September 22, 2025 • 9 mins
Principal Scientist at GreenXperts Limited, a New Zealand-based sustainability consultancy involved in numerous carbon and land management projects. Today, she says huge pieces of Antarctica are not falling off due to livestock emissions. Rather, she says, we should be global leaders and a better investment for NZ would be "to develop some diplomatic bottle" and lobby the IPCC to remove livestock emissions from the Paris Climate Agreement.
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):
I think you'll find our next guest on the Country
and Enlightening listen if that makes sense. Her name is
Susan Harris. She's a principal scientist at Green Experts Limited,
a New Zealand based sustainability consultancy. Now you got me, Susan,
because you're knocking on an open door when it comes
to climate change for me with your headline piece that
(00:23):
I read online saying huge pieces of Antarctica are not
falling off because of livestock omissions. Hooray, welcome to the country,
Thank you, thank you, Jamie.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
That's good.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Okay, Well let's start with you. What's your academic background
to be lecturing on this subject.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Well, I've got a science degree honest degree from the
Taiga University and my first job was a government scientist
in the Ministry of Works way back and then I
moved into the corporate world in Australia and New Zealand
and rene consultancy in New Zealand called CpG. I was
(01:04):
Chief Scientists there for some time and then went into
my own business with my husband who's a forester, Green
Experts and we've been that's about ten years ago, now
twelve years ago. And we've been working in this space
for that time, and most of our clients are farmers,
farmer clients involved in ets and forestry and farming all
(01:28):
over the country.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Now, you and I might agree to disagree on carbon farming.
I want to come back to that one, Susan Harris,
but this is where we absolutely agree. You say fossil
fuel emissions are the primary driver of dangerous climate change,
not livestock, because my gimmont and I left science behind
in the fifth form, so I'm not very well qualified
to talk about it. There's been bovines and ovines emitting
(01:53):
methane since Adam was a cowboy. It's the fossil fuel.
It's a man burning fossil fuels. That is the oldimate
problem when it comes to climate change, global warming.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
That's right, absolutely right. Cattle and sheep and goats and
camels have been around for twelve millennia and they make
absolutely no difference to Antarctica or anywhere else. The real
problem are the fossil fossil fuel emissions from energy plants.
(02:26):
That's definitely the real problem, and that's where the solution is.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
You're saying that those fossil fuel methane emissions have been
under reported by eighty percent for decades. What's your proof?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
It's an International Energy Agency report. They've been tracking this
for that time. I've also been keeping an eye on
the scientific literature in that period. And now it is
officially proclaimed by the International Energy Agency that methane emissions
from fossil fuel facilities have been under a ported by
(03:01):
eighty percent over that three decade period.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
You say attempts to reduce livestock emissions may be heroic,
but are ultimately futile.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Yes, And I just looked this morning and the latest
information I found from Global statistics is that the largest
energy rise has been in terms of fossil fuel emissions
has been from natural gas two point five percent from
twenty four to twenty five. That's six times the livestock
(03:35):
of missions out of New Zealand. So that's six years
worth in one year of livestock of missions at its point.
Is trying to reduce livestock of missions at all.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
I'm going to quote you again because you've got some
very quotable quotes here. You say, ironically, New Zealand is
being penalized for its global leadership and clean energy and
an agriculture based economy. Other nations can look better in
inverted commas than New Zealand if they decarbonize their fossil
fuel dominated energy production and claim this as an achievement
(04:10):
when New Zealand already has mostly decarbonized its energy production.
And you bang on there yet again.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yes, well, it's what we call in science a false negative.
When you do any experiment, you have to zero everything
to a base, and if you don't do that, you
end up with false negatives or false positives. So you
have to be very careful how we set analytical background
(04:40):
before we start making pronouncements about these things.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
In the nineteen eighties, the Labor then Labor government made
a pronouncement about agriculture. They got this totally wrong. They
said it was a sunset industry. You're claiming now that
the fossil fuel industry is a sunset industry, and I
think a lot of people would agree with you there.
But ultimately, can we ever get enough renewables to power
(05:04):
the planet?
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Oh? Yes, the technology is advancing greatly. There's now more
money than spent on working on clean energy than dirty
energy in the whole planet, and that's why we have
this regard action happening from the fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
You want to take natural livestock emissions out of the
Paris Climate Agreement, and I think once again that probably
makes sense. So you sort of post a girl for
Groundswell or something here, Susan No.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Well, I disagree with grounds Well on a number of issues,
but I agree with them on this one. The solution
to the problem for New Zealand and other agricultural countries
is to get natural animal emissions taken out of the
Paris Agreement.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Is that a get out of jail free card for US? Though?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
No, it's not, because you've got to look at what
the impact will be whether or not we actually make
any difference to the global emission situation, and it's a diversion.
