This week is the second part of the interview with Rob Morrison from Pure Advantage. (First part here.)
We are talking about ETS settings and the impact afforestation will have on New Zealand. Morrison says that James Shaw admitted we were the only country in the world allowing the level of offsets within an ETS system that we do.
“I think at the moment for New Zealand to be credible on the global stage, we have to have an ETS that meets the global science and, and the whole idea of allowing polluters to offset their pollution, globally is increasingly discredited.”
The Climate Change Commission in New Zealand have been up until this point focused on plantation and exotic forestry. Morrison says that if we continue with the ETS we have to change the lookup tables. “If we continue with the ETS, you have to change your lookup tables so that native forestry is a viable option. And that it’s encouraged. You have to include regenerating scrub land, riparian land and so on. It's got to be done in a way that incentivises the planting, but also incentivises the way people look after that land."
“I think the whole ability for polluters to offset on a one-for-one basis, has to change. I think that's absolute nonsense at the moment. And I do think that the government acknowledges that we're out of line on that. I just think that globally, the international science is weighted against carbon offsets. And it's certainly weighted against plantation forestry for carbon sequestration. There's international science coming out around the fact that plantation forestry is not the solution to this global issue. New Zealand is sort of stuck in a 90s time warp, we have to change so the only way to do that is to change the ETS settings because that's the driver at the moment.”
In terms of farming Morrison says unless you farm in the Waikato on prime land which is predominantly uses for dairy, most farms and certainly most Hill Country firms have areas which aren't suitable for farming as It's not overly productive. “I think what we need is a mixed model in terms of farming, I think most farmers understand this now and they go, 'Okay, well let's get going on that. Let's take that land, retire it and we'll plant that in native trees, because this is just not about our generation which is where most of the forestry seems to be focused.' This is about our children and our grandchildren. So we take that unproductive land the marginal land and say, let's plant that into native forestry. We're then reducing the problem that our children and their grandchildren are going to face, don’t try and solve this problem the next 20 years because we've got artificial deadlines. You we have to plant trees that are capable of absorbing sequestering carbon for years and years.”
It is important to remember plantation forest trees don't regenerate, if you cut them down you must replant them. If you leave them, they die after 50 years or so. We have to build sustainable forest trees in this country and short-term economic gains over the next 30 years through carbon farming will not improve this countries long term outcome. We have regenerating native forests or pre-1990 forests in this country that are sequestering an extraordinary amount of carbon but not being recognised because of an imaginary line in the sand, we have every right to be aggrieved about this; we have been fleeced.
We need a long term plan that will actually deliver results. Regenerating native vegetation will have the ability to sequester carbon essentially forever. Not only are monoculture exotic forests negatively impacting rural communities by consuming good food producing country, and locking up large areas of land. But these exotic carbon sinks or mines as Morrison called them – are a pollution dumping ground for multinational polluting corporations who don’t need to make real changes to how they operate. That is not good enough and change needs to be made now. Tick tock, Jan 1 is not far away.
Listen to the podcast to hear the full story
Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.
31 Comments
I agree completely. Could not be said any better:
exotic carbon sinks or mines as Morrison called them – are a pollution dumping ground for multinational polluting corporations who don’t need to make real changes to how they operate.
Imagine instead if we simply taxed carbon (i.e., got rid of the ETS) and put a sizeable amount of that tax toward pest control/eradication of our native forests.
Yes, we the people alongside our endemic native species, have been fleeced.
If only Rob Morrison had been our Climate Change Minister.
Yes, and in fairness to him, we went wrong long before his time. I got the feeling he just wasn't bold enough to call "re-set". Carbon trading as a construct came out of the UNFCCC - implemented via the Kyoto protocol. We should never have followed the lead but then hindsight is a wonderful thing. The one thing he definitely had the ability to do was cancel all the subsidies for energy intensive industries and NOT introduce new ones for agriculture. Lange/Douglas were bold enough to call "re-set" overnight on such commercial subsidies/protectionism.
and there is the real issue. How do we do this? It’s not easy by any means. Just look at Europe now Mr Putin has implemented a real ETS by withdrawing fossil fuels. You can’t order a solar panel or wood burner in Germany at present as people struggle to get other sources of energy. We are all trying to avoid change as this will be very hard, painful and there will be casualties. Europe could provide a good insight to how people will respond. The days of cheap energy maybe gone for a long time and this will ripple through all industry as inputs rise, fertiliser etc, and enforce big changes in what is economic to do. We are very lucky that we have renewable electricity and the ability to do a lot more. Industries relying on high cost external inputs maybe in for a rough ride.
