James Shaw has been shown up, not having evidence to support his farming tax. Meanwhile, Dairy NZ and Fonterra have botched any chance of a review and we’re left needing a political solution, while HWEN (the industry/Government “compromise” on emissions) is set to decimate the sheep and beef sector.
James Shaw and the giant lack of evidence
We wrote to James Shaw in June, asking for what evidence he had that New Zealand agriculture was adding to warming of the climate. Given his rush to implement a farming tax in the form of emissions pricing, we thought he would at least have something we could check on. Otherwise, this would all just be an ideological drive to punish food producers, which we’re assured up and down couldn’t be the case.
Five weeks later, we finally got a response from him, but all that he had to say for himself was that agriculture has contributed to historic warming. He had nothing about what today’s farming is doing. Our point, which we have repeatedly put to the Government, is that between stabilised methane emissions and carbon sequestration, New Zealand agriculture is potentially already climate neutral.
The Government still has yet to address with our argument. It’s beginning to look like the emissions emperor has neither clothes nor the data to pretend otherwise.
The He Waka Eke Noa farming tax is not about the effect of agriculture on the climate. Instead, it plans to sacrifice farmers on the altar of climate change extremism, to offset warming from other sectors of the economy.
In fact, of the Government’s 10% methane reduction target, only a 3% reduction is required to offset our warming from methane. The remaining 7% will produce a cooling trend that the Government wants to use to offset warming from other sectors of the economy.
Farmers are not the problem – we are being cynically used as scapegoats. It’s time the Minister (and rural advocates) fronted up and told the truth.
You can read our letter to James Shaw here.
Then the response, light on detail as it is, can be read here.
DairyNZ and Fonterra have blown any chance of a target review via the Climate Change Commission
By submitting in support of the 10% reduction target during the Zero Carbon Act consultation process, DairyNZ and Fonterra robbed our industry of a genuine debate on how methane should be treated. DairyNZ’s recent media campaign, crying foul over the targets, suggests they have woken up to their mistake.
Unfortunately, the opportunity to debate the methane target has now passed.
Claims that our industry leaders will be able to negotiate reduced targets at the upcoming Climate Change Commission review in 2024 are misleading at best. The Climate Change Commission has strict criteria for reassessing the targets and, given the science on methane’s warming effect was already well established in 2019, back when the dairy sector agreed to the Government’s targets, these same arguments cannot be heard again by the Commission.
Once again, by eagerly jumping to look good around the Beehive, those purporting to speak for food producers have left us hanging.
A political solution now required
Farmers must now rely on our political representatives to push for fairer targets.
But the National Party remains ambiguous on what they will do:
National supports the Climate targets but will continue to debate the pathways to their achievement with a focus on science along with a fair and affordable transition – Agriculture Spokesperson Barbara Kuriger
At least the Act Party has offered a clearer signal of support calling on government to “give farmers a fair deal when setting methane targets.”
Groundswell NZ, with your support, will stay on the case to all the politicians.
HWEN set to decimate the sheep and beef sector
Those administering HWEN (the Farming Tax agreed to by advocacy bodies) are expecting sheep and beef production to drop by 7-8% by 2030. This significant expected reduction is driven by a combination of pricing livestock emissions and the ever-increasing draw of carbon farming.
The plan to destock rural New Zealand is hidden under ‘existing policies’ in the HWEN report and has received almost no scrutiny by our traditional advocacy bodies.
The plight of our sheep and beef farmers is further compounded by their lack of genuine mitigation options, as they are already so efficient, and their inability to get all their provable carbon sequestration included in the calculations.
Beef+Lamb Chair, Andrew Morrison, has repeatedly scoffed at the potential for sequestration to offset farm emissions, but this is because HWEN will only recognise a small fraction of the actual carbon sequestration taking place. While the IPCC (the international climate change body) guidelines allow our Government to include a far wider range of sequestration actions than are included under HWEN.
Geoff Ross, of Hawea Station, has demonstrated what can be achieved if the correct application of the ‘additionality’ clause is applied. Hawea Station is now two times carbon positive, something many hill country farms could easily replicate if Government policy allowed them to implement the same workable, on-the-ground actions.
