Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Not_Bill_Hicks t1_irvkpwn wrote

without reading the article I can say with 99% confidence that this is a tax on greenhouse emissions, not exclusively 'cow burps'

246

Soxyo t1_irvsqm9 wrote

you're correct, although the taxes are specifically for greenhouse emissions produced by farms and livestock so I guess technically the headline is correct

62

Zero_Karma_Guy t1_irzoxol wrote

It's simple we can just outlaw eating food and using leather.

2

zachtheperson t1_irxgnui wrote

Yeah, I fucking hate headlines like this. Pure sensationalism and stoking the fires without providing any useful information.

10

One-Relative5556 t1_irw0pwd wrote

These are the kinds of headlines that the right wing sees, and then uses as their argument. “Crazy liberal countries like New Zealand tax cow burps… What’s next? Are they gonna tax me when I fart? Snort snort”

68

czs5056 t1_irwe4r5 wrote

Oh goodness, if they taxed me per fart, I would be taxed into homelessness while the IRS garnished all of my wages.

18

productofpainnz t1_irwp28t wrote

I am a new Zealander and this is absolutely ridiculous. We already get fucked from beingtaxed through the roof for everything. They are just going to screw small farmers. It's not like any of us in this country can get ahead we are being taxed so much. Just look at our male suicide rates and work out how come that mite be. There is nothing to work towards here

6

ends_abruptl t1_irx2ng9 wrote

I am a New Zealander, and unfortunately we have right wingers like the wally above me, who would rather see the world burn than do something about climate change.

11

moabthecrab t1_irx4jbj wrote

Most people's philosophy these days is "let's do something about climate change without changing anything about my lifestyle".

7

102la t1_irxp7ir wrote

Headlines about taxing cow burps w/o fining the corporations will always be treated as ridiculous and meaningless. People are so concerned about future. What about now? Wealth inequality is through the roof than ever before. Not everyone has the luxury of thinking about climate.

2

cbf1232 t1_irx4ldf wrote

There are ways to reduce cow methane output...apparently feeding a small amount of seaweed makes methane output drop dramatically.

So this may just provide a financial incentive for farmers to actually do the things that we already know will help.

6

marcus_centurian t1_irxhehb wrote

The red seaweed used for this is very difficult to grow. I think there has been an Australian startup on the books since the early 2010s trying to commercialize this. Nobody can figure out how to make it at scale and to get the cows to eat it, since it is salty and they seem to not eat as much on a mixed ration.

1

IAFarmLife t1_irxvjyx wrote

I don't see how the red seaweed being salty would turn the cows off since they crave salt. We add salt to nearly every cattle diet on my farm. On pasture they have free choice salt provided too.

1

marcus_centurian t1_irxw3qq wrote

They have a small level of aversion which can be overcome. The researchers at UC Davis used it in a molasses lick. I'm actually working on similar technology at work also in a molasses lick. https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/news/can-seaweed-cut-methane-emissions-on-dairy-farms

0

corizano t1_irxx25z wrote

Asparagopsis is the name of the seaweed, cows in Australia are eating it no worries (actually controlling how much they eat is the problem) as for the growing of it; it’s been possible for them to grow it on oyster racks in the ocean and they are about to start mass cultivation indoors on the eyre peninsula in SA. It’s already had huge results and proven to work with CSIRO studies

1

FilthyTerrible t1_is0l1tm wrote

...complained the guy who lives in paradise. You are so hard done by. It's a tribute to your fortitude you've held on this long having the misfortune of having been born in New Zealand as one of the globes top 2% of wealthiest humans on the planet. Thank God you have a supercomputer in your pocket that enables you to post your plight and reach out to the rest of the world. Where do we send the emergency humanitarian aid?

3

pressedbread t1_irwvtxy wrote

> the right wing sees, and then uses as their argument. “Crazy liberal

Where we tax green house gas instead of regulating it, then let the market reduce emissions on their own? I'd think right wing would agree if they were sincere on their conservativism or willingness to address climate change.

Real problem is that conservatives aren't sincere, they are corporate stooges who aren't addressing catastrophic man-made global climate change.

