The Government is proposing a levy on farmers for greenhouse gas emissions to begin in 2025.
The proposal is included in documentation released by the Government on Tuesday, which is the Government's response to proposals from the He Waka Eke Noa Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership bringing together industry, Māori and Government
The proposal is for "a farm-level, split-gas levy to price agricultural greenhouse gas emissions".
The Government said the proposal "would see New Zealand farmers lead the world in reducing emissions and help give NZ a competitive advantage in green conscious global marketplace".
In response, industry body Federated Farmers said the proposals "will rip the guts out of small town New Zealand, putting trees where farms used to be". The full media release from Federated Farmers is appended at the bottom of this article.
The opposition National Party spokesperson on agriculture Barbara Kuriger said the Government announcement "threatens the sector consensus by failing to recognise New Zealand farmers are already the most carbon efficient in the world". This full statement is also included at the bottom of the article.
The Government said modelling shows the proposal should meet Zero Carbon Act 2030 methane reduction target.
It said it had "largely" adopted the farming sector’s proposal to price emissions at the farm level, giving farmers control over their own farming systems with the ability to reduce costs.
Revenue would be recycled back into agriculture sector through new technology, research and incentive payments to farmers.
The Government is seeking feedback. This includes how the levy will be set, governance arrangements of the system, how farmers will report and pay for their emissions, and recognising sequestration.
If an alternative pricing system is not implemented by 1 January 2025, the Climate Change Response Act 2002 states that agricultural emissions will be priced under the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS).
Consultation will close on 18 November 2022. Once submissions have been considered, final proposals will go to Ministers for approval in early 2023.
The Government said it included "many" of the recommendations of the He Waka Eke Noa Partnership of agriculture sector groups for farm-level emissions pricing, and proposed modifications in the consultation document based on advice from the Climate Change Commission.
Prime Minister Jacinda Arder said: “This is an important step forward in New Zealand’s transition to a low emissions future and delivers on our promise to price agriculture emissions from 2025.
“The proposal aims to give New Zealand farmers control over their farming system, providing the ability to reduce costs through revenue raised from the system being recycled back to farmers, which will fund further research, tools and technology and incentives to reduce emissions.
The details of the proposals are available here:
Climate Change Minister James Shaw said by 2025 New Zealand would introduce a system that means farmers pay a price for their emissions "and are rewarded for taking action to reduce their climate pollution".
“The levy improves on the proposal put forward by the He Waka Eke Noa partnership and brings New Zealand’s gross methane reduction targets within reach. It is better than the ‘backstop’ of bringing agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme, which could see agribusiness simply offsetting farm emissions without making any actual changes to reduce emissions on farms.
“Cabinet considered a range of options alongside the levy, including a system based on managing the total volume of pollution, rather than managing the price. While this was not Cabinet’s preferred option for 2025, we are seeking feedback on its merits.
“There are a few other outstanding issues which we are keen to hear views about, such as how nitrous oxide emissions from fertiliser should be treated,” Shaw said.
It’s been three years since the Government, farming leaders and Māori formed the world first He Waka Eke Noa – Primary Sector Climate Action Partnership (the Partnership) to reduce agricultural emissions.
In mid-2022, the Partnership provided the Government with its recommendations for a farm-level pricing system. He Pou a Rangi – Climate Change Commission contributed its own advice on agricultural emissions. The Government’s proposals build on those recommendations and advice.
Pricing agricultural emissions at the farm level presents the best opportunity for Aotearoa New Zealand to meet its climate change targets. It enables farmers to be aware of and have ownership of their emissions, including opportunities to reduce them.
Here are some of the details from the summary of the consultation paper.
The Government supports the Partnership’s recommendation of consulting on a farm-level, split-gas pricing system for agricultural emissions and the following elements:
- that business owners are responsible for reporting and paying for emissions
- using levy revenue to fund research and development into tools and technology to help lower on-farm emissions
- incentive payments to encourage the uptake of approved mitigation technologies how emissions are calculated.
