Yesterday I spoke about honesty and the facts behind the emissions reduction scheme proposal from the Labour government and today I wish to explain further and give my honest opinion on the proposal.

 

In my honest opinion the government and its advisors have got it wrong right from the start. They have failed to use the science correctly and by that I mean that they have ignored the existing measures on farm for sequestering carbon and reducing the GHG emissions.

 

This is easily proven fact established by the results of:

 

A recent report prepared by Auckland University of Technology, which estimated woody vegetation on sheep and beef farms may be offsetting 63 to 118 per cent of the gross agricultural emissions from this sector (Case and Ryan, 2020).

 

and

 

In contrast, the findings of the recent report prepared by the Ministry for the Environment indicated net carbon dioxide removals are 63 per cent lower than the midpoint estimate of the Auckland University of Technology report by Case and Ryan (2020), equivalent to 33 per cent of the on-farm agricultural emissions.

 

This MfE report claims to provide a robust and up-to-date estimate of net carbon dioxide removals occurring on sheep and beef farmland.

Whilst both of these reports are related to sheep and beef farmland only, neither of them takes into account the carbon sequestration from grass pasture. Across the whole of the agricultural sector including all types of pastoral farming there is no account taken of the ability for grass pasture to sequester carbon.

 

Even using the lower figures presented in the MfE report (33%) the farming industry is currently exceeding the targeted levels of emissions reductions yet they are still expected to carry the major burden of the reductions in emissions of GHG’s.

 

The carbon sequestration from pastoral farming is currently ignored under the ETS and surely this must mean that the basis for analysis of the GHG emissions from farming is based on flawed science and therefore gives an incorrect measure of the actual emissions from farming.

 

This then means that farming is unfairly penalised under the ETS from the omission of farming’s carbon sequestration ability.

 

This failure to get the basics right leads the whole proposal to become (as journalist Janet Wilson stated) just another FTD (fail to deliver) in a quite long list of them. The major problem for this government with this proposal is that the proposal is universally being condemned by nearly all parties to it.

 

The science is wrong and trees already planted on farms won’t be included in the emissions plan; it is against the Paris Agreement which declares that countries shouldn’t make policies that impact on their ability to feed the world; it will lead to a reduction in sheep and beef farming in New Zealand by 20% and dairy farming by 5% allowing other less environmentally friendly countries to fill that food-producing void.

 

The proposal will incentivise planting pines on good farm land; it will exacerbate the No1 problem currently by raising food prices which will lead to further inflation deliver a double blow for Labour’s core constituency – low-income households – who are already struggling to feed themselves; many farmers will not survive the economic setback and that coupled with carbon farm plantings will lead to rural ghost towns.

 

To coin a phrase from Winston Peters, it will lead to “FARMERGEDDON”.

The Government has lost touch with its voters and is pushing ahead and claiming to lead the world with emissions pricing.

 

In my honest opinion the main reason for that happening is virtue signalling self-interest, and so that our politicians can parade on the international stage and claim some type of moral victory in relation to the global climate change problem, when in actual fact even if New Zealand managed to reach 100% reduction in emissions this would almost still be in the region of the margin of error for statistical probability.

 

So what should be remembered by our politicians and particularly our Prime Minister is that although they may see themselves wearing a bright shiny halo as the leaders of the environmental movement on climate change actions, the shine will soon wear off the halo when they have destroyed our agricultural export industries and we can’t afford to pay our debts.

 

At that point in time they may realise that the halo has slipped down to become a noose around their necks which may be used at the next election to ensure their ignominious exit from the halls of power.