1. Are pre-1990 forests going to be included in the GHG budget? The Paris Agreement has no requirement to exclude pre-1990 forests (unlike the Kyoyo Protocol) so is it not in farmers interests to at least try and include them?
Trying to make any further goal announcements without clarifying this is pointless.
If the answer is 'we have not decided yet' then ask why the government is already anticipating agriculture must make a 30 year transition to lower emissions when this is not required if they are included...and 'this hasn't been decided yet'
2. Why is James Shaw still talking about the 95% rebate when this is only required for option 3?
3. How many hectares of trees would be required for NZ agriculture to be 'net zero' under the two most likely scenarios of option 2 or option 3?, (This question will force the Government to admit we are there already for option 2)
4. Why do MfE and influential climate scientists like Andy Reisinger still insist that a stabilized Methane flow will continue to warm the planet when the discussion document and commonsense suggest it wont? Why is there still disagreement about such a critical point for agriculture?
5. Why do the majority of farming leaders and government officials still not know the half-life of Methane is 7 years not 12 years. How can you monitor flow rates when you are 40% out on the flow?
6. Why has the Government completely forgotten to mention that option 2 is in fact warming neutral and option 3 will result in a cooling affect? Clarifying this might actually help with public opinion and ultimately the policy outcome.
Some of this is really basic stuff, it's sad to see the industry so poorly represented on such an important issue.