A change of government has brought a bit of sense back to net zero obsession and overreach, but the general idea is still alive.
– – –
New Zealand is scrapping a scheme to price gas emissions from livestock — squelching a so-called burp-and-fart tax initiated under the previous left-wing government led by now departed authoritarian Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, says Climate Change Dispatch.
New legislation will be introduced to parliament this month by the ruling conservative coalition to remove the agriculture sector from a new emissions pricing plan, thus responding to farmer pressure that the plan would make their business unprofitable.
“The government is committed to meeting our climate change obligations without shutting down Kiwi farms,” said Agriculture Minister Todd McClay.
“It doesn’t make sense to send jobs and production overseas, while less carbon-efficient countries produce the food the world needs.”
The New Zealand economy is driven by agriculture with around 10 million cattle and 25 million sheep roaming the nation’s pastures.
. . .
Critics saw it simply as a punitive tax on farmers and their produce.
That has now been reversed and farmers welcomed the decision.
Full article here.
– – –
Image: NZ cow sculpture [credit: Prosperosity @ Wikipedia]
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
New Zealand should tax politicians for stupid ideas
[…] New Zealand Dumps Plan To Tax Cow Burps, Farts […]
CH4 absorbs radiation of a wavelength of 8 micron. This radiation is not emitted from Earth’s Surface. The concept of CH4 came from the idea that when burnt CH4 give 1* CO2 + 2* H20 with H2O absorbing 10 times CO2 giving originally 21 *CO2. The latter has been increased to around 35 * CO2. However, several things wrong (or lies). CH4 does no burn in the atmosphere. It needs an ignition temperature of about 650C and then it needs sufficient concentration to sustain combustion (minimum 5%). A second point is that the IPCC does not recognise H2O as a greenhouse gas. So the lie about CH4 burning has no point. Finally, the amount of CH4 in the atmosphere has been fairly stable at about 1.7 ppm volume (compared to 420 ppm for CO2) and even if it did absorb long wave radiation from the surface it would be insignificant to anything.
So-called “Climate Scientists” are fools who have no ability or skills to make an assessment of climate or climate change. Only Chemical or Mechanical Engineers who understand Thermodynamics, Heat & Mass transfer, Fluid Dynamics and the many other engineering subjects such as instrumentation, mathematics and process control
Methane won’t burn, it will be oxidised by UV light.
Adam Gallon, where did you get that idea. It is not true. See this from NASA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_band
CH4 absorbs no UV