sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

A new agricultural emissions plan from National proposes that farmers will not have to face full emissions pricing until 2030

Public Policy / news
A new agricultural emissions plan from National proposes that farmers will not have to face full emissions pricing until 2030
Farm scene

By Eric Frykberg

The National Party is proposing to push out crunch day for farm-based greenhouse gas emissions to 2030.

At present the Government will put farmers under the Emissions Trading Scheme by 2025 unless a system of viable reductions in farm-by-farm emissions is in place by this year.

This issue has been at the heart of highly publicised arguments over the agricultural sector's banner document, He Waka Eka Noa.

But National says agriculture is the backbone of New Zealand’s economy, contributing 11% of GDP, 13% of employment and 81% of goods exports.

Local farmers are competitive and carbon-efficient, National says.

It acknowledges they also produce around half of this country’s greenhouse gas emissions, so the party wants to bring down agricultural emissions without downsizing agriculture, which would only make New Zealand poorer.

The party wants to fix this problem with biotechnologies such as methane inhibitors, by ending the ban on GE and GM technologies.

It wants farm level emissions measured by 2025 and full recognition of on-farm emissions sequestration on a robust, scientific basis.

It supports a split gas approach to keep agriculture out of the ETS. This means methane would be assessed separately from CO2. This would be in place by 2030.

There would also be limits on converting high quality farm land to forestry.

National says doing nothing is not an option but it also wants to discourage relatively clean production in New Zealand from going offshore where conditions would be worse.

The party says it is vital that when agricultural emissions pricing begins, farmers have the tools they need to respond.

Without such tools, a price on agricultural emissions would simply be a punitive tax.

"National will introduce an agricultural emissions price at the farm level no later than 2030," the party says.

But the prices put on emission would be kept in line with the level of this country's competitors and trade partners.

"Farmers should have access to the tools and technologies they need to reduce on-farm emissions before an emissions price is introduced," the party adds.

"Agricultural emissions pricing should operate with minimum compliance costs and give maximum certainty to support investment."

National would also establish an independent Agricultural Emissions Pricing Board to implement the system.

Income from this scheme would be recycled into research on climate mitigation.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

70 Comments

Rumen manipulation biotechnologies are well off being scalable. Technology for creating milk without a cow, however, is not. Setting our farming industry up for failure.

Up
5

Can NZ's farming industry be internationally competetive at making cow-less milk?

Up
4

Precisely.

Up
0

You seem to be agreeing with your own position, but how?

 

We have comparably little relevant industrial expertise domestically. What limited people are available, we have channelled into specialising in a different direction.

Wouldn't it take decades to develop the talent required, and a huge amount of industrial capital?

As far as I can see, instead of producing high value products, our farms would be reduced to producing feed stock for another country's industry to produce the product.

Up
1

I would have thought if we are starting form a low base of expertise and ability, then a small amount of investment would reap realitvely large results. But you would pick your areas to invest carefully. Ireland for e.g , seems to have done well with blended butter products. Thailand didn't compete with China on mass production , instead it went for small run CNC and casting runs, and now excels in the engineering sector worldwide. We have AllFlex , Fisher and Paykel , Gallagher , all have exported their homegrown technology. 

 

Up
0

Sorry I should have been more clear. No we aren't leading on the competitive front. We might be able to if we could repurpose some of our dairy processing plants. But otherwise no, the best opportunity comes from reducing intensity. 

Up
1

Thank you for clarifying.

Up
0

It does sound an awful lot like the fossil fuel industry claims we could use carbon capture to create “clean coal”. It was never economically viable and was always just a delay tactic.

Up
2

People don't want to drink "milk" per se, they want to drink cow's milk. At least, I do anyway. Last I checked, we can't create cow's milk without a cow? Or are you claiming that people will happily substitute nut "milk" on their breakfasts? Maybe a few people would, but I doubt most would, and it's not considered healthy for children.

Up
0

It also wants to discourage relatively clean production in New Zealand from going offshore where conditions would be worse

Some good points coming out of NZ National party office finally. This government believes NZ is in a climate bubble of its own.

