While the final numbers are not yet in for the results of the Australian elections it is obvious that the Labor Party is going to form the new government. What remains to be seen is whether or not it will require other independents or the Green Party to create a coalition of some form. The odds are on that at least some form of ‘arrangement’ with others will be required by Labor to hold on to their power. Either the Greens or the “Teals” (Blue/Greens) are likely to have some leverage over the new government and force what is basically a centre-left party further left particularly in the areas of the environment, climate change and social matters.
At the moment the Australian election results almost look as though they could have been concocted by an MMP system. Part of the shift these smaller parties may bring will include a greater focus on agricultural emissions.
As a percentage of the total Australia’s agricultural emissions (15%) pale in comparison to New Zealand’s (48%). However, while the Labor Party already has policies to support innovation in farming which include reducing methane emissions and support for planting trees and soil carbon storage it is predictable that the shades of green parties are going to want more concrete polices about reducing carbon emissions, and while coal will be at the forefront, it’s almost a sure thing that agriculture will not be immune to their pressures.
Along with the swing to the greener side has been the hammering that the Liberal Party in particular has taken. This may also give greater confidence to the Labor majority that they can bring in policy change with less political risk than has been seen in the past as well as not letting too many of their supporters becoming discontent with lack of action and moving further to greenish side.
A similar scenario could be what the New Zealand Labour Party faces moving towards the next election. In some respects, their greener supporters will feel that they have squandered the safe position they held when they grew their majority at the last elections by not being more audacious in their climate actions. Many will feel that they may have made the necessary policies but many of these policies are so far out into the future to be almost irrelevant in the current climate situation.
Of late there is at least a recognition that the elephant in the room, transport energy, has at last been recognised and some movement towards encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles and the use of public transport has taken place. However, while farmers may welcome the $340 million government is putting into emissions reduction research for agriculture this could turn around and bite farmers in the rear end.
As the constant diet of climate induced disasters trails across the television screens and increasing costs are put towards mitigating against the worst effects of climate change, the voting public are very likely to turn against Labour and seek more radical measures. Farming with its 48% of the country’s emissions will be an easy target.
To date it has only been a few outspoken pressure groups criticising farming, but the clamour may grow, and government may review how it has treated farming and raise the ante.
There is considerable room for them to do this.
It won’t change anything for the climate in the short term, but it will make the public feel that at least something real towards providing a safer future for their grandchildren and beyond is happening. In my view farming is being hung out to dry, probably not consciously but the result will be the same. The country has one tool to mitigate against emissions and that is with trees. But by withholding farmers ability to offset methane against trees and still expecting at some time down the track farmers to have reduced methane emissions is setting them up to fail.
All the while the public have mounting concerns over the fact farming is paying next to nothing towards emissions. The voting public won’t/don’t care or understand why farmers are not being held to account they just see their fuel and other energy costs going up, the environment ‘suffering’ and farmers not paying (in their eyes) their fair share.
Groundswell and their like may see the $340 million plus no additional costs on farming as a victory of sorts but in my view, this is very short sighted. Industry leaders should now be encouraging farmers to voluntary plant trees (already many are) and use what ever other tools that are available to reduce their emissions, even if there is no great financial benefit to them.
Done correctly they could make money from it and the leadership needs to highlight the fact that they are carbon neutral or moving towards it despite what the government policies do or don’t encourage. By taking the initiative and doing ‘the right thing’ providing it is heralded as a positive step towards meeting the climate change challenge, farmers may stave off more harsher measures that successive governments may throw at them - even if it is only to satisfy a baying public.
The impact the ‘Teals’ have had in disrupting the pollical scene in Australia and the relatively short time it took to achieve this shows just how volatile politics can get.
Climate 200 which provided much of the financial backing of the Teals came into being in 2019 and provided the support for discontented communities to mount a very effective challenge against the establishment (in their case mostly Morrison’s Liberal Party 'moderate' colleagues). Whether something similar could occur in New Zealand is an unknown, however there are already a couple of parties (Greens, Māori, maybe Top) that could provide the rallying call and create a greater shift left and demand more tangible action. Already having an MMP system actually provides an easier pathway towards such a disruptive outcome.
We have about 16 months to wait and see what transpires; whatever the outcome I suspect we are in for some surprises.
11 Comments
Apples and oranges: NZ ag. emissions 48%, Aussies 15% with agriculture the main export earner for NZ. What are the amount of emissions per mining in NZ vs Oz? Surely we can look at the big picture for each country instead of using statistics to swing a point. There seems to be an agenda...
Also if any country is signed up to the ETS that is enough apparently. We must be careful re baby and bathwater when it comes to our farmers. Sheep are a huge earner and there are people who want them gone entirely, replaced with useless pine trees on good farming land. No jobs.
Has anyone considered all the leeching parasitism that feeds off farming e.g. banks, insurance, freezing works, fertiliser companies etc. that make huge shareholder profits straight off farming. Why should they not share the emissions debt? Too hard? Get better data systems and accountants.