We know how to do this, we have chosen not too. The result is we live comfortable lives while future generations suffer.
We could have been a clean green society instead of an add campaign. As a teenager in the 80's I was aware of the need to not burn fossil fuels. 3.5 decades latter we still do nothing. I'm guilty, we all are for not seeing the the real problem. We have no power we are dependent on big oil. How did that happen?
I think everyone agrees that some reafforestation is necessary, the question is how to pay for it. Carbon offsetting is one approach, compensating for emissions elsewhere. Additionality, where more biomass is voluntary stored, is not currently recognised in the ETS. If it was, pest control in native could be benefical outcome.
Another is a sustainable forestry model, where biomass is sustainably sequestered and a large proportion of the harvest ends up in long-lived wood products.
A third is some compensation or subsidy to recognise the ecosystem services provided in terms of better biodiversity, soil, and water outcomes.
It's not true that plantation forest trees die after 50 years or so, although the MPI lookup tables assume so. Even radiata, which is not a long-lived species such as redwood or Douglas-fir will continue growing in NZ well past 100 years. Some species do coppice and/or naturally regenerate, but that is not a forestry model that is used much in NZ.
You need trees to sink carbon anything else is still in a lab stadium following good old fashioned Wall Street and Silicon Valley principles of "Fake it until you make it".
You only need to find a sustainable usage for that wood so the carbon is stored for a long period and focus on delayed emissions. Engineered wood products is the technology forwards.Wooden Build structures which are going to live for 100 years and more. The new Tauranga district office, fully wooden building 8 storeys high, is an example.
Second possible use for plantation wood would be quality furniture and other appliancations like window joinery and doors which are designed for a livespan of 25 years or more.
Final destination for plantation wood could be solid wood fuels, to replace coal as process heating or using wood waste like sawmills residues for bio-crude and bio-diesel to replace fossil diesel and be, at least, circular in some form.
"Exotic trees die after 50 years" sorry that is so stupid and untrue both author and interviewer have zero credibility and are high in the conspiracy club. Just take a trip to a botanic Gardens if needed.
Next they will be claiming exotic grasslands, covered with sub sahara phosphate and large exotic animals is native biodiversity. Great ecologists from an unknown university both.
Plus they can't do maths as regenerating native alone won't have a chance in hell of cutting emissions. There's a big place for it but not the main game.
Many people with considered views on Native forestry for carbon sequestration often make reference to the "easy win" of doing pest control and hey presto rapid increases in sequestration. The idea seems to be that with enough funding and a concerted effort these pests could be removed.
The pests we are talking about are goats, pigs and deer.
What these folk are missing is the social significance of pigs and deer to certain people in rural communities. These rural folk have a belief that going into the forest and harvesting food is some sort of fundamental human right that they will die for to protect. The protest we saw in parliament grounds a few months ago would seem like a tea party - they all have guns. I live amongst such people in a small rural town.
Slightly OT, but I had a thought the other day which led to some dumb questions... lots of people in NZ use woodburners for heating and it got me wondering exactly where does all that wood come from, how much do we actually use and how much is left? (I.e. is there a danger of us running out in the future?)
I assume it doesn't come from DOC land etc and not from plantations, so it must just be the marginal stuff from pockets of trees outside those areas.
Probably a stupid question but I can't find any info about it online..
Only thing I can find is this table from 2013 which says just over 500,000 households used woodburners.
Guessing an average of 2 cords per household that's a million cords a year, with an average of 5 cords per tree (https://johnnycounterfit.com/how-many-cords-of-wood-in-a-tree/) that's about 200,000 trees a year.
Mostly trees from farms that have grown to big , or are in the wrong place. Or forestry waste. golf course etc , whoever wants a tree removed for free.
