When I saw the news that Mangaohane Station was on the market and under threat of being bought up by investors who would turn the station into a carbon sink I felt my spirits sink. In my youth I spent several enjoyable years shepherding and farming through several regions in the North Island. These areas included Wairoa (up the Ohuka Valley near Waikaremoana), on several properties on the East Coast.
In this region I worked on Ruangarehu Station in the Ihungia Valley and it went under trees post Cyclone Bola. In this case the property was under major threat from erosion and I can recall paddocks which a horse could be ridden over one year, the next would have been a death trap.
Then to Puketawa Station, a Gisborne Harbour Board property and at the time nearly 9,000 ha (later cut up into more manageable properties). Now called Tauwhareparae Properties (11,500 ha) of which around a third is under trees. This block sits next to Huiarua and Matanui stations sold into trees and also next to Waipaoa Station which has also has had a large section go under trees.
Next came Mangaohane Station in the Pukeokahu District between Napier and Taihape. I was there in the latter part of the 1970’s at which stage the station (not long bought by Jim Bull from the Chambers family) was under going massive development largely motivated by the subsidies and incentives available to farming at that time.
This was/is a different property to the East Coast properties with minimal erosion and the biggest limitation being winter, but extensive cropping mitigated that. So, seeing it on the market and now being threatened by the threat of non-productive forestry was a bit of a shock, although predictable given the current environment.
As with the East Coast properties, Managaohane is situated with many other well known large properties in it vicinity; Otupae, Erewhon and Ngamatea to name a few. If Mangaohane goes then these other iconic stations may also be on the same slippery slope.
Jumping forward a few steps I got thinking, how much farmland could be under threat?
So, agriculture makes up approximately 48% of around 8,850 kilotonnes (1 x1000 tonnes) of CO2e emitted annually (38,808 ktns) nationally. If ‘we’ consider land use mitigation should only be used to off set land use emissions (I’m not sure politicians would wear this as it may not be convenient) and ‘we’ set a high goal of zero net emissions then how much land would need to go under trees to get to that stage?
On average sheep and beef farms emit about 2.8 tonnes of GHG annually (I’m going to assume dairy are not going to go into trees. Sheep and beef land is cheaper so why would you?). Pine trees can sequester approximately 30 tonnes of CO2e per hectare annually after year 5 up to year 40 and I’m not game to predict what the political yet alone climate environment will look like after 2060. At roughly a 10x rate of sequestering versus emitting the sums would be relatively simple however the decreasing livestock numbers also need to be incorporated.
So: 80,851 ktn is the total national GHG emissions
48% = 38,808 ktns is the share emitted by agriculture
@30tns GHG per ha to mitigate annually,
then, 38,808/30 means 1.29 million hectares are required to balance books before adjusting for decreased livestock.
So, by adding the 2.8 tns of reduced GHG due to removed livestock to the 30 tonnes sequestered (32.8 tns annually) we get a grand total of 1.18 million hectares removed from farming.
According to Beef+Lamb Farm Facts we have around 13.3 mill ha in sheep and beef, so a reduction of about 9% of land area is required (somehow sounds better than 1.18 million ha).
While a 40 year rotation is assumed and then the proverbial hits the fan again; I think we can assume technologies will have developed considerably to both reduce emissions and sequester GHG’s.
The Government has come out saying that 20% of sheep and beef farms are expected to go into forestry so all I can assume is that land use change is carrying the can for the rest of society.
While perhaps pragmatic I feel more needs to be done to drag the average member of society into the conversation and shoulder more of the responsibility.
Someone will no doubt check my numbers we will soon hear if there is a major error but the numbers feel intuitively close especially with the almost 10 to 1 ratio of sequestering versus emitting.
Back to Mangaohane Station, a group has been set-up to try and gather enough interest to purchase the property and keep it as a sheep and beef property or at least not under trees. I can certainly empathise with them as also with “50 Shades of Green” group.
However, what is required is a regulation change, as while well meaning individuals may be able to ‘save’ the odd property here and there unless something happens to alter the incentives to buy and plant these properties it could be like King Canute trying to hold back the tide although his motivations were somewhat different.
59 Comments
Damien O'Conner has sold his soul to the incompetent ideologues in Ardern's circus ... a half decent minister of agriculture would have the back of his farming fraternity , and would vigorously oppose these insane conversions of productive farms into radiata pine carbon sinks ...
Jacinda Ardern (correct me if I'm wrong) was still president of the "International Union of Socialist Youth" when elected as our Prime Minister.
