The Centre is fully aware that “correlation is not causation”, and equally aware that public policy does not develop along a single straight line from the policy entrepreneur to those finally responsible for its implementation.

The Centre is also aware that many who have made submissions to Select Committees feel their efforts have counted for nothing and probably never will. Many become disillusioned and abandon any further participation in this process.

So, as part of this reference to one of our activities, the Centre is not so much beating its own drum as suggesting that the process can be worthwhile and frequently when one expects it least. So don’t give up!

John Key might have first mentioned the idea of a Global Research Alliance in September, but the Centre is naturally predisposed to believe that the idea was first mooted – somewhat in passing – by the Centre, within its initial submission to the ETS Select Committee.

Dr Hucheson (MP National) as a member of the Select Committee asked the Centre to enlarge on the idea in a further submission and the Centre consequently presented its Formal  Supplementary Submission – 0n 21^st May, 2009.

One of the main drivers of the Centre’s advocacy of New Zealand joining some form of international science alliance was the need to break NIWA’s monopoly on Government policy and scientific advice about climate change, especially as NIWA’s disciplinary focus was on atmospheric science rather than on soil and agriculture.

Our first submission (transcript of oral presentation) is here.

The written supplementary submission is here.

The key points in this supplementary submission were:

9.           Punching Above our Weight where it Does Most Good.

While some claim “the science is settled” no one can claim that “all the sciences are settled” and as more scientists from more disciplines bring their research and analysis to bear on the issue of Climate Change the uncertainties continue to expand. Consequently we need to consider the need to manage the risks that the current presumptions of dangerous Anthropogenic Climate Change may be overturned.

New Zealand can do little to change the climate but has a major role in feeding the world and in developing the sciences that will enable other developing economies to feed their own people. Hence we should be developing a ‘no regrets’ policy that can deal with any developments in climate science that may transpire.

If it finally transpires that the threat of dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming proves to be yet another false alarm we shall still have reaped the benefits of an increased depth of understanding of top-soil management and both crop and animal husbandry.

10.          A New Brand for New Zealand.

Instead of being apologetic, our exporters could supply UK supermarkets with pastoral scenes captioned “Food from the world’s greenest greenhouse sinks!” We could also remind our tourists, viewing our green and verdant land, that these may be the most effective greenhouse sinks in the world.

This counter to potential trade threats could be branded "Greening Grass" and draw attention to:


·      the carbon-sink capacity of our perennial grasses, which not only absorb CO₂ 
but help convert it to food for the world;

·      our scientific and practical experience and expertise in developing 
pasture grasses; and

·       our willingness to be a leader in imparting this 
knowledge to countries who need it, with emphasis on India, China and 
northerly African states.



In projecting this message to the world, New Zealand could say that whatever we do to try to limit emissions of GHGs will have no effect on the global climate, will 
limit our ability to export food, and divert our science from further 
improvements in pasture grass and soil management to less effective areas or to areas where other nations are already concentrating far more resources.

New Zealanders could offer, or sell, this ‘Greening Grass’ technology and know-how to help feed all the people of the world – a problem that will never go away.

The government could adopt this policy as a precursor to any final decisions on emissions trading or taxes, without being accused of ‘doing nothing’ while waiting for the outcome of the Copenhagen Conference and the Australian decisions. Such a policy might even get support from the Green Party for whom topsoil enhancement is a long-standing issue.

The Centre also recognizes that, as this policy developed, Simon Upton played a major role in selling the notion to twenty or more nations attending the Copenhagen Conference. This does not surprise us because Simon Upton and Owen McShane have shared many views over the years and both always favour policies which are both “win-win” and also likely to engender “no regrets”. (See my reference to the reforms of the DSIR in the Centre’s oral submission above.)

For those reasonable and rational political leaders and delegates to the Conference, the room in which this Global Research Alliance proposal was worked out, with its focus on feeding humanity, must have seemed a haven of civilized discourse compared to the main hall where extremists were demanding their tribal sacrifices to save the Earth Mother.

Given that the proposal for a Global Alliance focusing on agricultural research may be the only agreement of any real substance to come out of the Copenhagen circus, the Centre feels pleased to have made some contribution to its development, whether that contribution proves to be 5% or 95%.

In particular, the Centre believes that this experience demonstrates that submissions to Select Committees are worth while even if one cannot tell which ones have been taken on board and which have been totally ignored.