Is an outspoken North Otago farmer and award-winning environmentalist who today apologises to the taxpayers of NZ and gets stuck into the host of The Country, who she accuses of having a "methane lobotomy".
She's a north Otago farmer and she is flat stick in the middle of lambing. Jane Smith's name award winning environmentalist form A, winner of the Balanced Farm Environment Awards. And why do I get the feeling she's going to have a crack at me over methane vaccine and inhibitors. Keep your powder dry on that one, Jane, just to start with, how's lambon going. How's the weather in north Otago?
Well, good afternoon, Jamie. Yeah, just back to our normal spring northwesterly pattern. Or we had a sou wester all day yesterday, but pretty good, and all the stocks looked in fairly fit and fine condition around north Otago. And we don't actually have to do a lambing beat as such, but we do need to tag it burst the first two and a half thousands lambs born because we're a Paradis stud So that is a job that keeps me off the streets. Jamie.
I think you were in your keep, Jane. You want to apologize to taxpayers?
Why, yeah, well I've I've just been feeling pretty bad about this, Jamie. When you add up how much money where you have been wasting on methane pyramid scheme schemes over the past I don't know, decades, so we're nearly clocking up nearly billion dollars now. So obviously I heard your interview when I was out battling the elements last week when you interviewed Wayne Methane Me about agra zerophiscal folly, and I did was consumed. Jamie. You seem to have forgotten all of the facts around our methane profile in New Zealand. I sort of wondered whether you'd had a methane lobotomy or perhaps whether Agra zero was using some of the one hundred and eighty seven million dollars to sponsor your show, Jamie, Because again I was very, very concumed, because got to remember, unless we actually profile and actually model our emissions correctly, all taxpayers in New Zealand will continue to pay for solutions to a problem that may not exist, Jamie.
And that is really concerned, all right, Jane, Look, why would you not use a methane vaccine or a bowlus or any form of methane inhibitor if and this is theoretically if if you can get a premium for doing so, it's just good farm management.
So Jamie, just just a couple of things. Firstly, we're then very very quick to again mitigate something without actually modeling it correctly. So the fact of the matter is if we hold out every single ruminant in New Zealand tomorrow, every single ruminant, it would make no difference. What's the wever to global temperatures. So to start being interfering in vaxor tax and I know we've got you know, we tipped to touch that hawokikna tack, but the whole vax thing or boldnesses or feed editors, et cetera, are exactly the same thing. There are intersperents and something that doesn't need to be interfered with. And it's really interesting you look at their mission's profile worldwide. Well, firstly, back here at ground level sheets and beef, we've decreased our numbers by what is that fifty three percent documents over since nineteen ninety. Now, that's seventy one percent of emissions decreased.
Jane, Can I just pull you up for a moment. How do you get that seventy one percent number explained? Please?
So that's stock a decrease in stock units, but also an increase in efficiency. So in terms of productivity, so lambs growing faster, carves growing faster, getting stock off the farm quicker without any interference. It's just good good genetics, et cetera. So, but once you start and sorry, I was just going to say that any increases of methane worldwide have been largely attributed to obviously India, China, et cetera, but areas with large tropical wet lengths Jamie, So any interference. Coming back to that again, the net effect of this mitigation said something that possibly doesn't need mitigated. And I'll talk about the methane review channel shortly because hopefully there is some light at the end of the tunnel. So anything that you're doing intens of mitigation will lead to intensification of agriculture. This is a key point that a lot of the rabid greenies have actually missed. And I'm an environmentalist and I've got I want everything a balance, right, because once you start, it doesn't matter if it's see the editive boldnesses et cetera. All other forms of livestock production that are less intensive, so organics region, hell country, high country are actually going to be punished in penalis. So all of this is actually pushing towards more intenxification, so that the irony of it is And again that's why I think all of this mitigation money there should actually be a full text power inquiry to see why we'd be squandering money on something that hasn't been proven to be an issue, Jamie.
So hang on, Jane, I think, Jane, the customer is always the customer. If McDonald's denown ness want lower missions product from New Zealand and are prepared to pay a premium, which they're not doing at the moment. But if they are, why don't you play ball.
Exactly, Jamie, We already are. I just gave you effects about how much of our missions are decreasing, and I can hear the scriptis reply of from agri zero et cetera, through the corporate corridors of power, saying exactly what you've just said, Jamie, but in a very very quick to compare as against intent to feed agriculture. So they say that they are catching up in terms of efficiency, et cetera. The reality is there is what is there one hundred and ninety three countries in the world. There's only three other countries that are looking at taxing their ruminant agriculture, and all of them are going to be has to be paying furthers, so new and repurposed subsidies at both the farmer level and the consumer level as well. So the reality is that Europe can't even afford its own food because of the high intens to be farming that they're doing, and they're now having to again they're going to have to actually subsidize.
Okay, talk to me about your methane review panel.
Yeah, so Nicola Professor Nikola Shebolt from Mesa University is hitting it up that she's a practical, practical lass and so, as I said, I hope that there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and I certainly hope that they will not get distracted by politics and sort of the self justification of one hundreds of millions of dollars being being spent on mitigation. So actually they're going to be looking at the profile. They're going to be looking at how much if any we when I say we ruminante ruminants in New Zealand are adding to warming. Now that's going to be really fascinating because actually, if you look at the current figures at the moment in terms of the way they've been calculated, A lot of them have got a plus of minus forty percent margin of era, and the current targets on that basis are unreasonable, unwarranted and unpalaceable. And actually the current target's Jamie, here's one for you as an economist if you like that. The current targets could cost us in terms of opportunity are costs? I think it was between five and twelve billion dollars a year. So between now and twenty fifty, what's that three hundred plus million stripped out of our productive capability as a sector. Now, we're also, at the same time been asked to double our return, So that's something doesn't add up here, Jamie, and so I certainly hope that they are taking a We've heard some of those panel members say that there's no we're not adding to warming at all. But whether they get caught up in the politics.
Or not, Jamie, we well await the methane panel review. Hey, pass my best regards on to your husband Blair. Does he ever win an argument at home?
No?
See you, Jane. Thanks jam