4

Tryignan t1_irwh5z6 wrote

These are the kind of headlines that news sites belonging the uber-rich capitalists write to make the right wing stop the rich being taxed. Don't attribute things to incompetence, when they should be attributed to malice.

2

Sgozzy t1_irxau7z wrote

In all fairness, this is pretty crazy. How do you even measure and quantify that?

2

LupusDeusMagnus t1_irxjajl wrote

You can make pretty good estimates by what cows are eating, the number of cows, and their breed.

4

marcus_centurian t1_irxhwu9 wrote

There are three ways- a satellite company out of Canada has a GPS style grid of small satellites that has been able to detect methane plumes from space. The other is a mechanical device that uses the RFID embedded in the cow's tag to identify the cow and then measure the methane output. Lastly, you put the cow in a neatly sealed cell and monitor all gases going in and out of the cell.

2

Sgozzy t1_is6672d wrote

lol that is sweet. I have all kind of questions about how accurate it would be but I love that people are actually measuring this

2

marcus_centurian t1_is66lzd wrote

The whole cell is accurate, but quite expensive and awkward. The ground device is also expensive but not as much and only is cost effective if part of a carbon credit project and the satellites are good enough, but most of their focus is on fossil fuel plumes and other than a proof of concept, they don't seem to monitor cattle on a regular basis, even if they could.

1

mattyandco t1_irxnxo3 wrote

You measure a few cows, get some averages and use that average with the number of cows a farmer has.

1

gh0stbrain t1_irzay6w wrote

Crazy liberal countries with their 6 month waiting list for basic hospital procedures.

Crazy liberal countries with their 2 years waiting list to see a therapist.

Crazy liberal countries being top 3 for suicide rate on the planet.

Crazy liberal countries being top 5 for domestic violence.

Crazy liberal countries being top 5 for child molestation and rape.

Crazy liberal countries forcing a stay-at-home mandate that skyrocketed unemployment.

Crazy liberal country forces population to get injections and low-key admits afterwards they don't really do shit.

Crazy liberal country finds way to tax poor people even further, by taxing the food they grow which is round-house subsidized by the same people taking their money to meet trade obligations with China.

​

Dude there's a lot of reasons why NZ is a liberal shithole, now piss off.

0

ruffmaestro t1_irvs0dp wrote

Breaking news! New Zealand proposes taxing a kind of carbon emission, in order to reduce carbon emissions! How weird!

27

kekkres t1_irwm6kf wrote

Methane emissions not carbon, to be pedantic

−15

cbf1232 t1_irx5bl1 wrote

Methane has carbon in it, and is way worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

7

The_Figaro t1_irw8p6i wrote

A bit late to the cause its night in nz but thought I should clear things up. Lots of talk about beef in the comments nz agricultural emissions are primarily from dairy cows.

23

elsanto9764 t1_irvnh1o wrote

Agriculture is the largest contributor to methane emissions globally. Livestock, in particular cattle, produce a significant portion of the methane in our atmosphere. Cows produce most of this from the front end. Methane itself contributes about ~14% of greenhouse emissions.

14

jasusquisto t1_irvw5wr wrote

But agriculture is also the most productive per emission so between cattle and jets flying to Davos the choice should not be cattle.

14

elsanto9764 t1_irvy2z5 wrote

I agree there are other avenues besides piling the heap on struggling farmers, I was just providing a little more context. Seems like one of the contributing factors however is also to push people towards more sustainable eating habits by upping the price on beef

3

jasusquisto t1_irvyslr wrote

I agree that this decisions may come from the fact that we all know that people have to be "forced" to change eatong habits. But the healthier options aren't really all that affordable yet. So maybe the order of things should be reverted. Put organic /bio/plant-based options in a affordable price cap , then increase the vost for everything else.

0

YpsilonY t1_irw7lgc wrote

Not sure where that myth comes from, but when I stopped eating meat, my spending on food decreased by about 1/3. Meat is expensive.