So, it's only natural communist/Marxist ideologies and control dramas would be favoured by PM Ardern's administration. Labour are still wildly popular in parts of NZ - especially among Public Servants and State Media.
Aligning with socialist/Marxist ideologies has materially benefited PM Ardern (enormously).. so again, it's only natural for PM Ardern to want to implement her ideologies.
NZ gave Labour a majority.
Good Luck.
popular in parts of NZ - especially among Public Servants and State Media
This public servant would disagree, however I would agree that the state media carries far too much in their favour. There are many public servants who aren't happy with the state of affairs in NZ currently. My vote went elsewhere as I explained to everyone around me last election that it is simply too dangerous a precedent to have a single party hold the majority in government. if only they had listened, however they have all changed their minds now and this seems to be the trend around the water cooler
What's a great spectacle in New Zealand is seeing older Kiwis, who benefited from debt-free entry to the workforce, free education, a universal family benefit they could capitalise into buying a house with a Housing Corp loan, affordable housing supply from previous generations' taxes and efforts, and are now going on to receive a universal welfare beneift...seeing these people ranting about socialism.
Not saying you fit that. There are certainly a few of those folk out there, though. They seem to be most triggered when someone poorer, browner, or younger has the prospect of getting a smidgeon of what they did in their turn, especially if they might be taxed to fund society's services for others. In general they seem to vote for parties that keep socialist benefits for their cohort, but cut them for others.
I have to pay my own, actually, and it's likely the state one won't be around in future decades given the current drainers.
However, I am actually all for the universal pension - but with the reciprocity of the times in which it was first instituted. A universal pension at a time when the older generations were providing free education and a build-up of affordable housing supply had good reciprocity. It's the young having to pay for a more extractive older set that sees that reciprocity lost.
None of which, obviously, counters the point that those who seem to rant about socialism the most often seem to be the biggest beneficiaries - including of landlord subsidies.
Remember kids, methane has a half life of 9.1 years in the atmosphere before it breaks down into CO2 and water, and in the case of livestock emissions that CO2 came from the atmosphere to start with.
That means that forty years after it was emitted, less than 5% of it remains.
That means that eighty years after it was emitted, less than 0.3% of it remains.
Burning fossil fuels is the real problem in the long term.
Given NZ farming productivity gains the ruminant herd does not add anything to the runaway global warming hypothesis. Unlike Captain Cindy's airline.
"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.
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) – then that herd is no longer adding to global warming."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-021-00226-2#MOESM1
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/a-climate-neutral-nz-yes-its-possi…
"If ‘we’ consider land use mitigation should only be used to off set land use emissions"
What? So you're suggesting it should be only ag land used to offset ag emissions?
So how do you propose we absorb all those other emissions from the fossil fuel industry?
So we should plant pines on the beach perhaps? Or on our rooftops? Maybe if you bend over we'll find another spot to plant one.
We're (globally) destined to greatly overshoot the targets for halting climate change, but that's all fine, coz you're being all mushy about farm conversions. Lets remind ourselves these farms were almost entirely forest lands before whitey thought farming them would be a good idea.
It's the same philosophy of petrochemical producers pushing recycling as the answer, when they are increasing their production of plastics and petrochemical products year on year. The word sustainable is completely washed out and is slapped on everything to allow companies to continue operating as they always have. It is only when investigations are done and the issues exposed that even the slightest bit of change is enacted.
Might be worth doing some homework on the impact of pine derived isoprene’s on atmospheric influences (particularly on methane) and what happens to soil carbon under pine before you wax too lyrical about afforestation saving the world. The one eyed system we have currently presumes environmental interactions (especially sequestration) are linear and before too long - the full picture is likely to make some these assumptions look idiotic. Make the money while you can - you might be paying it back sooner than you think……
Ironically there is no ETS for agriculture, it's a straight tax. ETS only applies to non agriculture. The good news about reducing supply is that prices go up, so people who stick with livestock farming will be getting even better returns. I'm not sure anyone is that concerned about the 90%+ of the population that will have to pay more for nutritious food.
I agree. If anything we should be aiming for non-agriculture to carry agriculture. Why? Because the opportunity to mitigate through technology is so much greater. Replacing a petrol car is better for the owner and better for the environment. Whereas replacing sheep with trees may be better for the environment but is bad for the economy.
It is practical to replace 100% of passenger cars with electric to and to remove 100% of fossil fuels from electricity generation.
Im also not convinced we need to get to net zero. A 50-70% net reduction should be fine.
Also, non-agriculture doesn't bring in enough export dollars (and probably won't in the next decade or so at least) to offset the drop in agricultural output. 28% of NZ's merchandise exports comes from the dairy and meat sector alone, either directly or as key inputs in manufactured exports.
