$13,000 per hectare tax
The Government seems to have or want a jihad against the forestry sector. Their refusal to let forest owners get any benefits of carbon credits (in contrast to passing on the costs of carbon debits) predictably has seen significant deforestation at a time when we want the opposite.
Now it is toying with a $13,000 per hectare tax on anyone who converts forestry land to agriculture. Now guess what that will do? See people cut their forests down as quickly as possible before the tax comes in. And even after the tax comes in, then you may just have forest owners let the forests rot, rather than pay the tax for logging and not replanting.
The NZ Herald editorial call for a carrot not a stick approach to forestry. Indeed.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Stealing peoples property rights for the ”greater good”.Sounds like pure communism to me.The comrades would have been delighted!
December 19th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Another FART* tax.
*Fuck all rural taxpayers.
December 19th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
This proposal shows a basic lack of understanding of forest economics. There is no return on the investment until it is harvested, and regular costs are incurred as the forest grows. There are numerous small forestry holders in NZ who view their forests as a nest egg for retirement. Generally these forests have proven to be marginal investments at best, as Radiata is not highly regarded offshore.
So why did so many NZ’ers get into forestry in the first place? I believe that the NZ Govt provided them with generous subsidies back in the 1970′s to encourage planting of forests.
I don’t believe the proposed tax in it’s present form will go ahead, once the Govt realizes how many Kiwis will be adversly affected.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
As usual DPF spins the facts to suit his own point of view, what the article also says is:
‘Mr (David) Parker said the Government’s preferred option would not be a flat charge for land use change, however, but a system of tradeable deforestation permits’.
It’s a great thing this internet….do a bit of digging and the real facts are there to find.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
coge,
There was a rush of inventment into forestry in the mid 1990`s due to high log prices.This led to a lot of valuable farm land being planted in radiata and what this crazy tax would do is lock this land up in one type of crop regardless of market conditions.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
This proposed tax is just fucking stupid, the only CO2 contributed to the atmosphere by removing the trees is only that which is released by the rotting of branches etc not harvested, Whatever CO2 released by subsequent use of the timber should be the responsibility of that user.
By my calculations expanding forestry is about the easiest, and cheapest, way of reducing net emmissions. The whole reason for the carbon trading scheme is so that the market can follow the most economic course, and this stupidity certainly won’t see that happen.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
“a system of tradeable deforestation permits.”
Is this the same as a system of tradable aforestation permits? ie plant trees, get paid?
December 19th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Rocket Boy said “It’s a great thing this internet….do a bit of digging and the real facts are there to find.”
Digging!? You just clicked on the link David provided. Sherlock Holmes eat your heart out.
December 19th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
So you think the new fine (whoops, tax) will see people cut their forests down as quickly as possible before the tax comes in?
Ah, think again! RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION. Remember, we are still living under the Labour Dictatorship.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
i’ve tried to post links to some “land use events” surrounding this issue. dpf’s team dont seem to like it. suffice to say,
“[n]ow guess what that will do? See people cut their forests down as quickly as possible before the tax comes in.”
it has been happening for years already – the convesion market has been anticipating the deforestation penalty. it has lead to a rush of dairy conversions – and more fertiliser runoff issues that wont be seen for years…
December 19th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Fucking communist maggots just won’t give up, no doubt they are still hurting after their last three effors to screw farmers got no where.
These people are walking talking morons that have signed the country up to one of the best cons on the planet.
They have declared war on the people who pay the bills for this country it is probably best they stay in their cities.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
As some of us have said before so called climate change is merely an excuse for politicans and beauracrats to extort more taxes from the citizens.They are finding it moe difficult to raise funds for their loopy schemes so have latched onto one that can be promoted like a religion using the same methods to shut down any attempt at reasoned debate.Note how it is now becoming unPC to even raise any contrary arguements.This is the usual MO of the Socialists. Freedom fighters must unite to prevent the enemy government getting away with this theft.
December 19th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Has someone sneaked a laptop into the insane asylum again?
December 19th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
bob, gd:
this is an example of tax shifting.
use some reason when reading (and commenting).
December 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
It turns out that trees trap more heat than the CO2 they have absorbed would have, unless they’re planted near the equator. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1972648,00.html
So NZ forests may well be making matters worse and the more we cut down, the better. Unfortunately we are stuck with the braindead Kyoto treaty which, as well as costing us hundreds of millions, makes keeping the trees profitable but will do virtually nothing to alleviate global warming.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
I think you need that lie detector mikey. This government would be totally incapable of doing a revenue neutral tax shift. What a joke.
