Letters: On farm emissions, meat works, air quality, and Auckland's mayor

Agricultural emissions mainly come through methane - burped out by ruminant livestock like cattle, sheep and deer - but also from nitrous oxide, via sources like fertiliser and urine.

Opinion

Selling doubt and fear
Owen Jennings (NZ Herald, October 13) amplifies the real-life uncertainties of difficult policy into catatonic confusion and points to some vague "international research" that is supposed to erase all previous decades of studies on methane as a powerful greenhouse gas.
Meanwhile, others from Federated Farmers resort to catastrophising hyperbole about how essential action on the methane contributors to climate change will "rip the guts out" of rural New Zealand. No constructive ways are presented to create the transformations needed for our food systems.
These are the classic tactics used by lobby groups that seek to protect the commercial interests of their constituents at the expense of the rest of the population and the environment.
They sell doubt and fear not solutions. Any buyers?
Boyd Swinburn, Professor of Population Nutrition and Global Health, University of Auckland.

Protecting the planet
Our nation's contribution to global emissions is miniscule. Dairy farmers' overall efficiency is world-leading and any forced decrease in production might be picked up by worse emitters. Some farmland is now being used for tree planting (carbon sequestration), consequently growing less food for the planet. And in New Zealand, our farming industries yield more than half our export earnings. So, should we just let farmers off the hook?
Unfortunately there is no correlation between our greenhouse gas emissions (small) and the extreme weather events we will regularly suffer (immensely costly for our tiny population). All the nations of the world have a moral obligation to reduce their footprint, whether big emitters or not; some will model excellent mitigating behaviour; others will do little or nothing.
Aotearoa-New Zealand must do the right thing. We are trying to protect life on this planet, our own included.
B. Darragh, Auckland Central.

Impact on meat works
Okay, so the Government doesn't want to listen to farmer groups about the impracticality/fairness of the proposals around farm emissions and they don't want to heed warnings from economists about the potential for food prices to rise because of this.
But is it too much to ask them to say where they expect the closure of meat works?
Because that is the inevitable consequence of the mass displacement of meat and wool farms with carbon forestry. Hundreds of thousands of stock units have already
been lost, more soon to follow. Job losses in the meat works will be significant. Into the thousands.
So come on, "powers that be", tell us where, so that workers and managers can prepare. The impact is not far away, surely dealing with this is part of your planning?
Richard Alspach, Dargaville.

Down the scale
I know the world, including New Zealand, has to do something urgently about global warming but it seems unfair that NZ farmers who provide essential food for NZ and other countries are penalised for NZ emissions.
Air travel has become almost essential for many business people, including MPs, and for the airlines that transport them. Has anyone suggested that motor racing and rallies should be curtailed?
When we see huge chimneys in other countries belching fumes into the atmosphere, cows seem well down the scale.
R. Edgar, Mt Albert.

Valuable resource
When considering the implications of the proposed Agriculture Emissions Pricing Policy the government and the Greens need to be reminded of Aesop's fable about "killing the goose that laid the golden egg", defined as short-sighted destruction of a valuable resource.
The agriculture industry, particularly the cow, sheep and beef sector, is the largest single contributor to New Zealand's economy. If we wish to continue to enjoy the full benefits of our liberal social welfare society we should be careful what we wish for.
Allan M. Spence, Waiuku.

Benefits from change
It may come to pass that meat will be more expensive … ( trust me, I love a good steak), but it's "harder" on the environment and makes people bigger than the consumption of vegetables does (they have no methane emissions).
Less meat consumption may benefit waistlines and the environment. We may become more agricultural and horticultural than pastoral. Is that a bad thing? Moderation in all things.
Hamish Walsh, Devonport.

Air quality
In order to combat climate change, the BBC and Al Jazeera television stations regularly broadcast air quality levels of all the major cities across Europe and Asia, which serves as a regular check on any progress each city is making on reducing greenhouse conditions.
It would seem to be a very good idea if we did the same in New Zealand. Such a map would identify trouble spots and motivate mayors and their communities to take appropriate action.
Gary Hollis, Mellons Bay.

Need for self-discipline
The time has well and truly come to take action to stop the deterioration of our decent society. A significant minority of our people have no concept of self-discipline. In the absence of disciplined awareness of society's concepts of morality and behaviour, the gloves must come off.
Brainless violence is the outcome of the "kid gloves" approach to education and parenthood … It spawns street thugs from the same mould as Vladimir Putin. It is time to shut down the youth justice system in favour of dispensing adult justice to those young miscreants who must know right from wrong.
Educators have had a 50-year field day with feely-touchy concepts, and this goes hand in hand with teaching the young their "rights" without making them aware that one person's rights may impact adversely on others' rights.
If our people do not want totalitarian measures to curb this criminal behaviour, they must help to instil some discipline and awareness of behavioural boundaries.
Hugh Webb, Hamilton.

