess that’s what we should expect from the guy who thinks New Zealand’s future prosperity depends on digging up our National Parks and exporting them.


Aspiration needs more than lip service

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 9th, 2010

Gerry Brownlee is quoted in this week’s Listener saying that the government remains committed to an ‘aspirational goal’ of having 90% of New Zealand’s electricity generated from renewable sources by 2025. He states “What people don’t get is that this is a 15-year target and why would you be anything other than aspirational if you’re looking out 15 years?”

Unfortunately, this approach has become quite typical within the National government. Their approach seems to be: Identify a goal you think most people will agree with and then adopt an ‘aspirational’ target to be met at some very distant point in the future, by which time you’ll be long gone and nobody will be able to hold you to account for it. Then just continue on as you were before, or in Brownlee’s case, push policies that actually go in the other direction.

It’s hard to square Brownlee’s commitment to renewable energy with his passion for hydrocarbons. He seems to have made it his personal mission to find every ounce of coal, gas and oil in and around New Zealand and ensure that it’s extracted. In the case of gas at least, which is difficult to transport, that becomes economically more attractive to explorers when they know they have a growing domestic market – in other words, more gas-fired power plants.

I agree that we should be aiming for at least 90% of our electricity to come from renewable sources, but I think we need to do more than mumble ‘aspirational’ platitudes. My Electricity (Renewable Preference) Bill would prevent further non-renewable power plants unless they were essential for security of supply. That’s a firm step in the right direction. The next step is to look at how we promote the up-take of renewable, particularly on a more localised, smaller scale.


The energy efficiency challenge

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 8th, 2010

Do you really pay that much attention to how much electricity you are using at any point in time? I suspect most Kiwis think about their electricity use once a month – when the bill arrives! These days our electricity meters are tucked away discretely somewhere outside our homes. We don’t pay all that much attention to how much electricity we’re using, or when we are using it.

In the next few years technology is likely to change all of that. Smart meters and web-based technology is likely to give us much greater information, and through it much greater control, over our electricity use. We’ll be able to monitor the impact each additional appliance has on our power bill. We’ll also be able to spread our electricity demand, allowing us to save money by using cheaper electricity in times of lower demand. The retail pricing model will have to change for this to happen because at the moment we’re charged the same unit price for our electricity regardless of when we use it. That may be simple, but it doesn’t incentivise more even usage throughout the day.

Smart meters and smart appliances will also allow us to use less or cheaper electricity without even having to think about it. Our hot water cylinder and our deep freeze will be able to switch themselves on and off depending on other demands within the household and external factors such as price. I particularly liked the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright’s recent comment that we’ll soon be able to drive our electric cars home, plug them in, drain the remaining electricity they have in order to cook our dinner and heat our homes during ‘peak’ times, and then charge them up again off-peak when power could be cheaper.

Maximising the use of this kind of technology is going to require industry standards for two-way communication between consumers and the big power companies, something the current government are reluctant to impose. They argue it’s too early to regulate because we don’t know what the dominant technology will be. On the other hand, it’s a bit of a chicken and egg situation; appliance manufacturers won’t produce smart appliances until they know what the smart grid is going to look like.

To be fair to the government, they aren’t doing nothing to promote more efficient electricity use. While I have some concerns about the way it has been rushed, I do give the current government credit for the huge increase in the number of homes that are being properly insulated. Warmer, drier homes are more able to minimise unnecessary electricity use. Similarly, if they’re used effectively on timers, heat pumps can also lower power bills, so the government subsidies in this area are also welcome.

We need to change our mindset from thinking about how we can build more power stations to thinking about how we can use our existing electricity supply more efficiently and how we can encourage more localised electricity production. More on the latter shortly…


Are you a nimby, a yimfy or a banana?

Posted by Chris Hipkins on June 7th, 2010

The latest Listener has a timely article about electricity generation. In it they quote Massey’s Ralph Sims who argues there are three types of response to the electricity generation challenge, the nimbys (not in my backyard), the yimfys (yes in my front yard) and the bananas (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone). Which are you?

Over the next few weeks the electricity generation challenge is going to get quite a bit of air time in Parliament. Next Wednesday my private members’ bill will be read for a first time. It would prevent electricity generators building new generation plants that use non-renewable energy sources like gas and coal, unless they were essential for security of supply. And soon Gerry Brownlee’s Electricity Industry Bill will be reported back from select committee.

There is no doubt working out how to deliver enough electricity to meet future demand is a major challenge. The Listener quotes Institute of Professional Engineers projections that show our electricity demand will grow from 42,000 GWh in 2009 (itself a 7% growth on 2002 figures) to 55,000 GWh in 2025. That’s a lot of new power plants. Or is it?