4

jasusquisto t1_irw8jkt wrote

Beef is , chicken not as much . It changes from place to place also probably. I mean , India is a pretty much vegetarian sub-continent do i guess i can try to produce some of their recipeed on my journey into a vegetarian.

2

YpsilonY t1_irw7a8k wrote

That's right. There is no choice. If we want to keep this planet habitable in the long term, both need to be scaled back significantly.

1

jasusquisto t1_irw8q5x wrote

Yep , but conciously, not has we did with going electric

0

Hemingwavy t1_irx2fpp wrote

Cattle is basically the most wasteful regular food type. It's better to eat chicken or pork from the other side of the planet than a cow raised next door. It takes 8 calories in to get 1 calorie of beef out.

1

corizano t1_irxxx3r wrote

So by phasing out cattle what do you propose we do with grassland pastures? Yes feedlotting is an environmental disaster but cattle raised regeneratively are actually drawing more carbon than the emissions they produce

0

Hemingwavy t1_iryeq6p wrote

>So by phasing out cattle what do you propose we do with grassland pastures?

Pave over them and build skeeball arcades.

> Yes feedlotting is an environmental disaster but cattle raised regeneratively are actually drawing more carbon than the emissions they produce

And it's cool to drive your hummer to the shops if each time you do it you buy millions of tons of carbon offsets.

You ever seen regeneratively raised cattle at the supermarket? No? You ever seen it at restaurants? Again no?

Found the Yank.

0

teoshie t1_irvwrpr wrote

I hate this era of living in the most obnoxious and misleading news titles designed to anger people

11

Numerous_Vegetable_3 t1_irw1s1l wrote

So industrial entities are responsible for 80% of all carbon emissions. We know what the issue is, but the rich have us fighting over stupid trivial shit like this so we can't all collectively get our shit together & see them for the frauds they are.

11

YpsilonY t1_irwamy7 wrote

What do you mean, industrial entities? What do you think diary farms are?

Global CO2 emission sources can be divided into five sectors of approximately equal size: Electricity generation, Heating, Transport, Industrial processes and Agriculture. We need to reduce emissions in all of these sectors. Agricultural emissions*,* largely coming from animals, are anything but trivial.

26

Numerous_Vegetable_3 t1_irwdbf8 wrote

Where I'm from, dairy farms aren't really 'industrial entities', and I think that's more what I'm getting at. Sure, giant corporations making mega farms are NOT GOOD and should be held accountable. The family down the road from me that has been farming for 5 generations? Nothing wrong with them & their practices.

I just don't think farming should ever be monopolized the way it has been. The only reason it's so destructive as an industry is because actual farmers get jack shit for their crop, can't repair their own equipment legally, and are forced to use certain brands of seed & cow feed. Eventually they can't sustain the costs & have to sell to a giant corporate farming entity.

Yeah, farming is pollutive & destructive on a large scale, but people's insatiable greed is what bastardized the industry & made it that.

It's better to solve the problem by actually identifying the issue, and that issue is greed & forced growth by shareholders. Taxing Joe Farmer every time his cow burps is ridiculous. That's not going to solve the major problems with the farming industry or reduce the pollution in any way. Forcing farming entities to have better practices & fining them for refusing to change would be much more effective, and actually solve some of the pollution issue.

−5

cbf1232 t1_irx56hz wrote

Here in Canada most dairy farms are definitely industrial entities in the sense that they've got hundreds of cattle and are largely automated.

And we already know that it's possible to significantly reduce cow methane production by feeding them a small amount of seaweed...there are probably other ways as well.

By taxing them for cow burps and then giving them money back if they do the right thing, it provides a financial incentive to do the right thing. This is known as a "Pigouvian tax" in economics.

9

reg3flip t1_irvoddb wrote

You will eat ze bugs

10

OkraSlush t1_irvpnvi wrote

Are people protesting carbon emissions taxation or is everyone just ok with this shit (it's not been implemented where I live yet)

4

jasusquisto t1_irvwel3 wrote

This happenned in the Netherlands first and it's gonna happen everywhere. People really do not associate farms and food as easily as you would expect. They think food os still gonna produce itself by magic. Plus , the alternative is going to be importing food from somewhere else and pretend we are green has we are doong with pretty much everything else already

6

YpsilonY t1_irw638t wrote

People also do not associate agriculture and climate change as easily as you would expect. If we don't reduce these emissions drastically, producing food will become a whole lot harder, and therefor more expensive, over the coming decades.