The Government has proposed alternative approaches on some of the Partnership’s recommendations where they could be difficult to implement by 2025 or risk undermining the effectiveness and credibility of the pricing system. The recommendations are: a core levy in 2025 with enhancements built in over time
- sequestration recognised for riparian and indigenous vegetation
- a more streamlined governance structure
- a transparent, rules-based process for setting levy prices
- a review in 2030
- some collective reporting at first
- an interim processor levy as a transitional step (if required).
This is the media release from Federated Farmers:
The greenhouse gas reduction plan released by the government this morning will rip the guts out of small town New Zealand, putting trees where farms used to be.
The plan aims to reduce sheep and beef farming in New Zealand by 20% and dairy farming by 5% to achieve the unscientific pulled-out-of-a-hat national GHG targets.
This is the equivalent of the entire wine industry and half of seafood being wiped out.
The government’s rehashed plan to reduce on-farm greenhouse gas emissions throws out the two and a half years of work the industry did to come up with a solution, supposedly all that time in a ‘partnership’ with government to achieve a workable solution which would not reduce food production.
"This is not what we’ve got this morning. What happened to the ‘historic partnership’?
"Federated Farmers is deeply unimpressed with the government’s take on the He Waka Eke Noa proposal and is concerned for our members’ futures," Federated Farmers National president and climate change spokesperson Andrew Hoggard says.
"We didn’t sign up for this. It’s gut-wrenching to think we now have this proposal from government which rips the heart out of the work we did. Out of the families who farm this land.
"Our plan was to keep farmers farming. Now they’ll be selling up so fast you won’t even hear the dogs barking on the back of the ute as they drive off.
"Some overseas buyer can plant trees and take the carbon cash."
The scariest impact from the government’s rehash of the He Waka Eke Noa proposal was that it’s own modelling showed the impact on sheep and beef farming would be as high as 20%.
It also shows that world agricultural emissions would increase, not decrease, under this plan.
"The government’s plan means the small towns, like Wairoa, Pahiatua, Taumaranui - pretty much the whole of the East Coast and central North Island and a good chunk of the top of the South - will be surrounded by pine trees quicker than you can say ‘ETS application’."
So all the small town cafes, car yards, schools, pubs, rugby clubs, hairdressers and supermarkets can say goodbye to the small town business supported by the agriculture around them.
This is the statement from the National Party:
Today’s farm emissions announcement threatens the sector consensus by failing to recognise New Zealand farmers are already the most carbon efficient in the world, National’s Agriculture spokesperson Barbara Kuriger says.
“National is committed to emissions targets, including reaching carbon Net Zero by 2050, the Paris Climate Agreement and reductions in agricultural emissions.
“National recognises New Zealand farmers’ significant contribution to the economy. Agriculture earns half this country’s export revenue.
“We are concerned that today’s announcement puts consensus at risk. The Government’s own figures indicate:
- Sheep and beef farming could reduce by 20 per cent and dairy by 5 per cent by 2030
- Two-thirds of the reduction in emissions in New Zealand will be undone by higher emissions overseas as jobs and production shift offshore
- The plan does not allow farmers to earn extra income from some forms of on-farm planting and carbon capture.
“Worryingly, the large falls in sheep production in New Zealand could lead to higher global emissions as more sheep production moves overseas to less-efficient farms.
“Broad industry support is crucial for any enduring solution to agricultural missions.
“This plan could have significant implications for our rural towns and communities. The Government has put at risk the consensus built by He Waka Eke Noa Partnership over three years.
“National supports efforts to reduce emissions and we encourage the Government to work with the sector to find an enduring solution.”
107 Comments
Wasn't it in 2003 that Jacinda Arderns uncle drove a Massey-Ferguson up the steps of parliament , protesting Helen Clark's proposed " fart tax " ...
... far be it from me to agree with her , and to rail against the farmers , but we would all have been in a far better situation today if that tax had gone ahead ...
Farmers ! ... it's on you for being so shortsighted ..
... yes , I think you're right ... and , no matter how much we do to " mitigate climate change " , it's still not nearly enough to appease the Greens & Greenpeace ...
12 months to go ... one year , and these Labour buffoons are out of a job ... and good riddance ...
