1. Why did the Government withhold the fact stabilised Methane does not contribute to further warming from the entire submission process? Did you not consider this relevant to the discussion given the Paris Agreement goal is specifically to limit further warming?
2. Why is zero warming in 2018 not 'ambitious' enough for farmers when CO2 emitters only plan to get to zero warming by 2050?
3. Why are farmers targeted under the Government ETS proposal? If a CO2 emitter offsets 100% of their emissions (zero warming) it is revenue neutral. If a Methane emitter stabilises their emissions (zero warming) they still pay an ETS tax.
4. Why does the Government insist on giving farmers a 95% 'subsidy' when it is not required? The more advanced and accurate GWP* metric will zero emissions at their current level. Saying farmers need a 'subsidy' only serves to further mislead the public.
5. Why is the Government targeting farmers with massive land use change, an ETS tax and reducing stock numbers when OIA requests confirm they have no information to suggest agriculture is even contributing to climate change?