Its just another consumption tax in disguise. The government gets the free tax collection service of the forestry owner and the kudos of sticking it to a supposed group with an advantage (farm owners who want to convert from one form of crop to another)
Of course it will yet again hurt the people the government insists it is trying to help. The costs will be passed to the consumer (as they must be) and our competitiveness in international trade will suffer.
The whole thing is just another cynical joke by jokers/jokesses that run the country.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Oh yes mikeymike you are so right this is all about tax shifting. Shifting more of our money into government hands. Sorry mikeymike you are pissing into the wind. I would be more then happy to use reson but there isn’t much reason comming from the fuckwits who want to screw us.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Owen hasn’t posted this yet so I am taking the liberty. It does pose some interesting questions about what actual science lies behind these proposals? (I don’t know either way)
If we don;t know why aare we making policy blind? Same thing is happening in biofuels. Everyone assumes they are a good thing but no-one in govt has actually done any real analysis work on the issue to see whether there is any net benefit.
Government needs to check its sums on land use
“Government needs to check its sums, before taxing landowners who chose to convert forest into more profitable dairy farming” says Owen McShane, Director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies.
The Centre accepts that the Government has signed the Kyoto protocol and therefore wants to honour its international commitments.
The Centre also accepts that the Government believes that the climate science relating to carbon driven anthropogenic global warming is “settled”.
However, this climate science has nothing to say about the relative impact of New Zealand forests and New Zealand pastures on greenhouse gas emissions. The science related to such matters is not only “not settled”, it has hardly been investigated at all.
The Government’s proposals to tax landowners who convert forestry to pasture appear to assume that the sum is a simple one – namely that trees absorb X tonnes of carbon per hectare while pasture absorbs no carbon at all.
Hence we are told the proposed tax is required to compensate for this “conversion loss” of Kyoto credits. But charging a single tax is like charging a single tax for anyone building a boat – regardless of whether they are building a kayak or a battle cruiser. The variables are huge.
For example, since the Kyoto protocol was signed, scientists have established that the Amazon rain forests also emit huge amounts of methane – a potent greenhouse gas. To the best of our knowledge scientists have no idea how much methane is emitted by our own native rain forests, or how much methane – more or less – is emitted by pine plantations.
On the other hand many scientists, including the highly respected mathematical physicist, Freeman Dyson, argue that topsoil is the most potent carbon absorber. Dr Dyson, who was one of the earliest proponents of vegetative carbon sequestration, has consistently argued that “it’s roots – not shoots”. More recently he has calculated that the US could absorb all its “excess” emissions of carbon dioxide by increasing the depth of the top soil on half of its arable land by only 1/10th of an inch. Well-managed pasture can achieve such increases in topsoil quite rapidly, and the pasture cycle is ongoing.
Closer to home, New Zealand agricultural scientists have established that as carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere, not only does this natural fertilizer stimulate growth of vegetation (which absorbs more carbon) but there is also a dramatic increase in the carbon absorbed by soil bacteria. Once again “it’s roots – not shoots”.
However, Government then throws in the “methane” contribution from dairy cows and repeats the claim that farming accounts for half of our “greenhouse gas emissions”.
Two points: Do the forests contribute more or less methane to atmosphere than the cows? The Centre believes we have no idea. Do our cows already emit less methane per litre of milk than the vast majority of cows overseas. Definitely. Therefore any restraint on our own dairy farming will only lead to an increase in global methane emissions as consumers by their milk and beef from less efficient sources.
We also know that methane concentrations in the atmosphere are now falling. This trend appears to be well “bedded in” – and again we have no idea why. There are as many theories as there are scientists studying the matter.
Finally, it seems we shall have to be careful what trees we plant. The Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is not willing to recognize the new method of verifying carbon storage in farmland in Africa, questioning whether the program will result in additional carbon storage and whether the storage will be permanent. The ETS is the largest multi-country, multi-sector greenhouse gas emission trading scheme in the world.
This debate reminds us that the issue of carbon storage or sequestration remains highly controversial in the world of Kyoto negotiations and trades. Many non-governmental organisations, who carry considerable weight with the UN and its agencies, argue that most forestry offsets have been for big monoculture plantations of fast-growing eucalyptus or pine trees and that such plantations are likely to act as net greenhouse gas emitters over their lifetimes.