It's quite impressive to see a government stand up to a lobby group and take affirmative and fair action. This one particularly is long overdue and i hope this goes far enough to create a better, fairer world for our kids
Farmers like everyone else should have to pay to fix their emissions. I am not keen to subsidise them - as they dont share their profits with me except for their taxes (which if they make less profit due to investing in cleaning up their emissions - will lessen anyway)
I get that farmers will be upset that a changing world is costing them time and money - but if a farming business doesnt stack up financially -> then like any other business owner facing change - they need to decide to invest and evolve.. or die. Climate change is the single biggest issue facing our children so doing nothing or kicking the can isnt an option for anyone and this has been the obvious outcome for a couple of decades so they cant say they didnt have time to plan.
Not doing this would have been far worse politically - this is a great move by a government that will appeal to the working and middle class who dont own farms or businesses and would have otherwise had to pay for those that do. More policies like this please and less like national (tax cuts for the rich and property investors).
There is life in Labour yet
Some old school economics for you - while Farmers don't share their profits with you, they do make a very valuable contribution to export receipts. These receipts make our currency more valuable than it otherwise would be which in turn improves your purchasing power for the imported goods you will have in your home. A thought lost on the vast majority of kiwis and i am guessing you also.
In saying that - I have no issue with a tax on N02 as that needs to hit net zero and am supportive of the split gas tax approach for biogenic methane which does not need to hit net zero. I do have an issue that farmers aren't allowed to offset. If everyone else can - why can't farmers? I know construction companies still buying off shore units for far cheaper the NZ carbon prices.
Unfortunately, methane is directly linked to feed eaten (without new technologies) so this is a production tax. Farmers must shrink to met goals whereas airlines can just buy a forest and keep on chugging.
Call me a denier because that is the best way now days to stop debate now days.
I don't believe what we are doing is any good for ourselves or the planet, but also don't believe by using emotive words such as emergency or scaring people, is actually good policy or going to end up with good results.
The world is suddenly not going to blow up. Yes some small islands / low lying / coastal areas will disappear, some areas won't be able to grow crops we have been able to in the past, and some new areas will grow crops they haven't been able to, but as in the past, humans have migrated around the world to "areas better adapted to human existence".
I believe the following are mostly fact (Most of this can be found on mainstream reputable websites such as NASA, National Geographic, Universities etc):
- The earth has been under a constant climate change since its first days.
- OUR Recorded average temperatures and sea levels are from such a small part of the earths life, so do not reflect the earths actual average (over its lifetime)
- The world has been warmer in the past than present day.
- There has been more co2 in the past than present day.
- Sea levels have been higher in the past than present day.
- The earth pendulums between periods of Ice Ages / glacial periods and interglacials periods.
- Last Ice Age ended approx 12000 years ago.
- The earth was coming out of an Ice age and therefore heating long before Industrialisation.
- Even If we stopped all our co2 emissions today, the effects on the earth may not be noticed for a very long period (300 - 1000 years).
- There are many other factors apart from the Human made CO2 that can affect the earths temperatures.
- Co2 is good for plant growth.
- co2 has been at levels of 3000ppm and 9000ppm (depending on source). Today it is 420ppm (i.e. Parts per million)
- Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent.
- Coastal erosion (and in the high country / hills) has been happening since the beginning of time.
I also believe that:
- We are creating the next generations problem with our solutions we have today - lithium batteries / solar panels for example- we have limited resources which are becoming more expensive and destructive to mine, and the recycling processes we have aren't adequate.
- We have too many humans, and yet we want to keep developing medicines to keep people alive longer and develop vaccines to prevent disease and death.
- Most want an increase standard of living which require more resources, and energy.
- Most policies are going to effect of cost of living and not reduce our overall emissions
If the education system stopped trying to tell people what to think, and instead helped us develop critical thinking / research skills we would all be better off.
Just one question for you-
"I am not keen to subsidise them" - Do you believe that the increases in levies / taxes/ compliance has no effect on consumer price?
"I am not keen to subsidise them" - market prices are what they are and of course will reflect production costs. But these costs will be bourne by the customers globally not just by NZ. And in NZ consumers like me will in future have the right to not buy the product if it is unaffordable to buy when we account for offsetting the environmental damage (thus choosing to pay rather than indirectly funding the animal farming industry).. that is part of capitalism and true for all businesses in some form or other (as tech and rules change the business has to adapt). I suspect animal based food products will in fact become a far smaller part of the food chain if not a rare and expensive delicacy anyway.
