In addition, unlike reports from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) and regional councils, it shows knowledge and understanding of agriculture. Professor Nicola Shadbolt has served the sector well.
Finally, it considers the core issues – how we must reduce pollution. That’s a welcome change from the “keep polluting and plant more pines” mantra we’ve had in the past.
So my view is that the report is positive and farmers should read it on the CCC website.
Basically, we can meet our emissions reduction targets without relying on unproven technologies, we have multiple options to get there and the cost of doing that will be minimal.
In summary, we have to move quickly into electric vehicles. While I accept the principle, I have difficulty with the practicality. Electric cars are expensive, electric trucks are largely in their development stage and are incredibly pricey. Electric tractors are “at least a decade away from being commercially available.” In addition, I’m told “they don’t have the energy density of diesel.”
Also, getting people to “walk, cycle and take public transport” is fine. Farmers walk a lot as it is, cycling amongst the timber trucks on narrow roads isn’t for me and there’s no public transport in our neck of the woods.
That aside, I found the chapters on farming were excellent. Yes, we must change but the CCC has analysed the changes needed and how we need to get there. The suggested improvements in land and climate information is most welcome as is the improvement in the supply of relevant and timely information. I’d suggest our current weather forecasting needs major improvement.
With forestry, the proposal is for a massive increase in native plantings on “marginal land.” The cost to landowners of that conversion is discussed along with incentives.
The CCC’s discussion of carbon dioxide and methane is great and should be compulsory reading for all politicians and bureaucrats. The report says we need to reduce biogenic methane emissions from between “49% and 60% below 2017 levels by 2100.” I believe that with breeding, feeding and vaccine research that is achievable.
Aviation and shipping emissions get a passing mention and that is one area I’d like to see discussed in more depth. The argument that aviation is excluded from the Paris agreement is irrelevant, so is food production.
What interested me about the report was the reaction to it. The Government has accepted the report and promised to move on the recommendations.
The National opposition climate change spokesperson Stuart Smith says “reaching a net zero emissions target was hugely ambitious for a country that earns half its export income from the primary sector.”
I disagree.
He added that National wouldn’t commit to bipartisan support for the recommendations laid out in the report.
I found that disappointing. We’re all in this together, it’s bigger than politics.
Federated Farmers had a positive reaction to the report. President Andrew Hoggard said “the Commission has offered sound, depoliticised advice for agricultural emissions that acknowledge New Zealand’s world-leading low emissions footprint.
“Now, we need to step up and accept the use of more high-tech solutions. They are out there we just have to approve them.” Amen to that.
Feds also supported government agencies to have climate change goals and not leave it to MfE. They appreciated the report’s science-based, split gas approach and its agreement that blanket planting of good farmland in pines wasn’t sustainable, and the need to improve rural broadband so farmers can uptake high-tech mitigation tools.
I found the Feds response solid and Hoggard’s rebuttal of the Greenpeace hysteria was inspirational.
Beef + Lamb NZ raised some legitimate issues, but were supportive of the thrust of the report.
Forest and Bird said the CCC “offered an ambitious achievable plan for NZ.” It was supportive of farming.
Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace came out of the starting blocks with the hysterical headline, “NZ’s dirtiest industry – dairy – gets the biggest free pass in draft climate plan.”
That indicated to me they hadn’t read the entire document. My reading told an entirely different story.
Their statement “that ain’t transformational” suggested to me a sad lack of English. I can only surmise the spokesperson wasn’t educated at Greymouth Tech.
The good news is we now have a report that is scientifically-argued, non-confrontational and sound. The commission is to be commended for that. There is now a period for consultation and I believe the commission will listen to scientifically-argued, non-confrontational submissions.
We have finally taken positive first steps in what will be a long journey.