So what will it be? Medium price increase now, or increasingly larger price increases over the coming decades?

3

scottish_elena t1_irw84mk wrote

ok, first off, more than half of the food we produce is wasted because corporations would rather let people starve that let them eat food that they are not able to sell.

second, not because we reduce production of meat it means we dont have anything alse to eat, you know that alternatives to cows exist right?

0

jasusquisto t1_irw9277 wrote

Yeah i do , and those alternatives are the biggest part of the waste you mentioned. Now , will corporations say "hey now that people are buying more of this , i'm not wasting so i can actually be cheaper than before" or " due to the higher demand i have to jack up prices" ?

0

scottish_elena t1_iryavef wrote

Do you have a source to back up the claim that most of the wasted food can be considered "an alternative to meat"? and the hypotetical problem of prices can be fixed by supporting worker unions along with goverment regulations, its not hard to find solution to problems corporations made up for profits.

1

DBSTKjS t1_irvtei5 wrote

People should be okay with this.

−1

Sylvaritius t1_irvtsmo wrote

Theres a lot of ways to help the enviroment, but you really wanna ve careful when fucking with the food supply, more taxes on farmers just means more expensive food.

8

AdventurousListen483 t1_irvu73u wrote

No it means that certain foods are more expensive to produce, incentivizing the supply chain to decarbonize

5

krilltucky t1_irvv8fg wrote

Taxing big businesses is just taxing customers with extra steps

2

MeanGreanHare t1_irvw4bp wrote

Unless price controls are introduced, which tends to just make the whole situation worse.

1

Sylvaritius t1_irvufv6 wrote

So you expect cattle farmers to switch to plants over night?

−3

hilburn t1_irvwip8 wrote

Different feedstock can change the carbon footprint of cattle significantly

4

Sylvaritius t1_irvx6i2 wrote

Ah, thats pretty interesing, got any link for that? Would love to read about it. That sounds like a more reasonable switch.

−1

hilburn t1_irvyh9o wrote

https://www.wur.nl/en/article/changing-the-cows-diet-reduces-methane-and-nitrogen-emissions.htm

4

Sylvaritius t1_irvyvmo wrote

Thanks a lot, really interesting read.

1

hilburn t1_irvzah3 wrote

No worries, there was also something I saw a while ago about seaweed also being good but I can't remember the details

2

Sylvaritius t1_irvzup5 wrote

Oh that sounds interesing, lotta space in the ocean.

1

laggerzback t1_irw2om0 wrote

My thing is, a lot of people are equating gaseousness to the cause of the carbon footprint. But the thing is, how is that the contributing factor when at the end of the day, it’s all circulating around?

Like, i remember ads going around telling people to stop burping and farting to protect the ozone layer.

1

Sylvaritius t1_irw36dk wrote

The methane molecule is created by the cow, not ingested, its a reaction that happens as it digests food. The article linked mentions it as well.

1

laggerzback t1_irw7tv5 wrote

Not exactly the cow. It’s the bacteria that helps the cow digest the food.

Even for humans when we eat certain vegetables like beans or broccoli, we have bacteria that breaks down some of the food and it makes us gaseous.

Yeah, methane can carry some heat, but it’s not exactly what is making our environments bad. If anything, it’s transport more or less leaving the carbon footprint. Here, I have a video that explains the whole methane theory from 2006. It does explain the errors from the UN documentary and how animal populations from times before certain eras like colonialization were much larger and their output contributed very little to the carbon footprint.

One thing i do agree with is that there is a large problem with indusialization. And i would propose more innovative ideas like cloning meat to reduce the amount of animals being inhumanely treated and exploited in industrial livestock farms.

