tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post1924331989025295358..comments2022-02-10T19:56:42.495+13:00Comments on Agricultural Emissions Dialogue: The complexity of the diet and climate change debateMotu Researchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02438001502924434514noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post-44981704501500906252013-07-04T07:57:29.456+12:002013-07-04T07:57:29.456+12:00if I got my units wrong, they should be 0.2 tonne ...if I got my units wrong, they should be 0.2 tonne Co2/tonne of meat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post-81551390975563312252013-07-04T07:11:08.234+12:002013-07-04T07:11:08.234+12:00Thank you for the clarification. I was not entire...Thank you for the clarification. I was not entirely sure if this was being said and I didn't want to assume. I agree that the factors presented in the table do not take into consideration the other components of meat production in the ETS, these may be picked up elsewhere (e.g. fossil fuels for transport, feed, etc). Feed procurement in NZ is very dependent on a number of issues (weather, sourcing location, amount required based on livestock numbers, etc). I don't think a 'set' number to determine a carbon footprint (or a full life cycle value) would be very realistic in NZ (based on feed procurement, production locations relative to supply chains, etc). But it could serve as a strong marketing tool (especially highlighting differences between nationally produced and internationally produced meats). I agree the numbers used for the Darmon or McDiarmid study are not comparable to the tabled numbers - as they serve a different purposes. However, if you follow, for example the poultry emission factor, it went from 0.8 to 0.5 now to 0.2 (kg co2/tonne of meat - the units in the table at least for poultry are wrong). There was scientific and industry based information reported to scientific and governmental panels in order to improve the NZ GHG inventory, which in turn also improved the ETS values. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post-66072274719450095122013-07-04T05:41:40.558+12:002013-07-04T05:41:40.558+12:00The data in the table are from industry. Please se...The data in the table are from industry. Please see the MAF reports - Dr. FickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post-26984553891221922722013-07-03T14:27:15.151+12:002013-07-03T14:27:15.151+12:00The emission factors in the table are New Zealand ...The emission factors in the table are New Zealand government factors for the potential inclusion of agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme not ‘industry’ data. As Troy Baisden points out they cover only methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Any use of fossil-fuel based energy within New Zealand to produce or transport feed (and any other part of the product life-cycle) would be covered elsewhere in the emissions trading scheme – in the part that is already active. If feed were imported, its emissions would not be fully covered. Thus these figures are not directly comparable to the Darmon or McDiarmid numbers for the US and Europe. We do not have equivalent full life-cycle numbers for poultry or pork. <br /><br />Suzi KerrAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post-53327376554688902642013-07-02T07:41:59.058+12:002013-07-02T07:41:59.058+12:00Actually the emission factors are complete, in a s...Actually the emission factors are complete, in a sense that they utilize: industry data on energy, protein levels and other important components in animal feed up to slaughter, industry data on how the animals of grown up to slaughter and data on the amount of excreta produced over a lifetime of an animal. What this 'industry' data does not offer is what individual companies can do in terms of a carbon footprint. This is seen as more of a company specific marketing angle and rather not an 'across' the industry issue. So from this perspective - these are very complete.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post-29399726250532295002013-06-30T05:46:09.347+12:002013-06-30T05:46:09.347+12:00Can you please clarify what you are trying to say?...Can you please clarify what you are trying to say? I do not understand what a product footprint a.k.a. an individual company-based (and possibly a marketing tool) has to do with emissions liability?Dr. Ficknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post-12290105163662281122013-06-29T00:03:59.916+12:002013-06-29T00:03:59.916+12:00Can you please clarify how these emission factors ...Can you please clarify how these emission factors are incomplete? I do not understand your analogy to grain growing. If, to raise 1 chicken to slaughter it produces x amount of CO2 equivalent emissions. Because a chicken will produce emissions during its life, then aren't the emissions of producing that chicken accounted for?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2637588490820540418.post-73453755923272106212013-05-18T11:18:14.077+12:002013-05-18T11:18:14.077+12:00I have one seemingly important comment on this wee...<br />I have one seemingly important comment on this week’s blog. There may be something worth clarifying or correcting.<br /><br />It seems to me that the emission factors in legislation are a very incomplete comparison to the other work you’re citing, with the worst case being the very low emissions for poultry. The ETS won't account for emissions associated with the product footprint that are already accounted for elsewhere, either in other countries or in the supply chain, right? So in the case of chickens, growing imported grain is likely to be accounted for in another country's inventory, or presumably somewhere else in the ETS even if feed is grown in NZ. Also, since fossil fuel emissions are accounted for at an obligation point somewhere else, these won't appear. The small emissions accounted for in the ETS are probably from excreta nitrogen, which indirectly produces nitrous oxide?<br /><br />Troy Baisden<br />R Cretneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04726957137676664695noreply@blogger.com