Strings, In a manner of speaking when the EU pays it’s farmers not to farm it is sending it’s cows to us. More precisely, Europe’s dairy farms are slowly destocked while NZ’s herd sizes are gradually increased by retaining more calves each year.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

# Strings Says:
November 12th, 2008 at 7:54 am

> That’s OK for some, but we have nowhere to send our cows,

Argentina and Uruguay. There’s already growth in Kiwi-owned dairy farms in those countries.

> Does everyone else have to count their dairy and other ruminant herds?

yes

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Johan
Many thanks for that – simple and clear, just what was needed.

I must agree regarding the potential for cynicism! When you see that countries like Sri Lanka, Botswana, Ethiopia, Samoa, etc., are not in circa 90% of the total CDM projects, it suggests that those countries with large trade surpluses are the ones benefiting, while those with deficits are the payers and countries with real development needs are the losers; not a situation I would want New Zealand to contribute to.

IMO we should get out of this noose around our neck and do what we need to do because we need to do it, not because we felt at one time it would be good to subsidise more fortunate countries than our own.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BB

The point was that the one-child thing WAS a lie. It was a blatant, flat out, demonstrably false proposition that was dumped on us in the weeks before the election. I have absolutely no doubt that there are people who went into the polls still believing it because that is the nature of lies and truth.

S59 I alluded to in another thread, and I took some folks to task for doing what they did then and the way they did it. I know you read it. No need to revisit.

My point however, is that if someone lies like this they need to have their testicles kicked up between their ears. Being opposed to violence I will settle for having a lawyer administer a walletectomy on their person… but my hatred of lies is pretty intense.

We have more than enough trouble communicating with each other effectively, and polluting the medium with which we communicate with false information is, IMHO, a sin – for which we are regularly punished by having to live in a hell in which we cannot trust anyone.

I may be wrong about something (not that it happens often) but I never lie.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kevyn
I may be mistaken and I welcome correction but I understand the Kyoto Protocol as follows. It has created two groups of countries, the Annex 1 countries that are generally the industrialised countries and the Non Annex 1 countries that are generally developing countries. A relationship has been established between the two groups that is effectively one of “provider/seller” of carbon credits and “receiver/buyer” of carbon credits. The providers/sellers are the non Annex 1 countries while the “receivers/buyers” are the Annex 1 countries.

This is done through three methods that are inter-related. The best known is the emissions trading scheme of which our ETS is an example. This allows for the direct buying and selling of carbon credits. If a country exceeds its agreed target it has to buy credits from a country that has managed to perform better and that has credits available. – this may be a non Annex 1 country or an Annex 1 country that has managed to reduce its emissions below its target.

The next method is the clean development mechanism (CDM). This is a project-based system that really is a technology/skills transfer scheme allowing an Annex 1 country to be involved in sustainable development projects in a Non Annex 1 country. It allows businesses in developed countries to meet part of their domestic emissions-reduction targets by financing emissions-cutting projects in developing countries, where costs are often lower. Projects are awarded one carbon emissions-reduction credit for each tonne of greenhouse gas they prevent from being released. These credits can be bought and sold like corporate stocks and used to lower the cost of green development projects.

I have found a number of examples but include one link:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/South-Africas-Minister-Minerals-Energy/story.aspx?guid={63C8BB94-37EF-4D28-A77F-28FE213977AD}

Interestingly enough, these are the percentages for CDM projects (percentage of total)
India: 31,96%
China: 20,52%
Brazil: 12,56%
Mexico: 9,84%
Malaysia: 2,62%
Chile: 2,06%
Africa: 2,34%

Cynically one can perhaps say that looking at these figures it pays to be classified as a developing country that is the seller/provider of carbon credits rather than a developed country that is the buyer/receiver of carbon credits. Clearly the developing countries with strong economies benefit from these projects while the really undeveloped countries are not beneficiaries.

The third method is joint implementation (JI) which enables industrialized countries to carry out joint implementation projects with other developed countries (usually countries with economies in transition). I assume this is simply a variation of the CDM?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

” the idea of air being property” is not the issue but hints at the solution.

Its about the continuing ‘right’ to treat the atmosphere as a toilet when constitutionally each of us owns a piece of that ‘right’ (equity).