And I am sure the overall value of export of the produce of farmers is of great value to NZ. Which is of value to all of us. However i would rather we fix the climate properly for our kids - at whatever cost to the value of the NZ dollar today. And leave the next generation globally a planet to enjoy as we had one. Plus (and as above) the consumption of animal based food products will likely reduce globally anyway (as they animal farming is far worse than plant based farming for the environment) so we might as well start to face that now. I also think that as farming either evolves or starts to become a smaller part of the economy in NZ.. something else will evolve to replace it.
I also think in the coming years and decades .. and as climate change causes more and more damage and consumers and nations seek to reduce it because it is affecting their quality of life and access to resources... (in the future) NZ farmers will lose out if we have no got ahead of the curve by moving to climate friendly production in advance.. as the climate damage from shipping to our markets will need to be offset somehow to compete with overseas production (which by then will also be sorted).
PS - i am keen to see airlines also meet their full cost and evolve faster. i am sure they will also be dragged into line anyway in due course as i understand there is not sufficient room to plant enough trees for everyone in the world to offset anyway.. at some point the cost of offsetting will become unffordable.
I am no expert on climate change however as i go with what i am told the science supports - as i gave up leaded petrol, wear a helmet on a bike and drink plenty of beer (as it slows aging).
ref: Global Warming (nasa.gov) October 9, 2019
"
As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.
Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.
"
note:- as the temperature starts to increase and ice starts to reduce, the temperature increases accelerate as the increased exposed rock / earth (from less ice), heats up and retains heats.
ref : What Was Earth’s Temperature During Ice Age? Here’s Why Knowing It Matters Today (ibtimes.com)
"They found the average temperature during the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) was 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than that of today, with the places that experienced the most cooling being those in higher latitudes."
so most of the increase to date has happened before industrialisation (and therefore increases in manmade co2 etc.)
Yes I believe there is an element of human existence that has accelerated the rate of what is a natural cycle, but the cycle started long before these human activities. Nothing we do today including (even if we could) reducing all the human made Methane and CO2 overnight, will fix the climate for your kids (or even their great great..............great grandchildren). We need to stop using emotive terms and language and actually find some grown up solutions (Just suggestions - I don't agree or dis-agree with any of them):
- Like Properly managed retreat from vulnerable areas. (Yes the world will have to accept refugees)
- Finding more appropriate crops and food sources for the productive land we have.
- Reduce the World's population
- Accept a lower living standard.
- Be more self-sufficient (Ourselves and our countries .... less or no overseas trade / travel)
There will be a day when the earth's cycle starts to cool on its natural cycle (If other external factors such as sun/ orbits etc doesn't change) and we start to enter a period of cooling .... One would have to ask if we could sustain the current population in a world covered by ice?
As carbon in the atmosphere increases rates of naturally occurring reforestation increase exponentially. It's happening.
As temperatures rise the atmosphere holds tonnes more moisture per m2 of surface area.
As evaporation and transportation increase unproductive arid regions become new sources of life and productivity.
New opportunities for enterprise open up new migrationary trends away from low lying coastal areas.
Rates of growth in horticulture increase feeding millions and we no longer need to pump CO2 into greenhouses.
And so it goes on
The problem is the rate of change is too fast for our population and eco systems to adapt, this will lead to a breakdown of established food supply systems and a collapse of ecosystems, sure we, the plants and animals will eventually adapt but the loss and disruption in the meantime will be too great to bear
Pasture absorbs CO2 to grow. Cow eats pasture and belches CH4. Pasture transpires releasing OH ions into atmosphere which reacts with CH4 converting to CO2. This cycle has occurred for millions of years. Why is it just now farmers have to pay for livestock emissions which are essentially net zero?
In the past hundred years or so advances in medicine, combustion engines, more farming, more building on land etc - means the world is way overpopulated and way over-polluted.
