14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

That's the same argument that climate change deniers make about Australia, that we create only 1.3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere so why should we do anything? The fact that we create more CO2 per capita than any other developed country because of coal mining escapes them. And that figure doesn't even include the CO2 from burning the product. I suspect that NZ's per capita CO2 contribution is high as well because of the farming, especially if you take into account the deforestation required to make pasture.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on this, and I'm not a climate change denier, just trying to get some perspective on it.

 

I was really talking about the burp/fart tax, rather than the coalmining, and the argument about "per capita" does pale into insignificance when one considers that a small country in the bottom of the world really doesn't have a lot of impact upon climate change per se, and NZ doesn't have a lot of deforestation because there are huge tracts of land which are suitable for ruminants, so cutting down forests is not a major for NZ.

 

Anyway, my main point is that we/the world/other countries could do something about the major contributors to climate change, whereas a burp/fart tax on New Zealand will have just about no impact whatsoever.
 

6 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Well we will have to agree to disagree on this, and I'm not a climate change denier, just trying to get some perspective on it.

 

I was really talking about the burp/fart tax, rather than the coalmining, and the argument about "per capita" does pale into insignificance when one considers that a small country in the bottom of the world really doesn't have a lot of impact upon climate change per se, and NZ doesn't have a lot of deforestation because there are huge tracts of land which are suitable for ruminants, so cutting down forests is not a major for NZ.

 

Anyway, my main point is that we/the world/other countries could do something about the major contributors to climate change, whereas a burp/fart tax on New Zealand will have just about no impact whatsoever.
 

How did those huge tracts of land get to be suitable for ruminants? Were they naturally grassy pastures?

10 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Why would I?  There are not a lot of them in Chiang Mai that I am aware of. Lol. 

Yet you are saying "So basically farmers did not want to pay tax or clear up their act to stop polluting NZ's rivers or producing greenhouse gasses." without providing any facts to back up your IMO false claim . 

Do have any proof to back up your claim, or did you just dream it up?

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

There's discussion about tax on cattle farmers in other countries as well.

 

Livestock generate significant amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the planet. As the climate crisis intensifies, governments are studying ways to cut emissions and slow down global warming. One of the potential solutions is to impose a methane tax on cattle owners.

 

https://earth.org/methane-tax-on-cattle/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/tax-meat-cut-methane-emissions-scientists

 

 

You could kill every cow and sheep in NZ and globally it would probably make no difference to methane levels. The NZ tax is seen by everyone I know as virtue signalling, and of no practical significance globally.

It because of this and things like 3 Waters that she became so unpopular.

10 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I suspect that NZ's per capita CO2 contribution is high as well because of the farming, especially if you take into account the deforestation required to make pasture.

What on earth are you on about? Deforestation, what deforestation to make pasture?

The deforestation took place long ago. Most farmland was probably created by early 1900s. Also a large area of the south island high country was removed from being grazed and allowed to revert to natural cover ages ago.

 

BTW do you not understand that pasture captures carbon?

9 hours ago, xylophone said:

I was really talking about the burp/fart tax, rather than the coalmining,

Does NZ have ANY coal mining now? I think they closed the last mine and coal for Huntly has to be imported- another reason Adhern is unpopular.

I'm so looking forward to November when we can dump this government.

It's an election for National to lose, so I hope they don't become complacent and do something really stupid to lose it.

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yet you are saying "So basically farmers did not want to pay tax or clear up their act to stop polluting NZ's rivers or producing greenhouse gasses." without providing any facts to back up your IMO false claim . 

Do have any proof to back up your claim, or did you just dream it up?

It was not a claim. It was a question, because I didn't know why people were saying the farmers hater her..  

 

From posters answers that seemed the reason.  

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What on earth are you on about? Deforestation, what deforestation to make pasture?

The deforestation took place long ago. Most farmland was probably created by early 1900s. Also a large area of the south island high country was removed from being grazed and allowed to revert to natural cover ages ago.

 

BTW do you not understand that pasture captures carbon?

You think there has been no land clearing in recent decades?

 

Pasture captures carbon way less then forest. There is no equivalence.

10 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

ou could kill every cow and sheep in NZ and globally it would probably make no difference to methane levels. The NZ tax is seen by everyone I know as virtue signalling, and of no practical significance globally.

As you said earlier, a huge amount of deforestation happened centuries ago and nowadays New Zealand grows trees for export, so there will be an ebb and flow of statistics in that area.

 

Getting back to the belch/fart tax, whilst we are at it, why don't we kill the cattle in other countries, along with the goats, sheep, giraffes, deer, gazelle, antelopes and wildebeest because they produce methane and nitrous oxide which are labelled "greenhouse gases". Then of course there are elephants, with each one producing enough methane to power a car for 32 km!

 

In the US, dogs and cats produce about 64 million tonnes of methane and nitrous oxide per year, so we could also include those.........and the list goes on, so why don't we just focus on the big and important issues which often begin with an M; man, machines, manufacturing, mining, moving and stationary vehicles, and I'm sure people could think of many more, with fossil fuels probably heading up that list.

 

As you say, the tax proposed by the Labour government was a nonsense and it was just Ardern and her government trying to "curry favour" with the lefties and leaders of other countries.

 

Just imagine the outcry if it was suggested that the government taxed cats and dogs. Hmmm.
 

16 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

It was not a claim. It was a question, because I didn't know why people were saying the farmers hater her..  

 

From posters answers that seemed the reason.  

Hmmmmm. A question requires a question mark. Your post did not have one.

 

If other posters claim that, IMO they are wrong. Farmers dislike her and her entire government because they are making things bad for farmers and some or many may have to sell up because of it.