The mainstream climate policy debate we thought we'd have after Cyclone Gabrielle has drained away into a dance of performative policies that weaponise voters' own delusions about climate action
What are your thoughts on including farming into the ets and if the price settings are not right the risk of farms here closing and that production being picked up off shore where there could be comparatively (on a farm to farm basis) greater emissions due to less efficient farming practice and as I understand more herd homes? How do we achieve a balance between reducing emissions here but making sure policies don’t have the unintended consequence of effectively pushing the emissions to other countries?
As I understand it, the assertion that other dairy producers have a higher carbon footprint is from a Dairy NZ commissioned report that is out-dated, omitted assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from processing and transport of dairy produce, and showed other countries were very close to New Zealand in farm emssions.
We need to focus on reducing our own emissions, and stop trying to offload responsibility by comparing ourselves to other countries. Aotearoa has the knowledge and resources we need do the right thing, there are no valid excuses not to.
TOP has a solution to this problem. They want to reward farmers who regenerate marginal landscapes for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and other environmental gains.
Farmers are already motivated to conserve the environment. Why not take advantage and reward them for these efforts..
Important to note here that while yes, farmers are generally motivated to conserve the environment - 'environment' needs to be defined as that generally only goes so far as to conserve its profit potential for personal gain. That means protecting the monocultural pastoral hegemony that supports our hyper-intensive dairying, not necessarily promoting the protection & restoration of biodiversity, which is what springs to mind for most when we say things like 'conserve the environment'.
I always found it a bit curious that the agriculture industry would insist on the one hand that it is 100% a price taker on global markets (ie too small to affect global prices), but on the other hand claim that any reduction in output in New Zealand would so change global prices that it would induce producers in other countries to change what they were doing. I doubt it would have any recordable impact on emissions elsewhere. The efficiency story has long been over-stated anyway, as Andrew notes. When I interviewed industry figures for my research, they were far, far more concerned about overseas producers leap-frogging NZ on emissions efficiency because their confined animal feeding operations enable greater interventions for new tech. That means NZ ag interests would like to lock in NZ methane levels where they currently are through changes to the calculation methodologies (this is what the 'no contribution to warming' rhetoric is about) even if it causes carbon leakage in the other direction. On the other hand, reducing agriculture emissions in NZ would have significant positive implications for other sectors and potentially less economic cost to purchase international off-sets to meet targets. It would also reduce costs to improve water quality and remediate bio-diversity losses. Triple win. I would support investment in helping farmers to transition out of intensive animal ag to more regenerative and plant-based farming over time.
Thank you Bernard and Catherine-Climate has been the missing elephant in the room from the major parties. I bothered to watch the NZH 'leader interviews' with Luxon and Hipkins. No mention of how they would handle climate...
I do wonder about the 'split the methane out' argument as I am yet to see any sign of this being accepted by other countries - has anyone got any intel on that? It becomes moot if we make a system that does this, but the rest of the world does not recognise it, esp the actual customers (as in the BIG customers, not the consumer) who will want to see emission reductions and may not have systems which recognise 'methane vs other'.
You forgot a key aspect of TOP'S climate Policy: To create a national system rewarding land-owners who regenerate marginal landscapes for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and other environmental gains. This is really important and shouldn't be left out.
Driving through Lower Waikato and Taranaki recently, it was plainly obvious which farmers have adopted a stream planting policy and which haven't. Some farms seemed full of life and beautiful to glimpse with native plantings beside waterways, others were deserts of muddy drains and monoculture, sad, overworked animals. We do have good farmers and they deserve to be rewarded over those that drive profit and reduce land quality.
I guess we will have to endure more extreme weather events before our so called leaders will make the call to address climate change - I'm not holding out hope though - what will it take?? Not the mealy mouthed politicians that make up our major parties or those on the right who pursue the neo liberal business as usual policies - I loath them all
There’s also been a lack of conversation about water. We need water for literally everything. With so many catchments fully or over-allocated (or approaching that) and with net migration at crazy levels shouldn’t one of the parties be talking about how we might allocate water. And even better: how we might use the rules that allocate water to generate better outcomes for water, people and the environment. The allocation of water could be a key lever for reducing emissions but it’s not being talked about.
Not sure where else to post this. I'm very curious what involvement the 'Atlas Network' has in NZ around climate policy etc...
I read this today (below) regarding the Australian referendum Voice to Parliament (also voting on Saturday). The linkages between the alt. right climate denialism and the no referendum campaign in Australia is deeply troubling. Would love it if The Kaka had the time to dedicate to investigating their influence in NZ too.
What are your thoughts on including farming into the ets and if the price settings are not right the risk of farms here closing and that production being picked up off shore where there could be comparatively (on a farm to farm basis) greater emissions due to less efficient farming practice and as I understand more herd homes? How do we achieve a balance between reducing emissions here but making sure policies don’t have the unintended consequence of effectively pushing the emissions to other countries?
As I understand it, the assertion that other dairy producers have a higher carbon footprint is from a Dairy NZ commissioned report that is out-dated, omitted assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from processing and transport of dairy produce, and showed other countries were very close to New Zealand in farm emssions.
https://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/on-air/heather-du-plessis-allan-drive/audio/mike-joy-victoria-university-freshwater-scientist-says-dairy-farming-is-the-biggest-contributor-to-nz-river-pollution/
https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/125962807/pay-farmers-12-billion-to-stop-dairying-ecologist-urges
We need to focus on reducing our own emissions, and stop trying to offload responsibility by comparing ourselves to other countries. Aotearoa has the knowledge and resources we need do the right thing, there are no valid excuses not to.