Everyone has to change - farmers have to play their part. No point anyone acting the victim or getting caught up trying to fight the tide - the western nations led the way in starting it and have to lead the way to fix it.
My expectation is that - as resources dry up and heatwaves and weather events and wars increase - people in cities will have had enough and will start to push harder for change and we will all move to a new world of less pollution and a plant based diet anyway (certainly the US/UK etc wont be wanting to buy meat that has been shipped half way round the world and not farmed in the most climate friendly way)... the smart money/businesses will get ahead of the curve and adapt faster now or simply get overtaken anyway.. its darwinism
If the US and UK are so concerned about biogenic methane emissions, how come they aren't taxing their own farmers? (in fact they pay them to produce).
And there's plenty of research showing NZ produce has a lower carbon footprint than most, even when shipping is accounted for.
The USA just released between 100 and 500 kilotonnes of methane into the atmosphere when the US Navy 6th fleet attacked and destroyed Germany's critical energy infrastructure - Nord Stream 1 and 2. If policy makers seriously cared about "climate change" then there'd be wall to wall coverage on the issue. All this woke, virtue signaling climate change nonsence is such a crock.
Really feels to me that their is no leadership behind the labour party and they are straight up shooting from the hip - with how polished Jacinda is in her PR surely someone needs to take an overarching view of labours policy decisions. They are guaranteeing their own demise - How to rally your oppositions base 101.
Unfortunately, NZ National also lacks good leadership to pick up those stray votes. Luxon and Willis, for all their claims of bringing fresh outsider perspective to NZ politics, are assuming the tired, stale policy positions from their predecessors.
There couldn't be a worse time to adopt tax relief for high earners and landlords as your main narrative.
Unless National comes up with a better deal for middle NZ, expect a sizeable number of voters to remain undecided and decide the fate of the country on election day.
If only. ALL parties need to start to explain their policies and how they will actually solve the issues when voted in.
Just cutting taxes and firing up the housing market and pulling the plug on 3 Waters and the Health consolidation... isnt really helpful at all.
Somehow they need to promote how they will fix the water/health/crime systems, they need to have a proper climate change policy and explain how they will fix social housing and improve eductation.
Unless their is a proper alternative i will happily vote labour just to force the opposition to read the room.
And another industry is being pushed to breaking point by current government.
Jacinda was elected in 2008 as president of the International Union of Socialist Youth ... Communism in full swing New Zealand
There goes the pork price sky rocketing. Not just 5 or 10%. It'll take years for NZ pork producers to get any where near the level of production required if pork imports are banned at worst. It can't happen because of free trade agreements and I don't see specific clauses being re-negotiated any time soon. I'd go as far to say the Greens would touch it either but an ardent Green fanatic might say otherwise.
"Ban all food imports that don't meet comparative labour and environmental standards?" It's a nice sentiment though.
I thought Federated Farmers were supportive of He Waka Eke Noa? They are listed as partners. The Government's back-up if there was no agreement was having agriculture in the ETS; that would be far more onerous.
Exactly. Farmers have been part of this policy all along.
There's lots of disinegnous and hateful comments on here.
Farmers are lucky that Labour watered down the wants from the Climate Change minister and also that farmers don't fall into the default option ETS which both would've been much much more expensive.
NZ is showing leadership in this as being the first nation to price farming emissions and drive innovations and further improvements in this area.
One thing is clear, we can't keep carrying on with the status quo or there WILL BE NO FARMING in a few decades.
Rather than trying the hopeless thing and to sit this out, we should champion this like some of our tech startups do https://www.carbonclick.com/
THIS will actually help reduce emission of our farming sector and we can sell our IP, tech and expertise to other markets!
I don't think people get it. Methane is the emission of concern in agriculture. Stock numbers are fairly stable, therefore so is the "stock" of methane already in the atmosphere. Methane, unlike CO2 breaks down fairly rapidly (a few decades, not centuries). Any reduction in the animal stock (and so methane) will reduce that stock of methane and it will have an immediate, small impact on global temperature. But by definition it will do nothing about the long term trajectory of climate change. All it can therefore do is give us less money with which to adapt to climate change, to improve technology to tackle CO2 emissions, etc. I mean really we need exports in order to afford imports. We need to export milk and meat to afford electric cars.