The framework by which that right is restored to balance given (a) historical differences in emission by developed vs non-developed economies and (b) the required correction to hold the planet <2 degrees has been unfairly described as the communisation of the commons. Who says that? The principal offenders of course. The beneficiaries of short term profits at the collective expense of humanity. It is entirely approriate to be dismissive of these views. Absent a framework the world will litigate these tensions forever (which by all accounts will not be long)

The task is to resolve the political tensions inherent in the required solution.

By any standard, Contraction and Convergence remains the only ‘framework’ on the table that can acurately measure (thus manage) the required process.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Should’ve said: look up ‘tragedy of the commons’ in google.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Someone’s done a study of baked beans? ”

Lots and lots of them – ask any schoolboy!

OK now with Commons – being a POHM I think of the word as meaning the patch of grass in the centre of a village, owned in common fife by all landowners in the village boundary. There is also the ‘house of commons’ which is a diminution of ‘house of commoners’, but that’s another layer of history. I have a problem with the idea of air being property, as the term implies ownership, but that’s OK too, I can live with the concept.

Have a fun day.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

They then manage to produce at least five times their volume in malodorous and harmful waste gasses that should be measured in the same way as that of ruminants.

Someone’s done a study of baked beans? I don’t think banning any particular food is going to get us anywhere. If they require significant energy to bake, then the energy producer takes the hit, and probably passes the cost on to the bean-makers. One can reduce demand through buying less, or using technology to adapt, presumably.

For me – commons: common property like air, and most water sources.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

PS please define Commons, as you use the term.

Thanks.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

That’s what I was commenting on! Baked beans clearly require significant energy to bake, and hence create carbon. They then manage to produce at least five times their volume in malodorous and harmful waste gasses that should be measured in the same way as that of ruminants. Given that we already overspend our income by some 8 Billion a year and are running out of disposable assets to fund the weekly spend, we either have to significantly increase our productivity and get a 20% or so pay-rise, or reduce our expenses.

Our ‘family’ budget won’t stretch to an additional billion or so to buy Kyoto credits, so have to reduce the need for them. This means reducing our undesirable waste output. I am suggesting that by banning foods which result in the output of such waste, could move closer to having a balanced ‘household’ budget through reduced food purchases and reduced Kyoto credit purchases.

I would be interested in hearing any other ideas for achieving the same ends

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No ones banning anything – the people who benefit from the externalities produced by their respective productive assets are being made to pay for their effect on the commons.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Stephen

I guess we should ban Baked Beans then eh!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Strings, IMHO it doesn’t really matter that cows are “living creatures who provide essential food for ourselves and millions of others”. They are not really any different to any other productive asset like machinery in that they use inputs (grass) to manufacture an output (meat/dairy)…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kevyn
That’s OK for some, but we have nowhere to send our cows, which, it seems, are our main source of Kyoto emissions. Seems strange to me that we would agree to include living creatures who provide essential food for ourselves and millions of others (particularly in the form of milk powder). Does everyone else have to count their dairy and other ruminant herds?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Johan, The biggest flaw with the Kyoto Protocol is that Annex 1 countries can transfer their emissions to Non Annex 1 countries by simply shifting their most polluting industries to Non Annex 1 countries. Steel, rubber and petrochemical and other energy intensive industries are prime candidates. Because the businesses are still owned by Annex 1 countries the profits continue to count in the GDP of the Annex 1 countries. The loss of so many low paying manufacturing jobs isn’t really a problem as many of these people can get low paying jobs servicing the shareholders of the manufacturing companies.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ

“one child per family campaign of lies against us”

Was it really such a big deal BJ?

As far as I can see it was section 59 and the Greens insistence on running out lives that really cost you.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Strings
In response to your question about Brazil, China and India who are high emitters but are Non Annex 1 members, the short answer is that they do not have to pay and the Annex 1 members do not “take up the slack”. This was the major complaint about the system from the USA and Australia.

Each of the Annex 1 countries has a set target (decrease or keep emissions to 1990 levels) and is bound by it. If an Annex 1 country exceeds the target it has to buy carbon credits or engage in one of the three possible programmes to off set its excess – as I understand is this is where the “sending billions of dollars to Russia” meme comes in. I have not been able to find an easy primer on the Kyoto Protocol but have a look at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Green Party’s drug policy legally regulating recreational drug use was implemented on Nov 6th. (but no one noticed.)

‘Class D’ passes into law. The whole world is watching (except NZ)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The success of the “one child per family” campaign of lies against us taught us that if kicking someone in the nuts is permissible, steel-toed boots are desirable.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)