biogeosci.nz

The Productivity Commission’s  Draft Low Emissions Economy Report  makes a very strong case that New Zealand will look and feel different in 2050, and we’ll be far better off with visionary planning and decisions. As someone who has worked on both climate change and water issues arising from our land use sector for almost two decades, I think the report correctly highlights the importance and value of joined up thinking (Box 7.3). What worries me is that the report’s many sensible recommendations only get us part way to the thinking that has to join up in our land-based industries, and in regulation coming from councils and central government. In particular, how regulations make nutrient management and emissions reductions work together will matter to farmers. The report highlights that Overseer, a tool currently used to estimate nutrient losses to freshwater, can also be used to estimate emissions. But it doesn’t highlight the degree of overlap between emissions management and nutrien

By legislation, universities have a role to play as critic and conscience of society. Having recently moved to a professorial post at the University of Waikato, I’m taking up that role to initiate this blog at the Our Land and Water (OLW) National Science Challenge’s 2018 Symposium. The event is on yesterday and today in Wellington, hosted by journalist Rod Oram. The Symposium’s purpose is to design the next tranche of work, likely investing $60 million or or more in perhaps the most iconic issue of national importance, following on $18.6 million invested so far. This challenge is widely considered to deserve criticism, with the firmest evidence being a lack of clear ways forward on the tradeoff between agricultural production and water quality. Other Challenges won’t be the subject here, except to say that some are considered to be performing well, while others are not performing and may be failing. That’s an important point, because if Challenges were really as big and audacious as t