We're already sitting on a massive current account hole and Cindy wants to dig it deeper to secure her job at the UN.
So does the Governments goal of 20% of sheep and beef farms going into forestry mean that we can offset all of our emissions eventually? The countryside is going to look very different in the future. Where are the funds coming from to pay the income from carbon credits for these new carbon farmers?
Have a look at the mud flowing down the Wanganui River and tell me we don't need more trees.
Our caring farmers have watched their soils endlessly flowing down this drain for generations. At this rate the hinterland will eventually be nonproductive bare hills upon which nothing can hold onto and grow.
So nope...I don't get upset about farmers selling their land for trees.
I'm sure voices for freedom would like them the freedom to sell to whom they want to.
Dude - most of our soils are mudstone and sandstone on the entire east coast of the north island - derived from massive erosion (some of the highest in the world) over many eons washing hills into the sea - before being semi compressed as rock and then pushed up by subduction and uplift. Presumably the farms from these prehistoric eras needed to sort their erosion too ???
Yes, it's nuts, but if you're opposed to it you must be a
⚠️ C L I M A T E D E N I E R ⚠️
a term which makes about as much sense as the people who insist on using it. Nobody is denying there's a climate, or even that we have issues with the one we've got.
(side note: with the US midterms in full swing, I keep seeing "election denier" thrown around now, an equally cringe-worthy and nonsensical term which looks like it has been taken straight out of the Newspeak dictionary)
Before we rush to destroy our agricultural economy, it might be worth asking the simple question; does carbon dioxide actually cause climate change? I am not convinced.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X1667463
I know CO2 induced climate change has become something of an orthodoxy, that which cannot be questioned. Similar to questioning the safety and efficacy of the covid mrna vaccines back in 2021, questioning CO2 induced climate change will likely get you shouted down with unconvincing logical fallacies like "The science is settled", or "the consensus agreement is....". Have a read of the above linked article.
Yes that graph that you speak of is one of the main points of contention. It's one of the core pillars of evidence for the CO2 induced climate change theory. The Vostok ice core samples go back in time around 400 thousand years, and they actually show that increases in global temperature almost always come before increases in global CO2 by about 800 years. This makes a lot of sense because increasing sea temperature reduces the solubility of CO2 in the ocean water and causes the oceans to release dissolved CO2.
Interestingly when I posted the link to the peer reviewed paper last night it was freeview, and this morning its behind a paywall. Not sure what happened there. Well I've taken the liberty of pasting a small section of the paper below.
"The IPCC uses the observed correlation between CO2 and temperature in Vostok data to support their theory, but a closer inspection of the data shows that the changes in temperature almost always precede the changes in CO2 by several hundred to a thousand years. The same precedence is observed in the most recent glacial warming being experienced. This suggests that a theory of CO2 as the prime forcing agent for temperature change is mistaken and temperature change itself is the driving force behind the rise in CO2 levels. Shorter term variations in CO2 over the last several decades show a similar trend with changes in sea surface temperature inevitably leading to changes in atmospheric CO2."
This argument has been debunked many times in the past. The reason is that something else (e.g. Milankovitch cycles) causes the initial increase in temperature, which causes the oceans to outgas CO2 when they warm, which then causes further warming. There is a pronounced feedback loop there which is why it's not a good idea to emit large quantities of greenhouse gases.
Re feedback mechanism of doom: prove it! Show me the evidence from the Vostok ice core samples that supports your supposition.
I could make a similar fanciful doom loop argument with water, which also absorbs IR radiation.
You're right about Milankovitch cycles controlling the earth's temperature though. That’s the real temperature dial.
This is so cynical, and I also come from a farming background. Wellington don't "want 20% of farms to turn to pine", they never said that. But we do need reforestation, and de-stocking, for climate and ecological reasons. Converting the least productive land makes the most sense. We also need to take a long-term view of this, pine farms are good to get short term cash flow to fund more long-term sustainability plans like planting native forest that has a longer sequestration life and is more in line with what we want as a country. This could be a win-win, to modernise our farming systems, but farmers seeing red and assuming cynical motives is not helping.
No way planted pines are going to be converted into natives. It's plant and walk away, mine the land for credits then abandon.
I guess you missed the environmental terrorism on Country Calendar a little while back, where a digger was clearing regenerating native bush on a Maori owned block so they could start a carbon forest. You can't blame the owners, they had no money, just blame the stupid short term thinking of the policy makers.