1

Sylvaritius t1_irw8w21 wrote

Yeah, i mean i dont think farming is the first place making cuts is relevant, its n incredibly important industry, and yeah absolutely, scalable lab meat is the future.

1

laggerzback t1_irwxiaq wrote

In a way? Yep. I think so. On one hand, i know it would be profitable for the meat industry in the long run. Means less livestock having to get killed and waste so much resources while at the same time it covers the ethics of cruel rearing that does happen in animal processing places.

On the other hand, you might have people who have an aversion to lab grown meat and they might give up meat altogether when they realize lab grown meat is everywhere....

1

Sylvaritius t1_irwxxcq wrote

Maybe yeah, i think there will still be a market for real meat no matter what, but if it can be significantly reduced in an economical way, then that could help free some land and help the enviroment.

1

laggerzback t1_irx0rba wrote

I’m sure there will be, but it’ll likely be local butcheries and Farmers’ Markets that sell them.

I know speaking in the US since I live here, Livestock farming takes a small percentage of land here. Most of our farms deal with commercial agriculture, like the farming of corn and soy. Given a lot of our processed foods contain them both or some byproduct, that meets demand of food here.

1

DBSTKjS t1_irvty7x wrote

Changing the food supply so that our food is far more plant based isn't just good, it's inevitable.

−8

Wookinbing t1_irw3abn wrote

Plant base foods also emit a ton of carbon emissions in their respective industries. Furthermore studies have shown cattle can be a carbon sink if their diet is grassfed rather than the cowcorn we normally feed them. Lastly we got a carbon tax here in canada and it made not much of a difference in emissions. It made everything else much more expensive though.

5

jasusquisto t1_irvwtl6 wrote

Nothing wrong with plant based food but it won't naturally equate clean production. You still have GMOs and pesticides that you should ban or control properly

−1

DBSTKjS t1_irvx8bu wrote

Oh, of course there's other things unsustainable practices in industrial scale farming, but we can do more than one thing.

Phasing out meat from our diets is just a matter of thermodynamics. The amount of resources needed to feed animals to get them ready for butchering would produce more food if put towards growing food.

4

jasusquisto t1_irvxh9a wrote

Undeniable yep , but still the taxing won't really produce this kind of outcome i'm afraid.

0

YpsilonY t1_irw6mfv wrote

Who's that? It increases the price for animal based food without an increase in plant based food. Thereby making the former less and the latter more competitive. That is literally the way you control consumption in a capitalist system.

3

jasusquisto t1_irw7f0r wrote

Where does it not increase the price of plant based food? If we shift into plant based food without guaranteeing the increase of production , it will increase the plant based food price for sure. I'm not saying it is what i want to happen i'm saying it is what is likely to happen .

0

Raz0rking t1_irvxzbt wrote

>You still have GMOs
>
>that you should ban or control properly

Why banning gmo?

2

jasusquisto t1_irvyjgd wrote

The banning was for pesticides. Sorry , bad phrasing.

2

ash_274 t1_irw1q7k wrote

Go ahead an ban it. Sri Lanka would like a word

1

jasusquisto t1_irw1wgp wrote

It wasn't all that simple in sri lanka. The guy went balistic and did it overnight.

2

ash_274 t1_irw3p7e wrote

Wether you do it overnight or over a decade you have the same problem: you go from feeding 3000 people per acre to only feeding 1500 people per acre. Unless you have half your agricultural land unused, can create more arable land (difficult to do quickly and long-term), your economy can afford supplemental imports in perpetuity from trusted sources that would never put political pressure on you some time in the future, or you can convince your population to starve or die off willingly, you’re going to have a bad time

0

OkraSlush t1_irvtk8n wrote

Give me a good logical reason why I should be taxed for a natural emission

−4

DBSTKjS t1_irvtpyq wrote

Industrial scale animal farming is natural? News to me

8

edoggz t1_irwqbff wrote

the best part about it is how the price increased in everything just gets passed on to the middle class

4

ash_274 t1_irvrkp3 wrote

So, change the feed to one that produces less methane in the digestive process?

