So now we have Globe-NZ commissioning an independent report on Greenhouse Gas emissions and they have come up with the following as the main policy recommendations to reduce NZ’s emissions.
And how does that fit in with PC1. Let’s look at the main part of their recommendations in relation to PC1.
“A more diversified pattern of land use would make for a more resilient, shock-resistant economy.
Under PC1 the only diversification is to get rid of pastoral farming and horticulture and turn all the land we can into forest planting so there is some match up on this point.
The farming-related technological advances Vivid considers would reduce the emissions-intensity of pastoral farming — emissions per kilogram of milk or meat produced. That has been falling already.
PC1 does not in any way recognise or give any credence to the voluntary work that has been done to reduce contaminant emissions or that the emissions have actually been reducing already due to the changing methods of farming.
But if national policy is to keep growing the output of those commodities, that will offset the emission reduction to be had from those advances.
Under PC1 the growth in the farming sector will be absolutely reversed through the economic penalties that are inherent in the changes required under PC1.
So central to the scenarios Vivid outlines is a shift in land use: less pastoral farming, more horticulture, more arable farming and more forestry.
PC1 will prevent any shift in land use to anything other than forestry and with the reductions in capital value of the land through this there is no chance that any current land owner is going to shift from whatever type of farming they are currently in.
What we are talking about is a transformation away from pastoral agriculture towards horticulture, crops and forestry.
As above the only possible change under PC1 is to forestry as the horticulture option has been banned under the land use intensification rules.
But not on a scale or at a pace we have never seen before. “We are not talking about throwing New Zealand agriculture under a bus,” said Vivid director John Ward.
PC1 is all about throwing NZ agriculture under the bus. It does nothing about the emissions from the urban areas and puts huge restrictions on the ability of land owners to carry on farming their land. NZ is one of the most urbanised countries in the world with nearly 85% of the population living in urban areas yet PC1 turns a blind eye to the emissions from them and says oh well we will catch up with them in the future when their consents come up for renewal but in the meantime they will have destroyed the economy of NZ.
“Rather, what we are talking about is a transformation away from pastoral agriculture towards horticulture, crops and forestry. And the rates of switching we see are no more than continuation of historical trends.”
Under PC1 the land use rules prevent this from happening.
Its scenarios, the serious ones at least, envisage between 10 and 20 per cent fewer dairy cattle by 2050 and 20 to 30 per cent fewer beef cattle. But the economic cost of that would be mitigated by a 15 per cent rise or more in milk or meat production per animal.
Under PC1 this will happen but the major possibility is that the reduction will be greater as there will be a very large number of farms that will be made uneconomic and cause their owners to walk off the land. Any economic benefit from increases in production from each animal will be wiped out by PC1 rules.
Sheep numbers could drop by 24 to 37 per cent. But we have already seen the national flock more than halved since subsidies were axed in the late 1980s.
This is probably the only area where there is a possibility of animal numbers rising due to the fact that for many dry stock farmers the only possible option may be to change to sheep and avoid the costs of fencing around stock exclusion rules in PC1. It not much of a choice for many but the only other option is to sit back and go broke.
Forestry is the back-stop. If the hoped-for advances in reducing biological emissions disappoint, that could be offset by more aggressive afforestation.
Great we can all go and plant forests. In the meantime we can put all of our income on hold for approximately twenty five to thirty years while we wait for them to mature ready for harvest. Oh, and while we do that we can count the losses from the depreciation in the capital value of the land. “Yeah Right”.
Vivid sees scope for up to another 2.3 million hectares of forest to be planted, two-thirds of it plantation forests (doubling the present area) and the rest natives. Beyond that the opportunity cost of planting gets a bit steep.
See above.
But it is only the expansion of the forest estate that provides an offset to emissions. Once the trees are harvested and replaced, it just cycles around a new equilibrium level.”
So we get a one off benefit in relation to the lowering of the GHG’s and then it is business as usual. This would be wonderful if there was anyone left in NZ to reap the benefit, but the reality of this scenario is that we would be broke in no time as we would have destroyed most of our income producers and then we would have been sold off to the highest price overseas buyers (which would probably be pretty low as there would not be much to offer).
So the reality is that even were NZ to adopt this report as the way forward in relation to GHG emissions, PC1 will put a stop to any of that. Horticulture is a dirty word under PC1 and there is to be no expansion as it is considered to be an activity that will require non-complying resource consent to be able to carry it out and the chances of getting one of those is not very far above zero.
We can all become tree huggers till we die from starvation.
Andy Loader
Co-Chairman P.L.U.G.