The aluminium smelter, for example, at Tiwai Point emits roughly 1/7th the amount of carbon that an average smelter does elsewhere in the world. Shutting it down could mean India or China filling that supply gap powered by brown or black coal.

Such arguments are completely lost on Labour/Green MPs who want to kill the few golden egg-laying geese left in this country.

Up
20

Gap?

Assumptions.

Up
1

There is no evidence that production would move offshore. Maybe a small amount would, but over all there would still be a reduction in emissions. Sorry I can't remember the paper I got this from, but it was a credible source. 

Up
2

The more expensive it is to produce here, the more likely it is to move overseas. If other countries were doing the same thing, it would reduce emissions but they aren’t. 

Up
9

That's an assumption though, with no evidence. Other countries don't have the same emissions profile to us, and are reducing emissions. We aren't leading here.

Up
3

Logistics produces emissions too. Why do environmentalists keep forgetting this?

Up
0

They don't.

Up
3

Oh, they do. There are two examples on this page.

 

Not to mention there are proposals and policies endorsed by environmentalists that would only increase emissions because they are not considering logistics. This excludes other solutions climate change environmentalists oppose.

Up
0

The land is not going away.  It's value may fall from the very high levels that require cheap immigrant labor and over intensive farming, however at a lower land value someone will find a way of turning a buck from it.

As a left field suggestion.

How about removing all weather disaster aid to farmers and replace it by an insurance scheme.  A measurement of the carbon discharges on each farm would would farm would be translated to a subsidy to the farmers contribution to the insurance.  -  Or something like that. 

Up
0

I don't think the title of this article is quite correct.  My reading of the National proposal is that there will be no emissions charges for methane and nitrous oxide until  2030.
KeithW 

Up
8

Yep - not us, said the little - blue? - hens.

Pathetic.

Hang your heads in shame.

And don't ever look your grandchildren in the eye.

Up
8

The biggest danger to the grandchildren are climate alarmists. 

Up
15

Sad little comment

I suppose you think the planet is infinite too?

Usually goes with the territory. Flat-earthers, I call 'em.

Up
9

Correct Keith

Up
0

The title has now been corrected

Edit: But on my screen has now reverted again to the incorrect version.

Edit2:  I now see that the title on the home page is accurate but the title on the article page is the one in error

Up
1

A classic National Party plan to deal with any problem, give that can a big ol' kick down the road to 2030.

Up
17

What does it say about our agriculture sector when it comprises 81% of goods exports but only 13% of GDP?

Up
2

it says that it is our most valuable export industry , earning much needed foreign exchange .

Up
14

Really? It would imply we export low value goods. 

Up
8

Can you explain your maths that led you to that conclusion?

Up
3

It says you don’t understand what GDP is. 

Up
8

It says that the other 87% of GDP produces 19% of exports so therefore is totally reliant on borrowed money to survive? Alternatively 60% of people people are totally unproductive?

Up
9

You think agriculture isn't reliant on borrowed money to survive? Lol

Up
1

Yes but that borrowing is at least based on income from saleable commodities . Where as the other 87% is based mostly on more borrowing, a ponzi even.

Up
4

Do us all a favour, do some research on GDP. In New Zealand's case its a virtually meaningless stat! Clung onto by the left  and trotted out whenever they want to bag ag & forestry!

 

Up
3

I would argue that it's held onto more by the right to be fair

Up
3

This is good policy. We are at serious risk and making things worse by trying to do good. Technology has to be part of the solution, that is what is going to make an actual difference. Enable more clean energy production, solar and wind etc. 

Up
5

Bollocks. And stop mixing metaphors.

Yes. we are serious risk - but probably not from the one you have in mind.

Making things worse is what BigAg does EVERY DAY.

And what has renewable energy got to do with the process of inefficiently turning oil calories - finite oil calories - into food calories? (Sorry, I meant farming as practiced; slip of the pen).

The oxymoron of all time: justify yourself on the basis that you've got to feed X billion by Y years; kid everyone you can tech you way out of the impossible, and use the fudge to do nothing. The oxymoron bit is that it is a very temporary regime; beyond the oil, there won't be the billions. They'll be X billions - like the parrot...