No, just tax it to make it more expensive. Except that while that may reduce some demand, it can also just raise the price to the point where imported beef is less expensive, so they end up raising the same quantity of cows on a global level, but the New Zealand ranchers and processors aren’t getting the business; and more energy is used and more emissions are generated to import it.

Then, as there is less and less domestic beef production, the lower and lower tax generation from it and the government has to keep raising the taxes to maintain the expected revenue and it creates a feedback loop that accelerates the offshoring of the industry.

3

The_Figaro t1_irw994l wrote

Just for context. This is mostly addressing dairy cows not beef, but they are included too. Also all cows in nz are grass fed only. Other than supplemental feed e.g. seaweed I would be very surprised if changes to the feed were the outcome in nz.

9

ash_274 t1_irwxptm wrote

They could add a supplement that potentially would cut down on the methane

2

ruffmaestro t1_irvs88q wrote

Do you not think that taxing the emissions would encourage the New Zealand beef industry to switch to a less methane producing feed?

5

ash_274 t1_irw1ith wrote

Does the bill have an out for that? Does it include measurements and taxing on the results or is it just a tax per head?

2

brainybuge t1_iryiep8 wrote

dairy* industry, and less methane producing than grass?

1

AdventurousListen483 t1_irvufvw wrote

Well you can’t force what products people buy. You can but it takes a huge amount of legislation…instead you over tax the bad stuff so people gravitate towards the better option

3

hypatiatextprotocol t1_irvuwkc wrote

>creating a feedback loop

Taxes lost from methane-producing cows will be gained from non-methane-producing cows and other non-beef products. There doesn't have to be a loss of government revenue.

−1

Larry_Phischman t1_irw4d6a wrote

Or just install fume hoods over cattle barns. A funnel shaped roof with an aperture at the center. Apply a small negative pressure (suction), and collect all the free methane. Sell it for extra income. You can also process manure in bio reactors to extract even more methane. Then either use the depleted manure as fertilizer or burn it in plasma gasifiers, which produce syngas. It’s free money!

3

joiedevivre4 t1_irvysnj wrote

So let's think this through ... Farmer owns cows. People eat his products. Cows fart (so do humans so to be fair, we should tax human farts, too). People tax cow farts and burps. Farmer can't afford to pay taxes per head of cattle so he reduces inventory. Farmer no longer can feed people who eat his products ... people go hungry. (Or die from eating too many man-made products that also require a bigger carbon footprint).

Seems logical to me.

Edit: Oh, BTW ... Farmer and his friends all still have meat on their tables because his neighbors still benefit from the farmer/rancher's work. But all you city dem/libs ... I hope you like the world you've created.

2

YpsilonY t1_irw9bcu wrote

>Farmer owns cows. People eat his products. Cows fart. People tax cow farts and burps. Farmer can't afford to pay taxes per head of cattle so...

I'm with you this far, but then you go off the rails a bit. Here's what actually happens:

... Farmer raises prices to keep up with higher production cost. Animal products are now more expensive to buy. People change their diets to more plant and less animal based. Plant based food is now more in demand so framer expands production into areas previously used to produce animal feed crops. Emissions decrease. Land use decreases. Nobody starves.

Also, footnote: Yes, humans fart too. But humans have a different diets and are considerably smaller then cows. Thus human fart emissions are negligible in comparison.

6

belovedDiosDeVino t1_irw3spi wrote

The other day I was like, why haven’t they monetized ambiente breathing air. I mean we a absolutely need it to live. Surely there must be a way to charge people for some thing they cannot live without.

2

fuzzybat23 t1_irwrtia wrote

Cows with cybernetic implants that upload fart and burp data to the cloud... Technology has finally not gone far enough.

2

kcaJkcalB t1_iryfdye wrote

New zeland is an insane place

2

Senior-Sharpie t1_irw98aa wrote

Yeah, think of the amount of jobs to be created. Just imagine being at a party when someone asks you what you do for a living… “I count cow burps”!

1

QuestionableAI t1_irwrd2g wrote

Well ... lots of job opportunities for folks having to stand around in the fields and count those farts or burps. So, partial win?