TOP has a solution to this problem. They want to reward farmers who regenerate marginal landscapes for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and other environmental gains.
Farmers are already motivated to conserve the environment. Why not take advantage and reward them for these efforts..
Important to note here that while yes, farmers are generally motivated to conserve the environment - 'environment' needs to be defined as that generally only goes so far as to conserve its profit potential for personal gain. That means protecting the monocultural pastoral hegemony that supports our hyper-intensive dairying, not necessarily promoting the protection & restoration of biodiversity, which is what springs to mind for most when we say things like 'conserve the environment'.
I always found it a bit curious that the agriculture industry would insist on the one hand that it is 100% a price taker on global markets (ie too small to affect global prices), but on the other hand claim that any reduction in output in New Zealand would so change global prices that it would induce producers in other countries to change what they were doing. I doubt it would have any recordable impact on emissions elsewhere. The efficiency story has long been over-stated anyway, as Andrew notes. When I interviewed industry figures for my research, they were far, far more concerned about overseas producers leap-frogging NZ on emissions efficiency because their confined animal feeding operations enable greater interventions for new tech. That means NZ ag interests would like to lock in NZ methane levels where they currently are through changes to the calculation methodologies (this is what the 'no contribution to warming' rhetoric is about) even if it causes carbon leakage in the other direction. On the other hand, reducing agriculture emissions in NZ would have significant positive implications for other sectors and potentially less economic cost to purchase international off-sets to meet targets. It would also reduce costs to improve water quality and remediate bio-diversity losses. Triple win. I would support investment in helping farmers to transition out of intensive animal ag to more regenerative and plant-based farming over time.
I find the whole Intensive agriculture scene obscene.
The technologies that are used to justify the continuation of intensive agriculture farming practices don't exist yet - they are science fiction.
In the mean time, the cows suffer and our ecosystems fail.
"Over 7,500 of New Zealand's plant and animal species are currently in some danger of going extinct"
Are the Greens the only party with any policy to increase government revenue?
Which in turn will increase the government's borrowing capacity by a third of the increase even under National & Labour ridiculous cap of 30%?
I believe that is a rhetorical question?
No. I believe TOP wants to do the same by introducing an LVT.
Thank you Bernard and Catherine-Climate has been the missing elephant in the room from the major parties. I bothered to watch the NZH 'leader interviews' with Luxon and Hipkins. No mention of how they would handle climate...
Great reporting, as always! Thanks, Bernard and Catherine.
This one you must release please
Bernard. Great work.
Patrick Medlicott
Great one to release, has my vote.
I do wonder about the 'split the methane out' argument as I am yet to see any sign of this being accepted by other countries - has anyone got any intel on that? It becomes moot if we make a system that does this, but the rest of the world does not recognise it, esp the actual customers (as in the BIG customers, not the consumer) who will want to see emission reductions and may not have systems which recognise 'methane vs other'.
You forgot a key aspect of TOP'S climate Policy: To create a national system rewarding land-owners who regenerate marginal landscapes for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and other environmental gains. This is really important and shouldn't be left out.
Driving through Lower Waikato and Taranaki recently, it was plainly obvious which farmers have adopted a stream planting policy and which haven't. Some farms seemed full of life and beautiful to glimpse with native plantings beside waterways, others were deserts of muddy drains and monoculture, sad, overworked animals. We do have good farmers and they deserve to be rewarded over those that drive profit and reduce land quality.
The lack of climate conversation in this election has also made news in The Guardian today. It points to the climate culture wars being a possible reason. The oligarch Murdoch can cross borders a lot easier than before, he infects everywhere and everyone who is susceptible to his narratives. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/12/new-zealand-election-2023-nz-campaign-climate-crisis-debate
At the risk of sounding like a broken record...it would be great if you release this 🙂
"To prove our friendship, it is customary at this time"....Release Kākā 🗣
I guess we will have to endure more extreme weather events before our so called leaders will make the call to address climate change - I'm not holding out hope though - what will it take?? Not the mealy mouthed politicians that make up our major parties or those on the right who pursue the neo liberal business as usual policies - I loath them all
I think this kind of analysis needs maximum exposure, possibly with a simplified comparative summary.
Thankyou for your efforts!
Sheryl Tapp
Thanks, Catherine and Bernard. That makes it plain for all to see!
There’s also been a lack of conversation about water. We need water for literally everything. With so many catchments fully or over-allocated (or approaching that) and with net migration at crazy levels shouldn’t one of the parties be talking about how we might allocate water. And even better: how we might use the rules that allocate water to generate better outcomes for water, people and the environment. The allocation of water could be a key lever for reducing emissions but it’s not being talked about.
Everyone needs to read this summary. Shows the stark differences between the parties that could influence people who haven't voted yet...
Not sure where else to post this. I'm very curious what involvement the 'Atlas Network' has in NZ around climate policy etc...
I read this today (below) regarding the Australian referendum Voice to Parliament (also voting on Saturday). The linkages between the alt. right climate denialism and the no referendum campaign in Australia is deeply troubling. Would love it if The Kaka had the time to dedicate to investigating their influence in NZ too.
https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/view/8813 (I read the full journal article, free to download the PDF)
It would be good to expose this Hamersley.