We need to focus on fossil fuels day well.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Well, plainly, we're not going to make much difference on
a global scale or a pimple on the backside of
the US, Russia, China, India, the big emitters.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Yes, that's right. It's interesting that in the case of
methane emissions from fossil fuel plants, most of it is
good housekeeping, turning the tap off, capping things, properly, so
the methane doesn't leak, and according to the International Energy Agency,
(06:44):
they could actually make a door out of it because
they would save themselves some product loss. So it's very
important to appreciate that you should spend your money on
what will make a real difference.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So, Susan Harris, you want to take a natural life
stock commissions out of the Paris Climate Agreement, I'd go
along with that one. You're saying a parallel better investment
for New Zealand would be to develop some diplomatic bottle.
You're not pulling any punches there and lead the sixty
eight nations into lobbying the IPCC to remove natural livestock
(07:21):
emissions from said climate agreement. So you want us to
be world leaders, but not world leaders sacrificing ourselves on
the altar of climate change.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Well, it's not quite that bad. What I'm saying is
let's focus our energy and money on things that will
actually make a difference. And as you commented earlier, New
Zealand is just very very small, very tiny. But we
can go knock on the door of our friends in
the agricultural world and say, hey, livestock commissions have never
(07:54):
threatened the planet. It's fossil fuels.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Got to wrap this up, you and I. This is
like an agreement session, Susan. So let's see if we
can disagree on something. Are you a carbon farmer?
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Personally? I'm not.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
But is your Harby a carbon farmer? You've got a
vested interest there.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
No, we don't own any properly all carbon farms, but
we do buy and sell carbon credits, as brokens On
behalf of our clients.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
So is an ant carbon credits like the emperor's new clothes.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
No, because they're an economic instrument that makes emitters install
new technology, so they're less as if they're paying too
much in carbon credits and they have to put new
technology in. That's the idea of it.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
We've mentioned Crownswell. Also, I think let's chuck federated farmers
into the mix. You disagree with federated farmers when it
comes to carbon farming. But surely we're getting it wrong
in this country, Susan Harris. We're not planting the right
tree in the right place.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well, that may be true in some such as but
if we again are sensible about this, it's another revenue
for farmers on unproductive.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Leand Susan Harris out of Fine Ray. Thank you very
much for your time. It's been enlightening. I've enjoyed our chat.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Thank you, Jamie. It's really good to have an open
discussion about these things.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
I agree with you, Susan, well done, Principal scientist at
Green Experts Limited,
I think you'll find our next guest on the Country
and Enlightening listen if that makes sense. Her name is
Susan Harris. She's a principal scientist at Green Experts Limited,
a New Zealand based sustainability consultancy. Now you got me, Susan,
because you're knocking on an open door when it comes
to climate change for me with your headline piece that
(00:23):
I read online saying huge pieces of Antarctica are not
falling off because of livestock omissions. Hooray, welcome to the country,
Thank you, thank you, Jamie.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
That's good.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
Okay, Well let's start with you. What's your academic background
to be lecturing on this subject.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Well, I've got a science degree honest degree from the
Taiga University and my first job was a government scientist
in the Ministry of Works way back and then I
moved into the corporate world in Australia and New Zealand
and rene consultancy in New Zealand called CpG. I was
(01:04):
Chief Scientists there for some time and then went into
my own business with my husband who's a forester, Green
Experts and we've been that's about ten years ago, now
twelve years ago. And we've been working in this space
for that time, and most of our clients are farmers,
farmer clients involved in ets and forestry and farming all
(01:28):
over the country.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Now, you and I might agree to disagree on carbon farming.
I want to come back to that one, Susan Harris,
but this is where we absolutely agree. You say fossil
fuel emissions are the primary driver of dangerous climate change,
not livestock, because my gimmont and I left science behind
in the fifth form, so I'm not very well qualified
to talk about it. There's been bovines and ovines emitting
(01:53):
methane since Adam was a cowboy. It's the fossil fuel.
It's a man burning fossil fuels. That is the oldimate
problem when it comes to climate change, global warming.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
That's right, absolutely right. Cattle and sheep and goats and
camels have been around for twelve millennia and they make
absolutely no difference to Antarctica or anywhere else. The real
problem are the fossil fossil fuel emissions from energy plants.
(02:26):
That's definitely the real problem, and that's where the solution is.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
You're saying that those fossil fuel methane emissions have been
under reported by eighty percent for decades. What's your proof?
