May 12, 2025 • 7 mins
North Otago farmer and a "Poster Girl" for the Methane Science Accord. Today, she comments on the Ruminant Methane Survey Summary Report released yesterday. And she doesn’t pull any punches over AgriZeroNZ and the Government’s emissions reduction targets.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It was yesterday speak news story the release of the
Ruminant Methane Survey Summary Report from Groundswell and Zed Farming
and the Methane Science Accord. The poster girl probably for
all three organizations as North Otago Farmer former winner of
the Balanced Farm Environment Awards, Jane Smith and Jane was
(00:20):
this survey and echo chamber that'll get a bite.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Good afternoon, Jamie. Well, I guess of any of those people,
including the National Party and Beef and Lamb and eggri
Zero Etca, took the time to go to a wollshed
and tie happy or toured hat free or a country
hall somewhere. I believe that absolutely here the same narrative
as well, that there's basically farmers have had enough of
(00:43):
playing the scapegoat and actually there's benefits for all of
New Zealanders if we actually calculate methane right and move on, Jamie,
stop wasting so much money and time and quasi research
time into this fast Jamie.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Well, let's look at this armple size of this survey.
Because I facetiously called at an echo chamber just looking
for a response, and I didn't really get one, to
be honest, Jane, but four hundred and twenty thousand followers
of either New Zealand Farming ground Swell or the Methane
Science Accord. That is a huge sample.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Oh, it certainly is. And you know, I think I'll
have to be heavily sedated before I listened to Grant
McCallum's Methane Furman. Again, I was really disappointed to hear.
I guess how ill informed he was. And again this
is just reflecting what rural New Zealand think. And I
actually felt sorry for him in terms of his lack
of knowledge in terms of science, metrics and economics. And
(01:42):
you know, to suggest that fifty percent of our New
Zealand's milk payout is attributed to being being an empty
signatory on meaningless accord is really concerning. So I guess
if politics doesn't work out from there certainly be a
place in the Yuen or Greenpeace from failing.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Well, let's just re quote good friend Grant McCullum. He said,
if we pull out of Paris, the milk price will
go from ten dollars to five dollars. You're not having
a bar of that.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Oh, absolutely not, Jamie. When you look at just put
the cost of all of this methane mitigation fiscal farce
that we're putting in. You know, Paris itself is going
to cost between twenty four and thirty six billion dollars.
And I guess the other thing is, I guess I
know for a fact that the NATS and our sector
leaders are actually embarrassed about their amount of tax fan
money that has already been squandered on the Paris Accords
(02:31):
new clothes in terms of the methane contribution to that,
because not only have the coalition endorsed or validated the
Labour Green's position on this on it, they've actually doubled
down and they're about to throw another four hundred million
dollars into the methane melting pot. And you know, to
hear egg Or Zero's Wayne Methane mcne say last week
(02:52):
that the reason farmers are frustrated at being asked to
decrease their emissions is that we don't have the tools
or options to decrease them. It's not that at all ways,
it's actually that there is no need for any further reductions.
We actually meet the definition of MIT zero already and
if you look at our stock numbers, sheep down by
fifty eight percent since nineteen ninety, Beef down by twenty
one percent, deer down by twenty four percent. Again, we're
(03:16):
already taking billions out of our economy. Why should we
be spending any more on the spas? And actually, you know,
I know you're going to, you know, question why we
should be getting out? And I guess I've done a
bit of analysis in terms of why what happened when
we got in? And one thing I've always been really
confused about, Jamie is as what we actually signed up for,
(03:39):
not just the cost of it, but the track that
we took. And interesting enough, the French were clear enough
to take a sequestration egg ecology, biodiversity pathway, food security pathway,
what to New Zealand. Do you think we would have
run with that? But no, we went down the technology
version pathway so that the US GE middling with you know, pills,
(04:00):
potions and vaccines, et cetera. So why we did that,
I cannot, I do not know. But I think it's
time that we just cut it short, draw the line
and start celebrating New Zealand's and mission profile for what
it is, because that's good news for all New Zealanders Jamie.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Okay, well, let's look at some of these numbers. To date,
over three hundred and thirty million has been spent on
ruminant methane research, up to another four hundred million committed.
