Like all things there are parts I liked and parts I didn’t.
For a start I was really pleased with the acknowledgment of the importance of the agriculture sector by both Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Climate Change Minister James Shaw.
I am also pleased methane is being treated separately and that’s a real plus in my view.
I wasn’t as impressed with the methane targets but the sector has the chance to work with the Government to achieve something more realistic.
My understanding from the scientists I’ve spoken to is that just a 10% reduction in methane by 2050 is climate neutral.
That isn’t a lot and should cause few problems for the sector.
I heard Shaw talking and I was pleasantly reassured by his comments.
He talked about the legislation being a collective effort across every sector of the economy.
He understood the vast difference between methane and carbon dioxide.
He talked about an independent Climate Change Commission, which I found encouraging.
The Government needed to put in infrastructure and support for farming so there have to be support services, research and development and advice.
He assured us the legislation does not necessarily mean a reduction in stock numbers.
What I got out of all that was the Government is progressing with a measured approach based on research and development, which I don’t have a problem with.
I have two concerns.
The first is that air travel is ignored. It’s an infinitely bigger polluter than agriculture.
The second is the level of methane reduction required.
Reaction to the legislation has been interesting.
Federated Farmers vice-president and climate change spokesman Andrew Hoggard said the targets for methane will send the message to farmers New Zealand is prepared to give up on pastoral farming.
He added it is frustratingly cruel because there is nothing he can do on-farm to meet the targets.
He’s right but if the Government is going to boost research and development I’m confident there will be options available in future.
That research and development boost is extremely important in my view.
Further, as Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton pointed out, farmers should be able to plant trees on their land to reduce their emissions obligation.
Being realistic, if you go onto any large hill in rural NZ today and look around you’ll see trees for Africa. It wouldn’t surprise me if we are ahead of the eight ball now and I look forward to more work in this area.
Beef + Lamb basically sung from the same song sheet as Feds saying the targets are too high and farmers should be able to plant trees.
I don’t have any argument with either point.
Of considerable interest is the general media says the targets for methane are soft, so the sector has some work to do to convince the country they’re not.
If the media keep telling the public we have it sweet then getting change will be difficult.
The Environmental Defence Society was supportive of the Government moves, as you would expect. Its position is the announcements were highly concessionary to the agriculture sector.
Our old mates at Greenpeace were apoplectic.
They talked about the Bill being watered down by vested interests like agriculture. They said “With a miserly ambition of 10% cuts in methane by 2030 – the gas from our dirtiest dairy industry –the Zero Carbon Bill is watered down medicine that lacks the potency to cure the actual ailments we have.”
They obviously need a pallet of happy pills at Greenpeace HQ. Mind you, it’s good for our sector they are so emotive and off the wall as no-one in their right mind will take them seriously.
Going forward I’m a lot more relaxed than I could have been.
The Government wants the support of all parties in Parliament.
Federated Farmers are solid, rational lobbyists and can make their arguments heard by all of the parties.
The legislation has to go to a select committee, which gives the sector the ability to have more input.
The science is on the side of agriculture and it will just be a matter of presenting that science, calmly and unemotionally to politicians.
So, we have a lot of work to do if the sector is to succeed in achieving change.
We need to get the backing of some renowned scientists, which I don’t think will be difficult.
We need to talk to politicians of all persuasions calmly and unemotionally.
We must convince the general media and subsequently the public that agriculture isn’t having a soft option.
We all need to support the same science.
If we do those things I’m confident reason will prevail.