 

Up
2

Please crawl back under your rock!

Up
5

Thank goodness when it was the hole in the ozone layer, affecting us most severely back in the 1980s,  the less-impacted rest-of-the-world didn't choose to kick-the-can down the road.

 

 

Up
13

There was a 'cost effective' solution to that, Kate. So it happened - just.

There isn't one to this, so it won't until it self-implodes - which it will.

But you can be their bottom dollar, that if there hadn't been a 'cost effective' solution to the ozone problem, National would still be advocating duckshoving it out seven years hence, indefinitely.

Up
4

Maybe if climate change gave us all skin cancer…?

This 2030 date feels miraculously like 2 elections after 2023/24.

Up
2

Back then people could somewhat believe the media and still had the war fresh in their minds, leading to a sense of collective good for the betterment of all. Now we have climate alarmists shouting and screaming trying to make change happen without being able to accurately understand or prove the consequence of their demands, while the rest of the world doesn't want to give up an inch of their own comfort for the betterment of all. Soon enough another conflict will come and we will all be reminded of the nature of humans, we expand, we quarrel, we war, we fight, and then in the time of peace after the destruction, we rebuild and care more about others due to the level of pain and loss inflicted by the few in power that used us as fodder and pawns in geopolitical chess. 

Up
3

Disappointing. Here was our chance to move to high value exports , blown . 

Ah well, its shaping up that they will encourage the young to vote , which will benefit the Greens.

All to win a few votes off ACT, and maybe NZ First.

Up
3

Your comments are as painful as that of PDK! You actually have no clue on how our agriculture operates. You actually sound like a pedaller of Greenpiece propaganda!

Up
4

I can count more than 10 calories of fossil oil, in every calorie of food produced.

It's finite.

So too, then, is the way we farm.

Calling people names doesn't change the physics.

Up
9

This comment coming from the guy who continually harangues this site with his OPINION and berates all those who don't  agree!

As  I have said in the past, I actually agree with you regarding over population of the world and the consequent over extraction of resources. However you never present solutions. Neither do I as I don't have anything viable to contribute. Excepting a world war or a mass death epidemic I  have no clue how to solve over population. 

Unfortunately the delivery of your OPINION is that of a pompous, condescending, crank!

 

 

Up
1

Sending condos would use a large amount of energy which does not sound like PDK's thing.

Up
2

Yeah, LOL! Edited.

Up
0

To be fair to PDK, and you, the point is we cant change the laws of Physics, chemistry and maths - you can keep doing what we do but the laws of science, which havn't changed, tell us what will happen, its just that is a big room the experiment is being done in and it takes time to get the result and its a complex equation and not a straight line - but an equation it is. 

Its a very scary thought to loose the amazing lifestyles/assets which gives us access to resources and pleasant experiences we all want - we have created these on the back of all this energy. Whether you believe its terminal or we can find a path through this is the point and needs discussion and good debate - one thing we can be sure is we will have to change as nothing sits still.

This note shows its changing and its scary on a practical day to day level - No easy answers but we need to be looking around 360 degrees and consider everything but realise the laws of science are unemotional and don't care about our feelings, assets or personal financial well being.

https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/technology/westpac-report-puts-numbers-…

 

Up
4

Agree.

Up
0

Yes. Have you read the Small Farm Futures books and blog? (e.g. https://smallfarmfuture.org.uk/?p=2121)

 

Up
1

, I'm just very negative, wet, whiny, and inward-looking. 

But watch out , we are about to get our mojo back .  

Up
4

5 years not enough. Minimum 10 years.

Up
1

Why?

Up
0

The party wants to fix this problem with biotechnologies such as methane inhibitors

Totally insane!  You want to give pharmaceutical antibiotics to animals to mitigate an imaginary problem.   The elephant in the room is that the IPCC AR6 model acknowledges that the warming potential of CH4 is 3 to 4 times less than previously thought.  This has not been factored into New Zealand’s calculations.  Methane also has a tiny narrow absorption band in the infrared spectrum which is swamped by waters broad strong absorption spectrum.  The laboratory experiments used to assess CH4 warming potential were done in dry air apparently.  What that means is that methane, in all likleyhood, has practically zero effect on the climate. 