That's nearly three quarters of a billion dollars. Now, you
guys also in your wide ranging survey, asked the respondents
(04:35):
where they would prefer that the money went. Sixty four
said healthcare and nineteen percent said infrastructure. Only four percent
said methane.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Exactly, Jomiane, that's a hell of a lot of hospitals
that we can be building for the wider paris are
called cost and I know that, you know, if we're
going to have that nixe later known question come up,
and you know, silver and farms and font are always
very very quick to jump to that. And you know,
why don't we ask the consumers, actually asked them because
(05:06):
even the most ardent environmentalist and I've talked a lots
of James Sure about this back when he was in government,
and well, actually should be alarmed. But all roads of
methane mitigation actually lead to more intensive farming. So we
need to ask consumers do they want feed lots? Do
they want to be fossil fuel dependent. Do they want
concrete jungles for our livestock to be housed? You know,
(05:28):
the sort of things that doctor Frank Mitlogger was talking
about last week when he was you know, he was
talking about intensive feed lot Californian dairy production, a world
away from our production completely. So do they want that
with a potentially lower emissions intensity? So you've got to remember,
and your listeners will know this, but if you look
(05:50):
at emissions intensity, a weather up the back of the
McKinsey country comes out of it as a methane terrorist,
whereas a heavily intensive system five dairy production system comes
out as a hero. I mean that is just fascicle.
And again, do we want to be interfering with our food?
I say not, people in our surveys said not. But
we need to actually go out to our customers and
(06:12):
us in that, Jamie, because we can't keep going with
this narrative. We need to stop growing the methane myths
and start growing food. Did they will?
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Okay? I hate just a really quick final comment from
you because I'm out of time. Is this a shot
across the bows from the likes of ground Swell and
in zed farming and the methane science accord a shot
across the bowls of beef and lamb in Z dairy
and Z feed farmers, the industry, good bodies.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Well, I wouldn't say that. I think it's just a
genuine reflection of rural New Zealand. And we see rural
communities being destroyed to no reason whatsoever. We see other
environmental initiatives and I'm an environmentalist, Jamie, you know that
that have just been pushed by the wayside. We see
our scientists distracted by this fascical methane money train instead
(06:58):
of actually doing looking at our real issues and in
New Zealand and worldwide, and we could have actually been
helping the world produce pasture raised protein and show them
how to do it efficiently. So I'm sure this is
scrabbling going on behind the scenes. I'm sure feeds and
beef and lamb and the Crown will come up with
a new target next week probably, I'd suggest it's probably
going to be something in the range of sort of
(07:20):
fifteen to twenty percent. Actually, what they need to do
is get there's sticky fingers out of any target and
let's just carry on with our a fision effective production, Jamie,
and look at the big picture here, because actually this
is just again a gross distraction and a gross waste
of money and a country that can't afford its own healthcare.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Jamie, Jane Smith, thanks for your time.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
As always, Thanks Jammy
It was yesterday speak news story the release of the
Ruminant Methane Survey Summary Report from Groundswell and Zed Farming
and the Methane Science Accord. The poster girl probably for
all three organizations as North Otago Farmer former winner of
the Balanced Farm Environment Awards, Jane Smith and Jane was
(00:20):
this survey and echo chamber that'll get a bite.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Good afternoon, Jamie. Well, I guess of any of those people,
including the National Party and Beef and Lamb and eggri
Zero Etca, took the time to go to a wollshed
and tie happy or toured hat free or a country
hall somewhere. I believe that absolutely here the same narrative
as well, that there's basically farmers have had enough of
(00:43):
playing the scapegoat and actually there's benefits for all of
New Zealanders if we actually calculate methane right and move on, Jamie,
stop wasting so much money and time and quasi research
time into this fast Jamie.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Well, let's look at this armple size of this survey.
Because I facetiously called at an echo chamber just looking
for a response, and I didn't really get one, to
be honest, Jane, but four hundred and twenty thousand followers
of either New Zealand Farming ground Swell or the Methane
Science Accord. That is a huge sample.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Oh, it certainly is. And you know, I think I'll
have to be heavily sedated before I listened to Grant
McCallum's Methane Furman. Again, I was really disappointed to hear.
I guess how ill informed he was. And again this
is just reflecting what rural New Zealand think. And I
actually felt sorry for him in terms of his lack
of knowledge in terms of science, metrics and economics. And
(01:42):
you know, to suggest that fifty percent of our New
Zealand's milk payout is attributed to being being an empty
signatory on meaningless accord is really concerning. So I guess
if politics doesn't work out from there certainly be a
place in the Yuen or Greenpeace from failing.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Well, let's just re quote good friend Grant McCullum. He said,
if we pull out of Paris, the milk price will
go from ten dollars to five dollars. You're not having
a bar of that.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Oh, absolutely not, Jamie. When you look at just put
the cost of all of this methane mitigation fiscal farce
that we're putting in. You know, Paris itself is going
to cost between twenty four and thirty six billion dollars.