Low turnout
Low turnouts are the clearest signal by the electorate of their dissatisfaction with the flawed representation of their priorities. But with no written Constitution, together with
MMP that effectively transfers power from voter consensus to political consensus that has no democratic legitimacy, not voting is their only effective means of protest.
Kenneth Lees, Whangārei.

Out of touch
If Wayne Brown doesn't think that $296,000 is a big salary and it's of so little consequence, perhaps he would like to follow John Key's example and donate his salary to charity?
Brown's comment shows how clearly out of touch and out of sympathy he is with the average Aucklander. Yes, the job of mayor carries huge responsibilities and many top executives earn that much and more, but to wave this in the face of many who are struggling to pay bills is unacceptable from an elected leader.
Auckland ratepayers will be paying Brown's salary, so far from it being "nobody's business", we have a right to know whether he will be putting in the necessary hours to fulfill his duties.
Brown comes across as arrogant, entitled. He was elected by a tiny number of Aucklanders. If he shows himself to be unfit for the job, he can be ousted.
P. Ryder, Manurewa.

Not a mandate
Just over half of 35 per cent of voters is not a vote for Wayne Brown to completely change things, sack good people and turn Auckland upside down. Phil Goff worked so hard on the super city; he says he won't.
Brown obviously doesn't believe in true democracy, where even those who didn't vote need to be listened to. Hopefully the councillors can ameliorate the damage he is about. He says he will work part-time and his $296,000 salary is not much, he doesn't even live in Auckland!
Did you vote for him? I certainly didn't. Simon Wilson warned Auckland. Is Brown a secret hater of Jafas and wishes to change it from super city to a city mess?
Frankie Letford, Hamilton.

Short & sweet

On Wayne Brown
Wayne Brown is like a breath of fresh air. Well actually more like a tornado. Three years should be sufficient time to sort out the bloated, dysfunctional mess that is Auckland. Graham Fleetwood, Botany Downs.

I hope Wayne Brown is going for a recount in the seats he lost when late votes were counted. It seems very strange that so many late votes were cast in such a low-voting election and they all went one way. Jock MacVicar, Hauraki.

On farm emissions
The edict from above seems tantamount to "Let them eat pine forests": a climate change pseudo-solution very hard to swallow. J. Livingstone, Remuera.

The Government has just announced that it will target farmers' emissions (not the farmers themselves though). On that basis they should target the 10 per cent of New Zealanders who are vegetarians as well. Dave Miller, Tauranga.

On Russia
Mr Russian Ambassador, please note that I have stopped drinking Russian vodka and have persuaded all my friends to do likewise. Keith Duggan, Browns Bay.

On food supply
Dairy, meat, and horticulture are the backbone of this country, both locally and for export, yet we continually hang our farmers and growers out to dry. Worrying times ahead, especially when we are playing around with food. Glenn Forsyth, Taupō.

The Premium Debate

Shane Te Pou: Voters want new ideas and inspiration

Shane, we want substance over aspiration ... over the past five years we've been fed a diet of aspiration and attempted inspiration and we're over it. We need change and we need it now. Let's give those pushing for change a chance, just like we gave the current government a very very long chance. Christine A.

For the first time ever ... I think this writer is on the money. Bruce B.

The comment that Labour is wearied by years of guiding the country through Covid is just more spin. Covid did not start in 2017 and the major reforms he mentions are ones not mandated by the electorate. The more extreme reforms this Government is looking at are totally unwanted and will never see the light of day anyway. These will magically disappear when Labour's polling dips to 25 per cent and starts to tank further. Tony M.

Get the basics right then focus on change at a sustainable pace. And do it in a considered and planned way. Too much airy-fairy with no thought nor care to consequence at the moment. For me, and I see it daily in my own workplace, the blind ideology is pervading our decision-making. That only one view is the correct view. That it seems to be focused on the "we know best" attitude. Which, of course, isn't always the case at all. Cheryl P.

Yes, many voters don't care if the name is Labour or National, left or right. But they do care about Labour's non-transparency, non-listening and their anti-democratic ideologies and their failures to deliver and spend money wisely. "Labour being wearied by guiding us through Covid" just about made my coffee come back up - it can't get any soppier and by now most people recognise it as a feeble excuse. Potter O.

"In moments like this, voters look for vision and energy, whether that's coming from the left or the right. It's the boring centrists who are in trouble." Well, that's your take on the matter, Shane. From where I sit, for Shaw to call Luxon "confused" yesterday about climate change was the issue. Shaw, the Green Party leader, did not address farmers' and the people's real concerns about which country will replace providing food for the world when our productive land is turned into trees, and at what detriment to the climate. Answering that question is more important to us than "vision and energy". The same with local politics. We want our rates well spent, thanks. The mayor needs to cull wasteful spending. That's our concern. Sara M.

We know you're trying to soften the blow, but you're wrong, Shane. People want this Labour Government gone and have taken it out on candidates in local elections who affiliate themselves with incompetence. Mark W.