Like most farmers I do accept the climate is changing and everyone needs to do their bit.
I’d argue farmers do more than most.
Where I remain unconvinced is the science behind many of the decisions.
Will any of the myriad of so-called initiatives make one whit of difference?
With the agriculture into the ETS discussion document there is some good news, bad news and a bit of the believe it or not.
Submissions on the Government’s response to the Interim Climate Change Committee’s report close in a month.
On the good side I’m pleased the ministers are making an effort to find a consensus.
We’ve know methane will be treated differently from carbon dioxide and we’re told farmers can mitigate their own emissions.
Those emissions will, from 2025, be assessed on-farm, which has advantages and disadvantages.
Any tax collected will be used to investigate methods of mitigating methane, which is positive.
On the negative side the tax from 2021 to 2025 will be at processor level making it merely a cost of production.
They’re going to tax nitrogen fertiliser as soon as they can get the processes in place, which will get approval from no-one except Landcorp, which has long argued for such a tax.
I have an issue with taxes on nitrogen fertiliser because, Landcorp’s misguided belief aside, they don’t work.
If a farmer doesn’t use nitrogen fertiliser to promote growth he or she can mitigate that loss of growth by feeding supplements, palm kernel for example.
Feeding supplements will have little effect on any nitrogen runoff but could reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, if that what the Government wants.
On the negative side taxing processors is nothing more than a cost for farmers and consumers.
The on-farm assessment from 2025 I agree with in principle because it might change behaviour.
My concern is with process.
Will the Government do what the Irish have done and rely on farmer returns?
The only alternative is to depend on an army of advisers and consultants, which will cost the earth while achieving little.
Another complication is to consider New Zealand cutting production to reduce our gases.
All that would achieve would be to transfer production from an efficient regime in NZ to an inefficient one somewhere offshore.
Net world greenhouse gases would rise.
I don’t accept the Government argument that being carbon neutral is an asset when it comes to marketing our products.
For a start, it will have absolutely no effect in America or China and the only country I know of that is trying that approach is Ireland with Origin Green and that is fully funded by the Irish government.
My suggestion is for a separate agreement with the Government that is aside from the ever-increasing and complex bureaucracy that is the ETS.
Reportage of the announcement has been interesting and shows beyond all doubt much of the media has little understanding of agriculture.
Stuff, never reluctant to bash farmers, led with agriculture, the most polluting sector of the economy looks set to join the ETS but under a sweetheart deal that will see it pay just 5% of its total emissions cost from 2025.
My advice on that would be to stay in the shallow end.
The NZ Herald had farmers agreeing to emissions pricing in its headline.
Really?
Has no-one read the Paris Accord that exempts food production?
Shaw described the discussion document as recognising historic consensus.
Not from some of those I’ve spoken to but any effort to reach consensus is appreciated.
I found the economic analysis by DairyNZ facile and strongly believe both DairyNZ and Beef + Lamb need to step up a lot better than they have done if either is serious about having any future.
The ever-eloquent Forestry Minister Shane Jones accused farmers of exaggerating the impact of the Government’s climate change legislation and pouring bile on the Government’s plans.
For the record, the Government’s zero carbon legislation has united the provincial sector like little else over the last 10 years.
I was further confused with the Government on one hand wanting agriculture in the ETS while making the earth-shattering announcement it won’t die in a ditch over the goal of 100% renewable energy generation by 2035.
Achieving the renewable energy goal is easy; just pull the plug on Tiwari Point.
So, we have a document that needs debate.
We need facts.
We need champions like Federated Farmers dairy chief Chris Lewis who said “NZ towns and cities are in for an economic hiding if dairy farmers are forced into the ETS”.
Statements like that will win the battle.
Others like Beef + Lamb and DairyNZ should learn from it and join Feds in supporting their levy payers.
