Methane qualification important

LETTER

Re: An inconvenient truth about livestock, October 26 column.

It took me a while to find the “most recent” “analysis of international experts”, quoted by Sandra Faulkner. It interested me, as I was keen to read how a biogenic pathway of just 7 percent reduction in methane from ruminant animals could achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The analysis referred to turned out to be a six-page paper commissioned by NZ Meat Industry Assoc. and Dairy Companies Assoc. NZ by a post-graduate student, Nick Leach at Oxford University. He states “for future warming at or below 1.5°C in 2050” “biogenic emissions must reduce by 7 percent below 2017 levels if all other sources of methane reduce to zero by 2050”. The qualification that all other sources of methane must reduce to nil, not mentioned by Sandra, is important, and at present temperatures, impossible to achieve.

Methane is thought to be one of the prime drivers of the Permian mass extinction around 252 million years ago, when an estimated 95 percent of all species were wiped out. It was thought to have been triggered by volcanic action in Siberia warming the shallow Arctic seas and releasing frozen ice containing methane (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Currently greenhouse gases are warming those same seas and already we have seen methane levels in the atmosphere increase 143 percent, at least partly due to methane plumes in shallow Arctic seas and melting of permafrost on land.

Nasa stated that in 2012 they saw methane levels over swamps in the Arctic 650 times higher than normal. We cannot stop this leakage unless global temperatures are reduced, and this cannot be done unless GHGs not only stop being emitted but are also removed from the atmosphereI agree with the second point made by Sandra Faulkner that planting plantation forest is not going to solve our emissions problem. In fact, the quickest way of reducing emissions is by reducing methane emissions rapidly. The only methane emissions we can control are those caused by leaking natural gas and those produced by animals.

Bill Hambidge

Re: An inconvenient truth about livestock, October 26 column.

It took me a while to find the “most recent” “analysis of international experts”, quoted by Sandra Faulkner. It interested me, as I was keen to read how a biogenic pathway of just 7 percent reduction in methane from ruminant animals could achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The analysis referred to turned out to be a six-page paper commissioned by NZ Meat Industry Assoc. and Dairy Companies Assoc. NZ by a post-graduate student, Nick Leach at Oxford University. He states “for future warming at or below 1.5°C in 2050” “biogenic emissions must reduce by 7 percent below 2017 levels if all other sources of methane reduce to zero by 2050”. The qualification that all other sources of methane must reduce to nil, not mentioned by Sandra, is important, and at present temperatures, impossible to achieve.

Methane is thought to be one of the prime drivers of the Permian mass extinction around 252 million years ago, when an estimated 95 percent of all species were wiped out. It was thought to have been triggered by volcanic action in Siberia warming the shallow Arctic seas and releasing frozen ice containing methane (Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Currently greenhouse gases are warming those same seas and already we have seen methane levels in the atmosphere increase 143 percent, at least partly due to methane plumes in shallow Arctic seas and melting of permafrost on land.

Nasa stated that in 2012 they saw methane levels over swamps in the Arctic 650 times higher than normal. We cannot stop this leakage unless global temperatures are reduced, and this cannot be done unless GHGs not only stop being emitted but are also removed from the atmosphereI agree with the second point made by Sandra Faulkner that planting plantation forest is not going to solve our emissions problem. In fact, the quickest way of reducing emissions is by reducing methane emissions rapidly. The only methane emissions we can control are those caused by leaking natural gas and those produced by animals.

Bill Hambidge

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

G R Webb - 11 days ago
So Bill, if we are to control methane emissions, how many animals do we kill to make a difference?

Bill Hambidge - 8 days ago
Reducing the number of ruminants is not the only way to reduce emissions - although currently it is the most effective. Genetic changes, when breeding, offer big reductions, and even changes of feed and management on experimental farms in the Waikato have achieved emission reductions of up to 14 percent. At present though ruminant numbers are growing globally from under 3 billion 40 years ago to nearly 4 billion now. Take a look at the stark warning issued four days ago by over 11,000 scientists. Maybe that will persuade you change is necessary.

G R Webb - 6 days ago
Could Bill tell us which political party in New Zealand has issued a veto to genetic changes? But it would be nice if you would answer my earlier question.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    Are you worried that too much farmland will be converted to forestry due to the Government's climate change policies?