Speaker 2 (02:38):
It's an International Energy Agency report. They've been tracking this
for that time. I've also been keeping an eye on
the scientific literature in that period. And now it is
officially proclaimed by the International Energy Agency that methane emissions
from fossil fuel facilities have been under a ported by
(03:01):
eighty percent over that three decade period.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
You say attempts to reduce livestock emissions may be heroic,
but are ultimately futile.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Yes, And I just looked this morning and the latest
information I found from Global statistics is that the largest
energy rise has been in terms of fossil fuel emissions
has been from natural gas two point five percent from
twenty four to twenty five. That's six times the livestock
(03:35):
of missions out of New Zealand. So that's six years
worth in one year of livestock of missions at its point.
Is trying to reduce livestock of missions at all.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
I'm going to quote you again because you've got some
very quotable quotes here. You say, ironically, New Zealand is
being penalized for its global leadership and clean energy and
an agriculture based economy. Other nations can look better in
inverted commas than New Zealand if they decarbonize their fossil
fuel dominated energy production and claim this as an achievement
(04:10):
when New Zealand already has mostly decarbonized its energy production.
And you bang on there yet again.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Yes, well, it's what we call in science a false negative.
When you do any experiment, you have to zero everything
to a base, and if you don't do that, you
end up with false negatives or false positives. So you
have to be very careful how we set analytical background
(04:40):
before we start making pronouncements about these things.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
In the nineteen eighties, the Labor then Labor government made
a pronouncement about agriculture. They got this totally wrong. They
said it was a sunset industry. You're claiming now that
the fossil fuel industry is a sunset industry, and I
think a lot of people would agree with you there.
But ultimately, can we ever get enough renewables to power
(05:04):
the planet?
Speaker 2 (05:06):
Oh? Yes, the technology is advancing greatly. There's now more
money than spent on working on clean energy than dirty
energy in the whole planet, and that's why we have
this regard action happening from the fossil fuel industry.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
You want to take natural livestock emissions out of the
Paris Climate Agreement, and I think once again that probably
makes sense. So you sort of post a girl for
Groundswell or something here, Susan No.
Speaker 2 (05:38):
Well, I disagree with grounds Well on a number of issues,
but I agree with them on this one. The solution
to the problem for New Zealand and other agricultural countries
is to get natural animal emissions taken out of the
Paris Agreement.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Is that a get out of jail free card for US? Though?
Speaker 2 (06:00):
No, it's not, because you've got to look at what
the impact will be whether or not we actually make
any difference to the global emission situation, and it's a diversion.
We need to focus on fossil fuels day well.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Well, plainly, we're not going to make much difference on
a global scale or a pimple on the backside of
the US, Russia, China, India, the big emitters.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
Yes, that's right. It's interesting that in the case of
methane emissions from fossil fuel plants, most of it is
good housekeeping, turning the tap off, capping things, properly, so
the methane doesn't leak, and according to the International Energy Agency,
(06:44):
they could actually make a door out of it because
they would save themselves some product loss. So it's very
important to appreciate that you should spend your money on
what will make a real difference.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
So, Susan Harris, you want to take a natural life
stock commissions out of the Paris Climate Agreement, I'd go
along with that one. You're saying a parallel better investment
for New Zealand would be to develop some diplomatic bottle.
You're not pulling any punches there and lead the sixty
eight nations into lobbying the IPCC to remove natural livestock
(07:21):
emissions from said climate agreement. So you want us to
be world leaders, but not world leaders sacrificing ourselves on
the altar of climate change.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Well, it's not quite that bad. What I'm saying is
let's focus our energy and money on things that will
actually make a difference. And as you commented earlier, New
Zealand is just very very small, very tiny. But we
can go knock on the door of our friends in
the agricultural world and say, hey, livestock commissions have never
(07:54):
threatened the planet. It's fossil fuels.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
Got to wrap this up, you and I. This is
like an agreement session, Susan. So let's see if we
can disagree on something. Are you a carbon farmer?
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Personally? I'm not.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
But is your Harby a carbon farmer? You've got a
vested interest there.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
No, we don't own any properly all carbon farms, but
we do buy and sell carbon credits, as brokens On
behalf of our clients.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
So is an ant carbon credits like the emperor's new clothes.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
No, because they're an economic instrument that makes emitters install
new technology, so they're less as if they're paying too
much in carbon credits and they have to put new
technology in. That's the idea of it.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
We've mentioned Crownswell. Also, I think let's chuck federated farmers
into the mix. You disagree with federated farmers when it
comes to carbon farming. But surely we're getting it wrong
in this country, Susan Harris. We're not planting the right
tree in the right place.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Well, that may be true in some such as but
if we again are sensible about this, it's another revenue
for farmers on unproductive.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
Leand Susan Harris out of Fine Ray. Thank you very
much for your time. It's been enlightening. I've enjoyed our chat.
Speaker 2 (09:13):
Thank you, Jamie. It's really good to have an open
discussion about these things.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
I agree with you, Susan, well done, Principal scientist at
Green Experts Limited,
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.