Does anyone Here have any view,or alternative plans on whether this is required in order to achieve Net Zero emissions for NZ?
Or Just that we don't like additional tax?
Or do we just need to adjust to this industry not really being suitable in its current form Long term so change is needed.
Speaking as a mostly vegetarian I personally don't understand why we need so many cows. Though I've not really seen to much study and details on what alternatives or reasoning behind pushing back on initiatives like this.
My assumption is that in order to combat climate change s lot of pain is ahead of us. Though I'm all ears for links and increased learning. Links are good.
Consider the difference between methane and carbon dioxide. The latter is long-lived and the former is not. If methane stays stable, it does not increase the world's temperature more than it already has. Carbon dioxide keeps adding up, and we either get to net zero to arrest it, or start sequestration to actually start cooling the planet by being net negative. Agricultural methane frankly is irrelevant to long term climate change.
How is it irrelevant if it's 40 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions? I mean I hear your methane point. But we could still reduce that total volume of methane in the air then by transforming our diary industry?
I'm not arguing. I don't know. I'm Just asking questions...
This is how it is irrelevant. The whole exercise is an ideologically motivated war on farming. NZ farming needs to wake up or be Sri Lanka'ed.
"Even more strikingly, if an individual herd’s methane emissions are falling by one third of one percent per year (that’s 7/2100, so the two terms cancel out) – which the farmers I met seemed confident could be achieved with a combination of good husbandry, feed additives and perhaps vaccines in the longer term – then that herd is no longer adding to global warming.
...Academics can quibble (it’s what we do best) about the exact factors, but the fact that this formula is vastly more accurate than the traditional accounting rule is indisputable.
Traditional greenhouse gas accounting ignores the impact of changing methane emission rates, while grossly exaggerating the impact of steady methane emissions."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00226-2#MOESM1
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/a-climate-neutral-nz-yes-its-possi…
The half our emissions that are methane have a very different impact on the climate - and essentially it can be used to offset carbon dioxide as reducing animals results in fewer heat retaining molecules in the atmosphere - meaning you can afford to keep pumping more CO2 into the air for longer before anyone notices you actually haven’t reduced your CO2 emissions.
The heavy emphasis on methane is because it’s an easy lever to pull- if you reduce it you get an almost immediate response with fewer methane molecules being sustained to keep temperatures at their current level - reducing CO2 emitted will make no difference to current temperatures unless we emit none at all AND are activity removing it.
Clearly it’s way easier to end farming as we know it than to end fossil fuel consumption - so that’s basically the plan. Possibly a better plan would have taken account of the 80 percent of our trade that comes from the primary sector - but hey - who needs a trade surplus anyway?
(CCC reports pretty much say this ‘offsetting’ mechanism is a value judgment on how much methane reductions should be used to create room for CO2. Science doesn’t offer judgments but politics is full of them)
It's a large chunk of methane emissions in a calendar year, yes. But methane breaks down relatively quickly, but carbon dioxide is long-lived. Even if we produced no methane (impossible, since wetlands actually make a lot of it), carbon dioxide would continue to accumulate and nothing would change on cliamte change except that we would delay it slightly. Perhaps that delay is useful, it might allow more time for adaptation and sequestration technology; but it might also be detrimental, especially if it affects our trade surplus, which is what allows us to afford imports. We could be shooting ourselves in the foot by making ourselves poorer, making food more expensive, and doing nothing about climate change.
I personally don't understand why we need so many cows.
50% of our export revenue comes from this dirty low value business model. THIS is the reason we need so many cows.
NZ needs to gradually transition to a cleaner export commodity and be a service economy rather than selling cheap stuff with grave environmental consequences.
We can still keep enough cows to feed NZers that don't like veggies.
A cleaner export commodity? Like Carbon?? We’re already exporting the money we pay for that. Well done us.