I was working with a ex forestry worker the other day. He said they couldnt let outside firewood workers onto the skid sites , because of health and safety , so what he used to do was take a tandem trailer to work every day , and fill it with rings, to sell to local firewood merchants . every day for 6 months, and still reckons they bulldozed twice as much "waste" wood over the bank .
I think Jeanette Fitzsimons calculated that there was more than enough biomass in forestry waste to replace all coal used in NZ.
Firewood is a lot bigger than people realise. The problem is people talk about waste. There is no waste just product that is uneconomic to recover. You can’t have people with trailers just turn up in forests with HandS today. In some areas all offcuts, bin wood, are collected and removed - in regions where the demand is there and the price is right.
Danone have just learnt the hard way that “waste” doesn’t work. They started there new waste boiler in Otago. Brought in branches and slash to burn, mixed with rocks and stones as they were told it would be. The boiler lasted about 3 days and had to be closed as it was nearly blown apart by exploding rocks.
As usual the engineers didn’t listen to the foresters and it’s a major. If you want to use biomass you need to use logs that can be delivered, prepared to be stone free and burn them. The energy to deliver logs is far lower than slash per unit of energy achieved - slash is a complete waste of time as the energy gained from energy expended to burn it is crazy.
there’s nothing new here but in todays world of “I reckon” experts the reinvent the wheel business is very popular.
Not sure , but maybe some ideas in this . .https://coalaction.org.nz/dirty-dairying/fonterra/fonterra-a-useful-ste…
There's no shortage for domestic use. At a price there is no shortage for industrial use. At a price wood will be reallocated from log export to domestic boilers. It's pretty simple economics in the end. Pay more see more. This is already happening in some regions and more to come.
Fonterra et al no this and understand they have to pay the market price. It's still cheaper than coal plus a carbon cost. The ETS is working well on coal burners as the higher price is driving big changes along with markets demanding they stop using coal.
My guess is that in 10 years there will be no log export,or very little, from Canterbury south as this is where the big industrial biomass demand is.
3 large MDF plants, export pulp logs in SI. Biomass growing fast in SI.
In the CNI there is already a large deficit of pulp logs and the pulp mills are buying export logs now. Fonterra has just awarded a contract to supply wood there and the price, from what I have been told, means more export logs to them. Pulp mills are worried and they won’t back down as they are some of the biggest companies in NZ owned by Japanese companies, Oji etc.
people need to understand the transition is well underway out of coal. The biggest issue we have coming up is in some regions there are major wood shortages looming. Some regions have plenty but it’s to far to cart it to other regions. The timber cut in 10 to 15 years could be down 8 to 10 million tonnes - forests converted to dairy farms in 2000s.
Add in growing fibre shortages in Europe as Russia and Belarus and Ukraine supplied a lot of wood to Europe - gone now so Europe is short. Biomass now very important to Europe as fossil fuels gone or vvv expensive. Hungary has just allowed any forest cutting to supplying firewood to heat schools, homes etc.
i wonder how many Russian forest and sawmill workers are now in the Russian meat grinder!! Big labour problems coming up for them.
interesting times.
Not yet - the issue is that the volumes they require are so huge it can only come from industrial scale forest and from what Ive been told, Im no expert on this, they need a consistent fuel source so it will be pine. The other issue with Euc is that it is very resinous and can cause problems in boiler if mixed. As with everything its a complex science and not just a matter of throw another log on the fire!!
Have a neighbour who has applied for carbon credits on so called native bush in some gullies. It is mostly manuka and gorse with a few tree ferns and pungas and the odd totara. Gorse is about 50% and is not yet classed as a native. Shutting up hill country for carbon credits will see massive gorse regeneration, with natives taking decades if not centuries to appear. Will be interesting to see whether it is approved for the ETS. In the meanwhile the gorse is spreading through the boundary fence and I will have to spray it.
Centuries to appear - really - talk about exaggeration. I used to commute to the Hutt 30 years ago. The Western hills were covered in gorse. Have a drive by now - the regeneration to beautiful native bush is amazing. I am told all one needs is nearby native seed stock. In the Hutt case I assume that was there in the adjacent Belmont Regional Park.
Same case all over NZ;
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.