Agmates

.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd tells us that based on the science coming out of the UN’s IPCC Australia must implement a Carbon Emissions reduction scheme.

.

Kevin Rudd [ pictured at the UN]

“Well, I just look at what the scientists say. There’s a group of scientists called the International Panel on Climate Change - 4000 [2,500 actually] of them. Guys in white coats who run around and don’t have a sense of humour.

They just measure things. And what they say to us is it’s happening and it’s caused by human activity.

I am not, myself, a qualified scientist. I’m elected as Prime Minister of Australia to act on the basis of the considered scientific advice.”

.

But look what else the Chairman of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri [pictured at the top] is urging the world to do to combat global warming:

.

People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, the world’s leading authority on global warming has told The Observer

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further.

Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel’s chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals.

‘Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,’ said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.

.

Kevin Rudd has already singled his intention to blindly follow Pachauri and his humorless men in white coats considered scientific advise.

It needs to be asked, if Rudd subscribes to the IPCC ideology, what then are his plans for the Australian Meat industry? Does he endorse Dr Pachauri’s recommendations in regard to eating less meat?

.

……………………………………………………………………………………………….

.

Have Your say!

.

The Australian Governments proposed Emissions Trading Scheme is the greatest threat to viability of farming since we removed all trade protection from our Agricultural exports.

South Australian farmer John Michelmore writes:

.

” I just calculated the typical carbon tax on a cow per annum. If this goes ahead and farmers can’t off-set their land use changes it could be the end of the beef industry in Australia.

We won’t be able to compete with any overseas country that doesn’t have a carbon control program.

Methane production per cow per day is 350 grams. Say methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide. That makes an equivalent carbon dioxide emission of 7kg per day.

At $40 per tonne CO2 carbon levy that’s $102 per cow per year. Even at $15 per tonne that’s $38 per year.

If a cow lives for say 10 years that’s somewhere between $380 and $1020 per head. If you sell your steers at 9 months thats up to $76.50 each. You can see why agriculture has been left out at this stage.“

.

……………………………………………………………………….
Have your Say! What madness is at work when governments are trying to develop the technology to tax farmers on their animals flatulence?

South Australian Farmer John Michelmore (pictured) writes:

The impact of methane on global warming and the sources of methane have now attracted the general medias attention.

Cattle have been singled as responsible for a large proportion of methane emissions world wide, and now results in the call for a reduction in the worlds cattle herd.

It appears probable that emissions permits (taxation) are under consideration for Australian livestock producing methane in their digestive tracts.

This series of articles on methane attempts to explain the science behind methane in the atmosphere and whether a tax on methane emissions in Australia will have any impact on global warming.

It is imperative that Australians understand global warming and the potential risks to our economy from an ill conceived emissions trading scheme based on inconclusive science and unlikely to be adopted by other major methane emitters.

Australia’s methane emissions barely rate as a percentage of global emissions. Therefore reducing Australia’s methane emissions will have insignificant impact on our climate unless the major emitters also reduce methane emissions; assuming we can actually control atmospheric methane.

Can we as Australian’s afford to be the first to set an example and take the economic consequences of an emissions trading scheme probably not adopted by the major methane producers; India, China, Europe, Africa and the United States?

We still haven’t learnt from our Free Trade experiences of the past, where our manufacturing industries have been decimated by free trade that no other country adopted. How are China, Africa and India expected to control their methane emissions when farmers are at most subsistence, and have little choice about their food production methods?

Methane is produced and consumed by a number of pathways in the world environment. Production occurs naturally from a number of sources and also results from human activities (called anthropogenic methane).

The overriding question is whether an economic accounting system is valid for methane, and what actual level of methane production can be related to human activities.

The current level of methane in the atmosphere (1750 parts per billion) accounts for about 20% of the “heating factor” created by the gases that could result in global warming. There has been an increase in methane in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution from a peak historical level of about 750 parts per billion.

There is no doubt the incidence of solar radiation on the earth, and the resultant increase in temperature can drive both carbon dioxide and methane level increases in the atmosphere. However the reverse also applies and no theory really adequately explains current levels of methane and carbon dioxide levels because of the complex scientific issues involved.

There are numerous feed back loops that impact methane levels.

The question is whether the human race can control what is happening to our environment?

The overriding question is: - Does the Australian Government expect that we can influence the major human induced methane emissions in other countries by example, and in the process push the Australian economy further into recession?

Maybe Dr Brendan Nelson was correct in his idea to move in line with major green house gas emitters.

………………………………………………………………………….

Have Your say!