And yikes - the service economy is entirely the problem - it’s everything people want and nothing they need- consumption is the problem - not production whether you deem it dirty or otherwise (might want to check out how your almond milk etc is produced)
Products are only ever produced to satisfy a market prepared to pay for them - not the other way around. That’s why reducing supply will simply increase the cost to consumers ultimately- or you can buy the cheap stuff from overseas which is subject to none of our domestic standards - that’s called exporting your problems - First world counties are great at it- it eases our guilt and let’s us bask in our own delusions of environmental piety while still taking holidays to Raro.
The Government has made commitments under the Paris Agreement. There are only four options:
- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and a large chunk of NZ's emissions are methane,
- Plant more trees,
- Buy overseas carbon credits through some yet to be determined mechanism.
- Ignore those commitments and become a pariah in the international community.
The Government won't say it openly, but there is a lot of 3 going to happen, even if farmers do reduce emissions. That is going to be very expensive for the NZ taxpayer and it won't benefit the NZ economy one jot.
The Paris Accord is non binding and it won't change the climate back to the Little Ice Age one jot. It is a very expensive virtue signal for countries dumb enough to follow through with it.
"Under the terms of the agreement, each country pledges its own commitments to control emissions, which are not binding under international law."
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2022/09/30/success-of-the-p…
"The Paris Agreement, if fully implemented, will cost $819–$1,890 billion per year in 2030, yet will reduce emissions by just 1% of what is needed to limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Each dollar spent on Paris will likely produce climate benefits worth 11¢."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157
"Not a single G20 country is in line with the Paris Agreement on climate, analysis"
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/15/world/climate-pledges-insufficient-c…
No. You are paying for crappy, out of date, government policy. Government policy choosing to ignore GWP*.
"Academics can quibble (it’s what we do best) about the exact factors, but the fact that this formula is vastly more accurate than the traditional accounting rule is indisputable.
Traditional greenhouse gas accounting ignores the impact of changing methane emission rates, while grossly exaggerating the impact of steady methane emissions."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00226-2#MOESM1
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/a-climate-neutral-nz-yes-its-possi…
I have long decided I will not pay a fart tax for my sheep and cattle. The crazies can win. I will kill most of my stock. Not replace them. Money to burn...
No more fertiliser required. This will change my budget in a big way. The last of the stock will clean up the last of the mortgage....and buy me a solar system. Not the star and planets just enough to keep the fridge and tele and water pump going.
I will milk a cow. I have a couple of prospective employees out there. We shall see who kicks the least.
The hothouse is due to arrive soon.
And bless....all you little watermelons out there can cover my benefit. What with I am not sure....QE forever....?
The government has spoken. They dont want me to survive as a food provider. Bye bye lamb chops and a good scotch fillet for the average joe. Of course I will have plenty.
This scenario is genuinely on the cards for many in my position. Low debt. Getting on. Cant be bothered with the dickheads in power anymore. What can I say people, if you like your meat, you better start fighting for it. The powers that be want it gone. Frankly its up to the nations meateaters to stand up for what they want to eat.
Yip there is a thought one could create a number of different food production entities.
But why bother. The government is taxing your food. Not your farms or farmers, your food. We let them put gst on our food. Now they want a bigger slice. New method. Food production has become a problem apparently. Veges and carbohydrates wont escape either with their high fertiliser and fuel usage.
Try to manoevre around their taxes? No. You who buy your food, need to stop this. Now. Or people like me will give up growing it.
Yes please - give up - then someone with a longer-term vision can grow better food, less of it, with a smaller environmental impact. Sure, it will be more expensive and probably less profitable. But it will be more sustainable and have a lower impact on our environment - so we can again swim in rivers and put out head under without risking infection from your cow's poo's.
So yes please "give up" and let someone with more empathy for our whenua feed us...
It's about a legacy for our grand kids, sacrifice a little now so they may experience something close to what we have.
A if it goes into trees then that's probably all your land is good for....
I guess this is called the extremism of subject matter expert. Let's imagine 2035 or beyond. Less gasoline and more electric cars in the road as well as nearly 100% renewable energy. And then the global food crisis; ah that is for meat lovers and milk suckers. Anyway, feeding opportunity of good products to a population of 8.5 billion cannot be ignored at any better time. So who is the winner? Sorry, the original policy makers backed by the foreign state dominant conspiracy have already been retired in their million dollar eco-huts.
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.