Pine has a life of about 100 years, then it falls down or needs to be harvested, either way the above-ground carbon is released again. You can harvest it in sections and re-plant with Natives, that actually gives more carbon credits (cashflow) over time (because they live longer). There are consultants out there who plan and do specifically this, this suits organisations with a longer-term vision, like Iwi, and could explain what you saw. Planting native forests is expensive and getting carbon credits is slower, pine can be used to kick start the income streams that enable it.
The native scrub cut down was limited to the amount needed to give daylight to the minimum number of pines to qualify as ETS forest . Some ECU species was planted with a view to been a native nurse crop while still ETS compliant.
I know some of the people involved , and they will ensure the best outcome for the Whenua and Iwi . first they need to make it profitable to stay on the farm, and employ Whanau.
Good point millennial women. If the legislation was modified to restrict efficient C sequestering exotics to certain class of land for ETS registration, then that may restrict C farming to 20% of a given farm rather than a blanket 20% of farms. Might suppress land values though if it makes it unattractive to foreign investors.
Simple. This is a W.E.F. directive.
Looking at the above comments, it's shocking the level of naivety given no one has mentioned this or is aware of the program.
No conspiracy theory - and it is the same for the The Netherlands and other countries the WEF has purview over.
All out in the open, but you're not allowed to question it.
Not on the msm, and I discovered this week some people in council don't even know about the WEF due to their lack of range beyond mainstream control.
Look no further than the NZ Herald website which is now framed at the top with the WEF slogan for NZ, "A new New Zealand - Rebiulding Better"
No one is dying from climate change. Too many people reading Stuff and not the IPCC. "After adjusting for climate damages, SSP5 will on average leave grandchildren of today's poor $48,000 better off every year. It will reduce poverty by 26 million each year until 2050, inequality will be lower, and more than 80 million premature deaths will be avoided."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162520304157
SIgh
1. Overseas investors CANNOT plant/own permanent exotic forests - read the rules for the millionth time.
2. I would be surprised if this got past the Benefit to NZ test anyway. Its remote and high altitude - not the best place to plant exotic forests and here is, in my view, not appropriate on large scale anyway. (I worked for NZFS in the late 70s early 80s on the land behind this station so know it well).
3. If we planted 1 million ha of permeant radiata, I'm not saying we should, all of NZs emission problems for everyone would be solved for 100 years and allow for a slow and orderly transition away from fossil fuels.
4. Ag is not 50% of NZs problem emissions- at a say 25% target it is 15% of the problem The Ag industry dosn't seem to be able to do maths and get this fact out. Transport and coal are the big problems and we all use this stuff - farmers everyone.
5. There is around .8 to 1.2 million ha of land identified as needing permeant forest cover in NZ and another 1 million best suited to timber production. The 1.2mill ha figure Guy has is not a problem - unless you own the land in the 2 million ha identified by decades of science on soil erosion etc (nothing to do with emissions just millions of tonnes of soil heading down the rivers). Go for a fly around Wairoa and East Coast and I dear anyone to say its sustainable - they will/are going broke.
6. There is probably 200 - 300k of production forest which should be retired from production - again all good unless you are the owner - just like the farmers.
7. 30% to 40% of farms are losing money now hence the decline in sheep numbers. Trees are a whipping boy.
https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/its-not-just-trees-scaring-the-sheep-away/
This is why European investors see NZ forests as attractive, carbon aside. Its not just price but regulations and supply that are seriously affecting supply.
European sawmills have been facing soaring delivered log costs due to the surging prices for fire and pulp logs – up to €95/m3 (~US$95/m3) – which had pushed sawlog prices in some countries to €150/m3 (~US$150/m3). With lumber prices now falling, sawmills in some countries are being squeezed into negative sawmilling margins.
NZD prices are $45 USD to $84 USD equivalent respectively.
Wood is energy and the other options cant/wont be touched so its the next available option.
European lumber producers are also facing a potential nightmare scenario from the proposed EU Deforestation Regulation. Once it has come into effect in the next 1-2 years, all business activities must be “deforestation-free” – which requires extensive documentation. If implemented, it could seriously restrict the harvesting of some forests, reducing the log supply in various countries in Europe.
Wood supply is going to get tighter and tighter - Europe is one of the largest lumber exporters in the world.
As much as 70 percent of European heating comes from natural gas and electricity, and with Russian deliveries drastically reduced, wood — already used by some 40 million people for heating — has become a sought-after commodity. Prices for wood pellets nearly doubled to 600 euros a ton in France, and there are signs of panic buying. Hungary has banned exports of pellets, and Romania capped firewood prices for six months. Wood stoves that are high in demand can take months to deliver. In France, there are signs of hoarding as some buyers have bought two tons of wood pellets, when less than one ton is normally enough to heat a home for a year . . .