1

[deleted] t1_irwsj06 wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_irwsj33 wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

BiddyDibby t1_irxeml7 wrote

Livestock agriculture is the single largest contributor to methane in the atmosphere. It also uses up an obscene amount of land that could be better utilized (or not utilized). People also eat way too much meat. Taxing this is a no brainer.

1

cmilla646 t1_iry3mvc wrote

All New Zealand bovine will attend an etiquette course. They will be raised and instructed as ladies and be expected to act accordingly.

Everyone knows ladies don’t fart. And therefore it should be implied they don’t burp as well.

1

[deleted] t1_iryamj1 wrote

[removed]

1

AutoModerator t1_iryamkt wrote

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

DaimonionSaint t1_iryydxk wrote

Farmers, taking a page from Volkswagen's playbook, will now teach their cows to burp less while under emission test.

1

Yalesly t1_irzmpuy wrote

This is the best idea ever. What about sheep farts?

1

TDYDave2 OP t1_irzmz5d wrote

In New Zealand, those are just known as mating calls. >!/j!<

0

carolizzy81 t1_irvy88d wrote

cows are not the problem

0

YpsilonY t1_irw7vum wrote

So where does all the methane come from?

5

carolizzy81 t1_irx0xjd wrote

There are a variety of industrial sources. Oil and natural gas systems, coal mining, combustion...

2

lordlossxp t1_irw935t wrote

Or you know do something that doesnt involve an animals bodily function and ban private jets

0

CorrectlyMurky t1_irx76n3 wrote

Agricultural emissions are NZ's biggest source of greenhouse gases (they make up nearly half)

6

Corka t1_irzumzo wrote

Well this sounds familiar. I'm an NZer, and whenever a carbon tax is proposed there are headlines about the "loony left" wanting to tax farts. Doesn't matter that animal farts weren't talked about in the proposal they see carbon tax and that's what they jump to. Then they go on and on about how stupid it is and how this will ruin the country. Like this guy they are quoting thinking that farmers will give up their livelihood and walk away in indignation and how it will be even worse for the environment because somehow it leads to more meat and dairy product being produced in other countries and their animals fart more. Okay??

0

Devil4314 t1_irwv9qv wrote

How does taxing it reduce the emissions?

−1

BiddyDibby t1_irxe2zr wrote

It's a disincentive.

1

Devil4314 t1_irxei8c wrote

To farm? Thats smart

1

BiddyDibby t1_irxhtws wrote

To farm meat. Meat is extremely overproduced in the world economy and it's been having disaterous consequences.

0

mattyandco t1_irxq8ik wrote

To farm dairy actually but same idea.

1

BiddyDibby t1_is1lj89 wrote

Are you saying cows farmed for meat do not produce the same emissions?

1

mattyandco t1_is1ol4f wrote

No I'm saying that in NZ the vast majority of our cows are dairy rather than meat. Given the NZ context of the article.

1

BiddyDibby t1_is2ug89 wrote

I understand what you're saying now. Meat is usually the main reason for these bills so I just assumed, apologies.

1

tettenator t1_irvh7gf wrote

Here's a thought, Jacinda: start insulating your houses. Jfc it's like living in a tent here.

−10

GherkinEnthusiast t1_irvhxql wrote

How is this related in the slightest

13

tettenator t1_irvir57 wrote

Cutting down emissions by not wasting so much heat, instead of whatever this plan is.

−1

phuckingidontcare t1_irvmrwk wrote

Whatavoutism

5

tettenator t1_irvno2q wrote

I'm saying go with a plan that definitely works instead of something that just looks good on paper, mister one-word-comment can't even spell it correctly.

−4

Bonitabanana t1_irvs8d7 wrote

She bought in the healthy home standards. Look it up if your home doesn’t measure up.

6

tettenator t1_irvuifs wrote

After some googling, it seems the NZ building code will be a lot stricter from this november forwards on new housing. Still trying to figure out what rules there are for existing houses. So far, I see things like "double glazed windows are recommended" while triple should be the norm. Gonna do some more reading in the morning.

1