Sir Lockwood Smith: Former MP and Diplomat on ACTs call to withdraw from the Paris Agreement

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement could cause more problems than it solves. 

Act and New Zealand First have expressed interest in pulling New Zealand out of the agreement unless more realistic emissions targets are produced. 

Sir Lockwood Smith, former MP and Diplomat, says he sympathises with famers and Seymour on the subject, but we just pull out of the accord. 

He told Kerre Woodham that there are clauses in free trade agreements, such as the one with the UK, that would enable them to take action or to seek remedies if New Zealand were to withdraw from any international agreement around climate change. 

He says we do have to be careful, however, that doesn’t mean we don’t do anything. 

LISTEN ABOVE  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerry wood of Morning's podcast from
News Talks. He'd be Sir Lockwood Smith, farmer and former
minister and former former diplomat. Are very good morning.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
To you morning Kerry.

Speaker 1 (00:21):
You're about to hit out on the farm.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
I hear you can probably hear the cows in the background.
I kept getting them under vaccinates cars.

Speaker 1 (00:28):
It's a busy old time in farming, isn't.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
It, seven day week job. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
So your thoughts on David Seama's called to leave the
Paris Agreement.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Kerry, I think, you know, I sympathize with farmers and
with David Seymour who call for that. You know, it's
frustrating the way the IPCC and the international community, the
environmental community for like, treat biogenic methans, especially ruminant emissions.
It's so frustrating, but we can't pull out of the

(01:01):
Paris Accord. You know. I was heavily involved in the
free trade agreements in New Zealand signed with the United Kingdom,
the Australian Free Trade Group, the United Kingdom, the UK's
joining cptpp I. It was advising the UK government specifically
on the environmental aspects of those agreements, and you know
there are clauses in there that would enable the UK

(01:25):
and other parties of course to take action or to
seek remedies. Were New Zealand to withdraw from any international
agreement around climate change, I mean it's specifically spelled out
in those agreements, and so we have to be careful.
But that doesn't mean to say we don't do anything

(01:45):
one among the other things. I mean I leave here
tomorrow to go to Karmis North Chair to chair the
board of the Redded Research and Students Food Science and
then next week in Wellington involved in a student colloquium
on food science with about one hundred PhD students in
Wellington working on food science and future foods and all

(02:07):
that sort of thing. And so to me, the frustration
is this carry that instead of the way we treat
methane emissions as if cows produce this stuff out of magic,
which they don't. You know, every bit of methane comes
from carbon dioxide, and it's not difficult to calculate how
much carbon dioxide a farmer has to sequest it through

(02:27):
his pasture for a cow to reduce a ket of methane,
and it's a lot of kilos of carbon dioxide and
the bits that the cow consumes only a tiny bit
of it, less than one tenth ends up in methane.
And if a farmer doesn't sequest ur any carbon dioxide successfully,
don't produce any food. This is what our food is
made of. People don't see understand that our food is

(02:47):
made of carbon dioxide. It's not a fertilizer in food production.
Food is made of carbon dioxide. So the issue becomes
how efficiently can we capture that carbon from carbon dioxide?
And that's where the focus needs to start going internationally,
and I'm hoping we can get scientists to focus more
on this because a huge range of efficiencies. And the

(03:11):
critical thing is not how much methane is emitted per
telegram of food produced. It's got to be focused on
per unit of nutrient. Value of human body doesn't care
about the way of food, it's the nutrients our body requires.
And we've got to start looking at carbon emissions in
relation to the nutrient value of food because you get

(03:34):
a hugely different answer if you actually look at it
that way. And globally, we've got to start focusing on
that carbon efficiency or the world will end up in
tears in terms of food production because the way it's
currently handled is not going to work. You end up
with least efficient producers actually producing food, we end up
with more emissions.

Speaker 1 (03:56):
So the agreement in and of itself and how it's written,
and given how science evolves every day, you know, we're
learning new things every single day. Is it outdated in
terms of the way it's written in the targets that's
set and there have been too many amendments added on
to it and too many additions added on to it.

(04:18):
Does it need to be rewritten to take into account
the science of the day, given it was first conceived
of ten years ago.

Speaker 2 (04:25):
I'd argue indeed, Kerry. And you know, if we don't
do that, as I say, we'll end up with a mess.
We'll end up with a really perverse outcome contrary to
what we're trying to achieve, which is less omissions per
unit of nutrient value human beings need. And of course
it's not just that the science is changing tragically with

(04:48):
these sorts of things. Globally, probably there's been too much
politics and not enough science.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
Well, that's exactly what it's going to come to, because
a lot of these. A lot of the skepticism around
these kinds of accords and agreements are because there is
an entire industry of Troffer's globe, bull troughers, home maker living,
you know, just circulating bits of paper.

Speaker 2 (05:12):
You're absolutely right. I call them the clip the ticket clippers.
They make their living, they make good money out of
it all. And you're so right. And sadly we've got
to get I'm keen to New Zealand. You know, some
people might say, and these emand can't have an influence
on this, We're too small. When it comes to food science.
The research institute that I chair is globally respected, I

(05:34):
mean its director is one of the world's leading nutrition
experts or food science experts, I should say, and the
acting director at moment is one of the globally recognized
experts on protein digestion and I mean no acid requirements
of human beings. He's he was, you know, he's led
a major conference in europeists recently was then asked to

(05:57):
go and lead a similar conference in the United States
of America, And of course the RIDDT works internationally. He
collaborates with other major diniversities on food science. So we
have a significant influence, and when it comes through agriculture
and food research, New Zealand is very much respected. We
have the opportunity if only we get our own act together,

(06:20):
we have the opportunity to really influence this in the
right direction. But we've got to get our act together
to do.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
It, and we have to stay in the Accord to
do it.

Speaker 2 (06:30):
I'd argue, yes, that it's no use if we wanted
to leave the Accord. We're too small. I mean, the
United States might be able to do something like that,
but New Zealand can't. We're too small. And the way
we can have influence is through being involved in inside
and using sound science to influence decision making. And as
you've said yourself, Kerry, the science moves so fast that

(06:53):
we need to be updating these things to make sure
that we don't end up with a whether bad outcome
out of it. All out at the moment, if we
don't change the way we're focusing on this, we'll end
up with a bad outcome.

Speaker 1 (07:05):
Nice to talk. The cows are calling you so lockwid
lovely to talk. Thank you very much for your expertise
News talk, said b Quarterbas. For more from Kerry Wooden Mornings.
Listen live to News Talk Set B from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio