I’m emailing to update you on National’s Farming Tax lunacy and how the media keeps getting Methane wrong.
National still wants a Farming Tax
National’s Climate Change Minister, Simon Watts, announced that National still plans to put a price on agricultural emissions by 2030, just like Labour’s Farming Tax. He claims that this can be done without what they call “emissions leakage” which is when reduced production at home causes foreign farmers to replace us in the global market and emit just the same or more gasses.
Make no mistake, there is no way a tax can do anything other than reduce New Zealand’s agricultural production and make food even more expensive for consumers. Kiwi farmers are already the most efficient in the world and among the lowest emitters because of it. We’re also quick to pick up new technologies and run at the forefront of developing new ones. When the world’s consumers want a new technology used (once shown to be safe, useful, and cost-effective) Kiwi farmers start using it to deliver more food, at higher quality, and at lower prices.
The only outlet for a new tax is a decrease in production.
Since we’re so efficient, and the world will carry on eating meat, milk, and all the rest, that means overseas producers will run bigger, higher emitting herds and flocks to meet demand. And that means more Carbon and Methane in the air.
It doesn’t matter what you think of climate change science or politics, the Farming Tax is logically flawed from the get-go. That’s why voters rejected it so soundly at the election.
For a country that can barely pay its bills and has its voters wrestling to deal with household budgets under pressure, a Farming Tax would be nothing but throwing Kiwis under the bus so Simon Watts can get some applause at the next climate change conference.
2030 means there’s still time to show National the error of its ways and we intend to do just that.
Methane on the brain
You might be seeing a bit around about Methane and it’s something that’s easy to disengage from when people start going into complicated discussions of this or that chemical process. But you don’t have to know all that to understand the reasons why agricultural Methane is not the great terror the media makes it out to be.
The Government’s “independent” Methane Review Panel delivered the whitewash it was designed to, ignoring the new scientific work going on agricultural methane, as well as the logical facts about what New Zealand’s agricultural methane levels could actually do to global temperatures (short answer: somewhere between nothing and a little cooling).
We’ve covered this before, but with Methane back in the conversation, you can’t go wrong checking out the great work from the Methane Science Accord. They have a new video about the current situation. Click here to watch it.
We know not everyone has the time to learn about Methane, but the important thing to remember is that agricultural emissions are a cycle. With NZ stock numbers decreasing over the years, there’s no way for there to be more NZ stock-caused Methane in the atmosphere now than there was when we signed the Paris Agreement.
If anything, the less Methane cycling though the atmosphere would be causing a net cooling effect, not warming. Do we think farmers are up for any credit for this cooling effect? Of course not, the emissions bureaucracy only thinks in terms of what they can pretend to measure and then tax.
No one can agree on a way to measure Methane emissions (it’s only 1.7 parts per million in the atmosphere) so the emissions establishment types want to make guesses and start taxing farmers based on those guesses, even though the amount of Methane cycling through the air has to be less than it was.
When that’s pointed out, we often hear in response that the taxes and regulations are just what our global export markets are demanding, but is that really the case? We’ve yet to see any evidence that the end consumer going to their supermarket is prepared to pay more for lower-emissions food.
If it were the case, food produced in more expensive, lower emissions ways could command a premium on the world market. Somehow, no one is operating in that niche at anything like the scale to build a nationwide industry out of. Instead, New Zealand’s already emissions-efficient food competes on price and quality around the world just fine.
In fact, as the Government was keen to crow about last week, food and fibre exports are predicted to reach record values next year. The global consumer clearly hasn’t got the memo that they’re supposed to be turning their noses up at New Zealand’s offering.
The good news
It’s not all bad news. A few announcements have come out that are steps in the right direction, but not nearly enough to make up for National keeping the Farming Tax alive.
The Government announced last week that the carbon farming practice of planting pines all over productive farming land will come to an end. They’re putting a moratorium on exotic forestry registrations for most actively farmed land and caps on how much can be converted on the rest. At least that option will be off the table when if the Farming Tax does arrive.
Getting to this point was a Team Ag joint effort, with particular credit to go to 50 Shades of Green for their dedicated advocacy for commonsense on carbon forestry.
Also, the Government looks to be heading in the right direction with farm plans, accepting the Groundswell case that they could only work if they’re about the individual farm and the catchment it sits in. David Parker’s attempts to run farms from Wellington are done with - hopefully for good.
Whether with our campaigning against Labour’s Farming Tax, or for these kinds of policy changes, we’ve gotten the change we need in the past with your backing. I hope you’ll join us in fighting to stop this new attempt at a Farming Tax before we get as close as last time.
Thank you again for your support.
Kind regards,
Bryce, Laurie, Mel and the Team at Groundswell NZ