"The voting public won’t/don’t care or understand why farmers are not being held to account they just see their fuel and other energy costs going up, the environment ‘suffering’ and farmers not paying (in their eyes) their fair share"
Its beyond moaning now - we have to front foot this. Australia farmers are....our competition?? Same in UK.
https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/farmers-want-clarity-from-…
The Government just gave 100s of millions to Ag for R and D, advisor training etc - paid mainly by non ag industry.
Join the dots or it could get a lot harder.
A lot of national supporters here similar to oz would like the conservatives in the party to accept the reality of climate change. These people in oz have been frustrated by the embedded fossil fuel reps in the liberals getting their way . Particularly in the nationals led by Barnaby Joyce , I don't think the liberals will regain power without ditching their national colleagues. In nz Luxon has had a spray at industry for not taking the initiative but he needs to beware the electoral risk of non farming voters getting frustrated similar to the Aussies and charting a left swing which will see farmers much worse off . People aren't going to be taxed and have their lifestyles bulldozed while a minor wealthy segment of the population get a free pass. Dairy will be the major target of such a movement as it is the more polluting sector.
Neither National nor labour want that 48% emissions figure to drop. why? Because if farming gets on the front foot and gets it down it will shift the focus from farming with few votes and a bogeyman like presence , to transport which affects most voters and is way harder to shift. Add to that it's the biggest export $ earner and they really don't want it down.
The fact Fonterra are not remotely pushing growth like they used to added to the fact dairy is consistently improving efficiency and other livestock numbers are dropping I'm not sure it's going to be that hard.
A rapidly warming planet due to greenhouse gas emissions combined with large scale environmental damage globally and ecological "overshoot" is not a left green issue, or right,up, down bouncing along the road issue either. It is an all of society issue that we need to deal with now pronto. Its all clearly laid out in the latest IPCC scientific report that few read including the mainstream media. Its time to get real and face upto 30 years of systemic failure to take virtually any effective actions on it here in NZ and globally. Its not our grandkids, polar bears and 2100 that is threatened- its now we already have large scale damage occurring at 1.2 degrees. And we are very likely to breach 1.5 degrees by 2030, 50% chance in the next 5 years. from there 2 degrees is staring us in the face by 2040 or thereabouts which is highly dangerous and economically ruinous. According to Dr James Hansen, ex NASA Goddard head who blew the whistle with his congressional testimony in 1988, leading to first Kyoto protocol in 1992.
So how's about thinking about a better world now, for our kids who will inherit this mess 2030 to 2040 which is rapidly intensifying and accelerating due exponential heating effects. All well proven by the science. Big Ag's leadership has sorely let down the Mum and Dad farmers by pretending its everyone else's responsibility and high pollution models can continue- they can't. And the rest of society needs to get on with the job as well. Net zero by 2050 only works if you have 45% ghg cut by 2030 - we are miles from this with Govt's latest plan. I personally am not happy that we continue to incinerate my childrens future and am doing what I can in my job in public transport and my personal ghg emissions. Flying is highly unsustainable and needs to reduce rapidly - it won't be sustainable for another 20 years when technology catches up. Drive less, eat mainly plant based unless its regenerative meat and dairy etc. Not just farmers but we can't win without them. Covid is just a warm up to whats really coming at us. I wish people would listen to the scientists as they did for covid and not snakeoil politicians and corporations...not acting and not playing your very important small part whatever it is, leaves you with no self respect. I'm a former commercial pilot and have been watching the science for the last 10 years - its dire people. ACT. Thanks!
Thank you .
Not only did the warnings start nearly 40 years ago , they have mostly been pretty accurate. The science is beyond doubt , it has been proven the world's top climate scientists actually know what they are talking about. (i'm kinda regretting writing this , i hope it doesn't spark a load of denialist replies).
One thing you may know as a former pilot, are international air (and shipping)emissions counted against individual countries emissions? I'm thinking not , due to allocation problems, something for the next summits to sort out.
Guy Trafford makes incorrect assumptions about Groundswells view on the $340 million research and what needs to happen. Throwing more money at research and creating yet another research bureaucracy is kicking the can especially when there has already been $200 million spent and little to show for it. There is already plenty of research being done but finding viable practical mitigation options at scale is another matter. Groundswells view is the priority needs to focus on actions on farm that build on all the environmental work (including reducing emissions) that farmers have been doing for the past 50 years. For example 2.5 million hectares of native vegetation retained by sheep and beef farmers, extensive erosion control plantings through Catchment Boards and their successor regional councils. There are many catchment and landcare groups and other initiatives addressing emissions and Groundswell propose this is built on to achieve coverage nationwide that has advice and action plans tailored to every farm. No reason why lifestyle blocks and urban shouldn't join in too. However, this advice and action needs to be done in an integrated manner to address other environmental issues, particularly freshwater and indigenous biodiversity. The current Governments policies in silos is failing our country and our environment, leading to large scale planting of pines and many other perverse outcomes. Similarly, a blunt tax on farmers through the ETS or the unworkable HWEN options is equally flawed as it will takes $millions off farmers environmental spend budgets, penalize the worlds most emissions efficient food producers, lead to more land going to pines and increase global emissions.
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.