Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Push pause on zero-carbon target

Avatar photo
Last week’s Farmers Weekly made sobering reading. Highly respected rural economist Phil Journeaux told us the Government has the figures wrong over the cost of mitigating global warming.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

That was supported in the article by Waikato University environmental economics expert Professor Frank Scrimgeour.

Simply speaking, New Zealand wearing a hair shirt over global warming could cost the economy over a trillion dollars. 

We can’t afford that.

Journeaux said he had written to both Environment Minister David Parker and Climate Change Minister James Shaw outlining his concerns but had yet to receive the courtesy of a reply.

I’m not surprised.

When Journeaux and Scrimgeour talk I listen and the two ministers should as well.

Both are academic heavyweights and you can’t describe either as a bandwagon jumper. 

Interestingly, neither is on any Government advisory committee to my knowledge, which tells me heaps about their sound scientific and independent approach.

We’re a small country with no effect on the world’s climate and while I’m happy doing my bit I want it based on robust science and sound economic analysis.

My concern is that we have neither.

Further, while I’m happy to support initiatives that make the world a better place for my children and grandchildren, bankrupting the country in the process won’t achieve anything for either me or them.

NZ contributes just 0.2 of a percentage point of world greenhouse gas emissions. Politicians tell us we should be good corporate citizens and we have obligations under the Paris Climate Accord.

That’s fine but America emits 75 times more gases than we do and has ignored the Paris Accord. China is an even greater emitter.

I’ve read the commentary on the Productivity Commission’s report into a low-emissions economy and its recommendation to plant lots of trees.

If we lump all the tree initiatives together we have a requirement to plant two million hectares of trees.

The income from those trees, we are told, will be in the form of carbon credits currently pegged at $25 a tonne, up from $17 last year. The international price is $38, well above ours.

The commission says its modelling shows the price of carbon will need to increase to at least $75, rising to $200 over the next 30 years if we’re serious about becoming a low-emissions economy.

While that’s fine if you’re growing trees it certainly isn’t if you’re getting hit with a carbon tax.

In addition to that report there is a review of the ETS and of course the zero carbon legislation that are all up for discussion.

Farmers could be forgiven for wondering what’s likely to happen next and the workload at Federated Farmers headquarters must be horrific.

My view is we’re long overdue for that restful cup of tea.

We’re certainly long overdue for some meaningful, grassroots consultation.

We’re told planting trees is the answer, all two million hectares of them. That will save the planet.

Iniquitously. just last week Ngai Tahu told us they’re replacing the Eyrewell Forest North of Christchurch with 14,000 cows. 

Maybe someone should tell them about global warming, the Paris Accord and zero carbon.

The commission said the ETS will encourage tree planting but carbon trading is at the whim of politicians and we’ve had the system changed several times over the years.

The problem is, as Journeaux points out, little analysis has been done on the effect of retiring two million hectares of pastoral land to trees.

Locally, we’ve had good productive sheep and beef units sold for forestry, which will inevitably mean loss of regular income and employment opportunities with the effect that will have on local communities and schools.

Ollie Belton of Carbon Forest Services says inquiries on carbon trading have become frenetic.

He says the commission doesn’t dictate Government policy. “I’m a bit cynical about the price. I’ve seen it before. There’s no market for the product other than Government policy,” he says and that’s scary.

Making investment decisions based on political whim isn’t smart in my book.

Mike Strang of Farman Turkington Forestry says at $25 carbon credits are cheap and emitters are paying that amount to meet their obligations rather than surrendering the credits they’ve already bought.

He sees next year as being the biggest influx of planting since the early 1990s, restricted only by availability of seedlings and people to plant them.

The Government has committed to a zero-carbon economy by 2050 and that will require a lot of trees among a heap of other initiatives.

My view is we just don’t know enough about the route we are taking. We haven’t done any sound financial analysis and the science is simply not up to scratch.

Until that is fixed we shouldn’t be heading in any direction.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading