To Various MP's from Elaine W 26th August 2009


Dear Ministers: -
Simon Power, Shane Ardern, Chester Burrows, Craig Foss, Nathan Guy,
Louise Upston & Anne Tolley, Chris Tremain, David Carter.
Enclosed is material regarding the mobile Green Rig that is under the financial management of our Horizons Regional Council and is currently touring around the countryside visiting our schools.
I belong to a Taumarunui Farmers Group 2008 who initially came together to submit against the One Plan and while deliberations are still on going, we are also mindful of our children and the future of agriculture.

To Nick Smith from Neil H 11 August 2009

Dear Minister
  I find it impossible to contain my frustration at New Zealands emissions reduction target for Copenhagen that I heard announced on Radio New Zealand's Checkpoint programme on last evening, and Morning Report this morning. Contrary to what you, and others like Simon Boxer say, the science is NOT showing that increased urgency is required. The climate is NOT getting warmer faster than originally 'predicted'. In fact, the last few years have seen some cooling. You stood on the steps of Parliament supporting the protest against the "Fart tax". I consider it extreme hypocrisy, in the light of current science revealing more and more conclusively that human produced greenhouse gases are NOT causing global warming, that you can now stand up and justify such an expensive and economically damaging target. 

To the Select Committee from Neil H 11 May 2009

 I made a submission to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Select Committee. I asked to speak to that submission, and believed it was my right to be heard. So I was somewhat surprised when I was informed I would not have the chance to speak to the committee. There were sections of the submission I would have written differently, had I realised I would not be speaking to my submission. I believe that you are now nearing the end of the task of hearing submissions. Presumably you will now be considering the rest of the submissions.  I am taking the liberty of sending you the comments I would have made to the committee, and I respectfully request you give these additional thoughts and comments due consideration.


To Nick Smith from Neil H 24 July 2009

Dear Minister
I have read the Ministry for the environment brochure "New Zealand's 2020 Emissions Target". I am appalled at its bias, and its ignorance of current knowledge! Towards the bottom it talks about the need to safeguard our clean green image. True, we should. But what is more clean and green than animals belching methane just as they have since God made them, or if you prefer, they climbed out of a muddy puddle?

From Nick Smith to Neil H 21 August 2009


Thank you for your email of 27 July 2009 regarding New Zealand’s 2020 target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Your submission has been noted. 

To Nick Smith from Alan S 11 August 2009

Dear Dr Smith
The National Party used to rely for its support on the Rural Heartland and I, and probably most other farmers, feel badly betrayed.  You rightly point out that Agriculture is a big problem, but no other country is including agriculture in its emission reduction targets so therefore they have not yet come to the realisation that agriculture is not a net emitter, only a gross emitter.  Cows, sheep, pigs, llamas, alpacas, horses, vegetables, fruit etc all recycle carbon which is already in the atmosphere or taken from the atmosphere to grow grass.  Agriculture may be nearly 50% of gross emissions, but probably accounts for 75% of absorption from the atmosphere - in other words carbon negative.

To Nick Smith from Bruce B 11 August 2009

Dear Mr. Smith,

I wish to protest at your stated aim to reduce gas emissions from natural and man-made sources to 10% or more below 1990 levels for the following reasons:

1.  To reveal what was supposed to be a negotiating position ahead of the the actual start of negotiations is the action of fools,


Submission to the Select Committee from Alan S, February 2009


A Practical Submission on Emissions Trading from the Coal Face
February 2009
The objective of this submission is multi-layered as follows:
  1. Emissions Trading should be abandoned because carbon dioxide is influenced by temperature not the other way round. The science on this is very clear. I refer the committee to all the scientific evidence contained at
  2. If the select committee disagrees, then agriculture should be removed from Kyoto and therefore from emissions trading.
  3. If the select committee disagrees, then kiwifruit should be removed from emissions trading.
  4. If the select committee disagrees, then the basis of calculating emissions for the kiwifruit industry must be changed to give offset for trees (shelter belts, native trees, bush, avocado trees), and scientific research should be undertaken to give proper credit to deciduous plants.
  5. If the select committee disagrees, then the basis of measuring emissions should be changed from an industry level to individual orchards, otherwise the emission trading is no more than a tax because there is nothing an individual orchardist can do to change the liability. I note that Australia has decided that it would not be practical to measure emissions directly in the agricultural sector.
  6. If the select committee disagrees, then the government should underwrite the costs of emissions trading. When anthropogenic global warming is found to be the huge scam that it is, then the government should make up all the losses of people and organisations forced to part with money based on government laws and regulations.

To Nick Smith from Bruce B 25 July 2009

Dear Mr. Smith,

I wish to submit the following comments concerning New Zealands plans to meet international obligations of Emissions Control by the year 2020.

It is noted that the NZ Government claims to be "working actively to secure an effective global agreement on climate change to succeed the Kyoto Protocol after 2012."

The Government of which you are a Minister has said: "An important issue in these international negotiations is the commitment New Zealand makes on a greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020.." which has "..significant ramifications for New Zealand households and businesses."


To Nick Smith from Alan R 25 July 2009

Dear Sir,
Climate Change and Global Warming

I am writing to you as I am concerned that the direction you are following in promoting an ETS will cause enormous economic damage to New Zealand as a whole, it will drive many of our citizens to poverty and bankrupt the New Zealand economy. From my letter below, you will see that the evidence for global warming being man made does not exist.



Subscribe to RSS - blogs
Error | Climate Realists


The website encountered an unexpected error. Please try again later.