Up
4

Why do you link Bill Barry rather than IPCC? 

Up
1

Because Mr Brill is intelligently discussing the background, and implications of the methane studies in the AR6.  The full report is freely available online for anyone to check the validity of what’s being said.   

Up
0

Let's hope the science around this works its way out. Unfortunately they are basing this on a single study which while peer reviewed, isn't supported by various other papers.  But Allen may be onto something as he does highlight some interesting points. 

We aren't there yet with the science, but its important we get to the real truth, so the GWP of methane will be studied more in-depth hopefully given the conflicting data.  The difference for NZ will be significant however, even if we meet in the middle.  If it works out that methane is only half the Global Warming Potential, thats a big deal for us, but still makes it a major emitter for our country.  So we shouldn't stop the addition of methane/farming emissions into the ETS, IMO.

This is just how science works, hopefully the Greens are watching with interest as well.  

Up
0

Let's hope the science around this works its way out. 

The CO2 sensitivity parameter is constantly trending towards zero and all indications are that man-made global warming is either non-existent or so minuscule it's not worth worrying about.  Let's hope that politicians have the courage not to be dogmatic about this.   As John Maynard Keynes said "When the facts change, I change my mind.  What do you do sir?"

Up
0

I'm not sure the emissions of non-fossil fuel GHGs from the biosphere is truly relevant.

Up
0

National really don't care about the centre vote do they. Do they have any progressive policies? Any ideas that make the country or the world a better place? There is no ambition, no vision, no values. They are just protecting the money of those that benefit from the status-quo. So depressing. 

 

Up
17

Just be a good citizen, drink your mulk, have more babies, and pay your enormous mortgage...life's never been so good.

Up
3

The old white crowd at National rallies must really hate their kids and grand children if they like these policies.

Up
3

LOL, I was greeted by an advert for Mainland Cheese 🧀 🤣 

Up
2

Luxon says: "The reality is there was a plan, produced a year ago by the sector, and the Government blew it up. They shot it to bits and killed it."

Really? It looked more like the government agreed to the sector's weak plan, which must have freaked the sector out because they were relying on more delays until a change in government could "blow it up and kill it".  And now we see what they were waiting for in National's enlightened "new" policy - agriculture will never under any circumstances be included in the ETS, and there will be no agricultural pricing scheme unless it is guaranteed to have no effect on farm profit.

 

Up
3

My understanding was the farmers proposed been paid for carbon credits straight away, but getting a 95% discount on methane payments. Some would have been in credit.

Plus I don't think there was ever any suggestion the govt would just accept the industries recommendations, without question.

Up
0

Fact: NZ's impact on so called global warming is basically zero. Without agriculture, NZ's already lowish incomes would plummet to 3rd world levels and 40 million people would have to find their food elsewhere. We should do no more than what's required to meet our trading partner expectations and tie our mechanisms for achieving that to what those trading partners actually deliver themselves in terms of emissions reductions. Thank goodness National has put pragmatism ahead of loopy ideologies. 

Up
1

Bollocks. On behalf of my grandchildren: Bollocks.

Firstly, per head, we're one of the worst. We've had that debate; you lot lost it. Because you were wrong.

Secondly, our buying-power is indeed going to be inexorably lowered, but for reasons over and above carbon/methane.

Thirdly - those over-and-above factors say 'trading partners' is a temporary arrangement.

Fourthly - I'm guessing that 40 million is spin; it may be that a portion of our food touches 40 million mouths, but feed them? Outright?

Fifthly, the loopy ideology was that you could trade parts of a finite planet for some proxy, indefinitely. Loopy? Illogical; not based on fact.

Good luck with all that. Research the Limits to Growth, for your own good - at least you'll know what's unraveling around you.

Up
0

4... well... if you read the source, it says that New Zealand does have the ability to feed 40 million outright, but chooses to produce premium products for more people's mouths and wallets.

Up
0

National should be called the Wind It Back Party.

They have few fresh policies aimed at improving NZ and simply want to undo what’s already in place.

Up
2