Over the next few days I’m going to do a series of posts canvassing alternatives to building a bunch of extra gas-fired power plants. First, we can do a lot more to increase energy efficiency, including a heap of stuff that will give consumers more control over how much power they produce. Second, we can spread new generation more evenly through a lot more localised production. Third, we can promote renewable generation much more than we have in recent decades.

I firmly believe New Zealand can be a world leader in this area. We used to produce a much greater proportion of our electricity from renewable sources. In the last 25 years or so we’ve allowed the non-renewables sector to absorb most of the growth. That has to change. We can show the world what a truly sustainable approach to electricity generation (and consumption) can look like.


Wayne Mapp Red Alert fan

Posted by Trevor Mallard on June 2nd, 2010

Quick post from Select Committee.

I have long suspected that Ministers are helping drive up Red Alert page views.  A couple have told me that they have got better information on some issues involving colleagues from this site than from the colleagues concerned.

Wayne Mapp in his primary statement to the Education and Science Committee Estimates hearing today refered to Red Alert as a source document that informed him.

Onya Wayne.


Renewable energy the way to go

Posted by Chris Hipkins on May 6th, 2010

This morning my Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill was drawn from the ballot. The Bill would prevent the construction of further non-renewable electricity generation, except where essential for security of electricity supply. New Zealand is fortunate that a large proportion of our electricity generation comes from renewable sources such as wind and hydro. There really is no excuse to keep relying on fossil fuels that aren’t renewable and are bad for the environment.

Over the past two decades the majority of our growth in demand for electricity has been met by the development of non-renewable electricity generation. That’s just not sustainable. The First Reading of my Bill will provide all parties in Parliament with the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to tackling the challenge of climate change in a meaningful way.

Renewable energy is the way of the future. In the medium to longer term, as the price of fossil fuels continues to rise, it will be cheaper and it will also be more secure. I hope that the reinstatement of a restriction on new thermal generation will be the first of a series of steps New Zealand takes to promote greater use of renewable energy and enhanced energy efficiency.

The National government removed the restriction on new thermal generation put in place by the last Labour administration. That was the wrong thing to do. They did it under Urgency and nobody got to make submissions and present evidence, either for or against the change. My Bill gives them an opportunity to remedy that injustice. By supporting it to Select Committee the National govt would be saying that they do respect the democratic process and that they are willing to listen to alternative arguments.


Manufacturing consents

Posted by Brendon Burns on February 4th, 2010

More developments on the Mackenzie Basin factory farming proposal.

Environment Canterbury was today hearing whether the the three-linked companies water consents can be heard separately to the board of inquiry, annouced by Nick Smith (over the companies’ discharge consents.) http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/3291974/Factory-farm-consent-process-to-begin

Pretty difficult to consider the issues separately. To create the effluent for 1.7m litres of discharge daily you are going to need, er,a shit load of water.

Whether separated or called-in, the factory farming consents should not be heard along with the dozens of other applications for water in the Mackenzie and Waitaki catchments, mostly lodged by local farmers – (unlike the Canterbury and Tauranga based frontmen for the 17,000 cow operations above Lake Ohau); most are not for industrial-scale dairying (although that seems a likely outcome for one water application at Simon’s Hill on the road between Tekapo and Twizel.)

Personally  I think local farmers should be able to access some water to grow a bit of feed in what is the tough country of the Mackenzie Basin – without turning the whole of the magnificent, if barren landscape into an ersatz Waikato.

Meanwhile, a hat tip to solid blogging from Claire Browning at Pundit on this issue, most recently noting that the Waitaki District Council gave the consents for land use for the cubicle dairy farms without any public notification, because it seems it considered only the impacts on people (in a remote-ish setting) rather what such intensive farming would do to the environment.

http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/cubicle-dairy-farming-were-the-secret-consents-unlawful

Also worth reading is a recent Time magazine article Save the Planet: Eat More Beef.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692,00.html

No, I’m not advocating eating more beef;  what the article  promotes is  having American cows grass-fed, rather than the current practice of almost all beef (and much dairy) being stall-fed with grain. The article suggests a reversal of this could capture the entire world’s greenhouse gas emissions (scale sounds rather far-fetched) as cows on pasture would trample decaying matter into the soil and keep carbon there. (Note, Fonterra, the maths only work so long as fertilisers aren’t used. And note also, because we don’t currently factory farm, we already have these kind of savings in our emissions profile.)

But hey,  as we begin debating efforts to start serious-level cubicle cow production in this country, the Americans start trying to bring it to an end.