And I guess the other thing is, I guess I
know for a fact that the NATS and our sector
leaders are actually embarrassed about their amount of tax fan
money that has already been squandered on the Paris Accords
(02:31):
new clothes in terms of the methane contribution to that,
because not only have the coalition endorsed or validated the
Labour Green's position on this on it, they've actually doubled
down and they're about to throw another four hundred million
dollars into the methane melting pot. And you know, to
hear egg Or Zero's Wayne Methane mcne say last week
(02:52):
that the reason farmers are frustrated at being asked to
decrease their emissions is that we don't have the tools
or options to decrease them. It's not that at all ways,
it's actually that there is no need for any further reductions.
We actually meet the definition of MIT zero already and
if you look at our stock numbers, sheep down by
fifty eight percent since nineteen ninety, Beef down by twenty
one percent, deer down by twenty four percent. Again, we're
(03:16):
already taking billions out of our economy. Why should we
be spending any more on the spas? And actually, you know,
I know you're going to, you know, question why we
should be getting out? And I guess I've done a
bit of analysis in terms of why what happened when
we got in? And one thing I've always been really
confused about, Jamie is as what we actually signed up for,
(03:39):
not just the cost of it, but the track that
we took. And interesting enough, the French were clear enough
to take a sequestration egg ecology, biodiversity pathway, food security pathway,
what to New Zealand. Do you think we would have
run with that? But no, we went down the technology
version pathway so that the US GE middling with you know, pills,
(04:00):
potions and vaccines, et cetera. So why we did that,
I cannot, I do not know. But I think it's
time that we just cut it short, draw the line
and start celebrating New Zealand's and mission profile for what
it is, because that's good news for all New Zealanders Jamie.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Okay, well, let's look at some of these numbers. To date,
over three hundred and thirty million has been spent on
ruminant methane research, up to another four hundred million committed.
That's nearly three quarters of a billion dollars. Now, you
guys also in your wide ranging survey, asked the respondents
(04:35):
where they would prefer that the money went. Sixty four
said healthcare and nineteen percent said infrastructure. Only four percent
said methane.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Exactly, Jomiane, that's a hell of a lot of hospitals
that we can be building for the wider paris are
called cost and I know that, you know, if we're
going to have that nixe later known question come up,
and you know, silver and farms and font are always
very very quick to jump to that. And you know,
why don't we ask the consumers, actually asked them because
(05:06):
even the most ardent environmentalist and I've talked a lots
of James Sure about this back when he was in government,
and well, actually should be alarmed. But all roads of
methane mitigation actually lead to more intensive farming. So we
need to ask consumers do they want feed lots? Do
they want to be fossil fuel dependent. Do they want
concrete jungles for our livestock to be housed? You know,
(05:28):
the sort of things that doctor Frank Mitlogger was talking
about last week when he was you know, he was
talking about intensive feed lot Californian dairy production, a world
away from our production completely. So do they want that
with a potentially lower emissions intensity? So you've got to remember,
and your listeners will know this, but if you look
(05:50):
at emissions intensity, a weather up the back of the
McKinsey country comes out of it as a methane terrorist,
whereas a heavily intensive system five dairy production system comes
out as a hero. I mean that is just fascicle.
And again, do we want to be interfering with our food?
I say not, people in our surveys said not. But
we need to actually go out to our customers and
(06:12):
us in that, Jamie, because we can't keep going with
this narrative. We need to stop growing the methane myths
and start growing food. Did they will?
Speaker 1 (06:20):
Okay? I hate just a really quick final comment from
you because I'm out of time. Is this a shot
across the bows from the likes of ground Swell and
in zed farming and the methane science accord a shot
across the bowls of beef and lamb in Z dairy
and Z feed farmers, the industry, good bodies.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
Well, I wouldn't say that. I think it's just a
genuine reflection of rural New Zealand. And we see rural
communities being destroyed to no reason whatsoever. We see other
environmental initiatives and I'm an environmentalist, Jamie, you know that
that have just been pushed by the wayside. We see
our scientists distracted by this fascical methane money train instead
(06:58):
of actually doing looking at our real issues and in
New Zealand and worldwide, and we could have actually been
helping the world produce pasture raised protein and show them
how to do it efficiently. So I'm sure this is
scrabbling going on behind the scenes. I'm sure feeds and
beef and lamb and the Crown will come up with
a new target next week probably, I'd suggest it's probably
going to be something in the range of sort of
(07:20):
fifteen to twenty percent. Actually, what they need to do
is get there's sticky fingers out of any target and
let's just carry on with our a fision effective production, Jamie,
and look at the big picture here, because actually this
is just again a gross distraction and a gross waste
of money and a country that can't afford its own healthcare.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Jamie, Jane Smith, thanks for your time.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
As always, Thanks Jammy
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.