Off course you always have options as this one faced by the Netherlands and Western Europe.
The Netherlands boasts a gas field in Groningen which could, without any new infrastructure, provide about half as much gas as Russia used to supply to Germany. Yet production is minimal and the field is scheduled to close by 2024. The Dutch government fears the wrath of local homeowners who have suffered in the past when pumping gas has triggered earthquakes.
Only about 22,000 houses that are yet to be reinforced are assessed as being at risk of damage should Groningen produce at full capacity. The costs of compensating those homeowners, or indeed all residents of Groningen, for their losses are only a fraction of the revenues that could be earned from the field’s gas. And those revenues do not account for the knock-on economic and strategic benefits of replacing Russian gas. Given the stakes of the conflict in Ukraine, closing the Groningen field as scheduled would be astonishingly blinkered.
Guy, my grandfather was the manager at Erewhon back around the time you were at Mangaohane so you may have known him. At least I think that was his role, I was very young at the time but remember him spending a lot of time traveling from his own farm outside Wanganui over to Taihape. The Stodarts were great friends of the family, and I feel a sense of connection to Erewhon.
I drove past it last year with my own children, and it only deepened my love for large stations. The thought of such great farms turning to forestry saddens me. Unfortunately I don't have the funds to compete for such large tracts of land, and have but a fistful of hectares of my own that can only really be profitable in hort. The irony that my small holding was once part of a larger farm is not lost on me.
I don't know where I was going with this. Memory lane, maybe?
I invite to watch this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI
it is a very different voice in the choir
Guy should really read Keith Woodford's articles as they are more nuanced and factually correct. The underlying issue here is that much of the economy is exposed to the ETS and is incentivised to reduce and offset emissions, but to date the agricultural sector has not been.
What we are seeing is the market acting rationally to ever changing and tinkering Government policy. Forestry has moved off the plains and further into the hills. There is less exotic forestry than there was 20 years ago. I am tempted to write a parody of this article about being a young forester wandering CNI pine and Douglas-fir plantations surrounded by clear fresh water and birdlife, and that it is now a monoculture of ryegrass and dairy cows.
~$30k/ha cashflows from state mandated subsidy is tinkering? Plus for a lucky few $10k/ha windfalls due to the price cap debacle is tinkering? Forestry has moved from the hills to the plains. There is a block with dairy platform going in to trees and swathes of lamb fattening country with lamb at $9/kilo. The only thing putting the brakes on is the lack of pine seedlings and general public ignorance. Land values don't go from $6k/ha to $18k/ha from tinkering.
If it was a free market fair enough - this is a state mandate not a market. Did you learn nothing from SMP's?
"The underlying issue here is that much of the economy is exposed to the ETS and is incentivised to reduce and offset emissions, but to date the agricultural sector has not been."
What absolute bollocks. There is no reduction in CO2 emissions from the rest of the economy. Offsets mean BAU. Until there is real forced reduction there is no progress and no real incentive to do so.
Progress is frustratingly slow, hampered by the agreement with National to keep the carbon price artifically low. In my view , the government wasted its 2020 election mandate,they should have pushed harder. but as seen by comments here ,many are not getting , or don't want to get the need to change.
We need to wean off Huntly coal,coal boilers , excessive private car use and lack of alternative attractive public transport,trucks instead of rail, none of which is politically attractive .
I hope there will be a responsible choice at the next election, that someone has the balls to put the changes needed to the electorate.
I agree Redcows - offsets just buy some time and unless priced high enough do very little.
Europe is showing what needs to happen - the ETS on steroids - cut off fossil fuel supply and price them into the sky. Its going to be interesting to see how fast this drives change - Putin could be doing the planet an ecological favour (I certainly don't support him or the method to achieve the change) but it demonstrates the challenge to de carbonize.
It's going really well. Imagine doing something useful with $3.8 trillion like clean water, education, healthcare... "Economist Jeff Currie of Goldman Sachs (Global Head of Commodities Research in the Global Investment Research Division): “Here’s a stat for you, as of January of this year. At the end of last year, overall, fossil fuels represented 81 percent of overall energy consumption. Ten years ago, they were at 82. So though, all of that investment in renewables, you’re talking about 3.8 trillion, let me repeat that $3.8 trillion of investment in renewables moved fossil fuel consumption from 82 to 81 percent, of the overall energy consumption. But you know, given the recent events and what’s happened with the loss of gas and replacing it with coal, that number is likely above 82.”
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.