In other words, we have no guarantee that the ETS will accept any planted pine trees as genuine long-term carbon sinks at all.
On the other hand the science may soon establish that well managed pasture is a great carbon absorber, and helps to feed the world as well.
The Government is upset by the clearance of some 60,000 hectares of forest over recent years. The Australian bush fires have just burned off 847,000 hectares of native forest in a single season. Who will pay the price for this loss of absorbed carbon? Certainly not the Australians.
Don’t be surprised if all these proposals and discussion documents simply lead to a further exodus of dairy farmers from our own lands to greener pastures elsewhere.
Owen McShane
Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies
December 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Iwi excused?
December 19th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Here are some facts from a real live forestry owner.
In the early 1990s legislation was passed by a National Party government to encourage more forest planting – the creation of a new forestry right over land titles. The aim was to provide a legal framework for landowners who did not have the means (at the time farming was in a slump and land prices were low ) to get trees planted – the landowner gets the work done by partners who pay the costs. At the same time there was a boom in the value of milled exotic timber.
Costs were deductible.
The result was a surge in forest planting – 100,000 ha per year in the early 90′s, almost all of it by individuals and small private groups.
That’s me and my wife – 80 acres of pinus radiata and cupressus macrocarpa, planted 1992, and still being pruned and thinned. Harvest ages 25 years for PR and 42 years for CM. This is serious long term investment to create wealth and employment for the future.
We are still paying for forestry development but will there ever be a return ?
Along comes Kyoto which creates a new value to planted tress – confiscated by the government. 2008 is the date driving deforestation in NZ – there is now a net loss of trees in NZ – cut the trees down by 2008 or the law will punish you financially. The people who are cutting down the trees (mostly immature pinus radiata) include large forestry owners like the Selwyn Plantation Board in Canterbury., the land is going to dairying.
Now it seems the government and/or its advisers have decided that more is needed, and so the current suggestion to tax the forest owner again.
Is it any wonder we the people protest !
Have they lost their senses ? Net plantings of forest in NZ are negative. Government policies have caused this. Many jobs have already gone – ask the people who grew tree seedlings. I can guarantee that there is now going to be an acceleration in deforestation in NZ. And all this when the hue and cry over ‘climate change’ is getting all politicians to wear green and praise forests.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Here are some facts from a real live forestry owner.
In the early 1990s legislation was passed by a National Party government to encourage more forest planting – the creation of a new forestry right over land titles. The aim was to provide a legal framework for landowners who did not have the means (at the time farming was in a slump and land prices were low ) to get trees planted – the landowner gets the work done by partners who pay the costs. At the same time there was a boom in the value of milled exotic timber.
Costs were deductible.
The result was a surge in forest planting – 100,000 ha per year in the early 90′s, almost all of it by individuals and small private groups.
That’s me and my wife – 80 acres of pinus radiata and cupressus macrocarpa, planted 1992, and still being pruned and thinned. Harvest ages 25 years for PR and 42 years for CM. This is serious long term investment to create wealth and employment for the future.
We are still paying for forestry development but will there ever be a return ?
Along comes Kyoto which creates a new value to planted tress – confiscated by the government. 2008 is the date driving deforestation in NZ – there is now a net loss of trees in NZ – cut the trees down by 2008 or the law will punish you financially. The people who are cutting down the trees (mostly immature pinus radiata) include large forestry owners like the Selwyn Plantation Board in Canterbury., the land is going to dairying.
Now it seems the government and/or its advisers have decided that more is needed, and so the current suggestion to tax the forest owner again.
Is it any wonder we the people protest !
Have they lost their senses ? Net plantings of forest in NZ are negative. Government policies have caused this. Many jobs have already gone – ask the people who grew tree seedlings. I can guarantee that there is now going to be an acceleration in deforestation in NZ. And all this when the hue and cry over ‘climate change’ is getting all politicians to wear green and praise forests.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Thats very interesting richgraham. Not only does it show the potential misery that changing the rules midgame can do, but it highlights the very poor forward planning of successive governments. Did they really not see the short term boom in radiata for what it is. And that a short term slump in dairying would be just that?? Unbelievable.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
This is a good start, it’s about time NZ started paying up under the Kyoto fine system.
Believe it could be up to $500mil over time.
To worthies like Russia.
The sound you can hear is Aust. laughing.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
insider, ok, so forests produce methane. but fact:
they store a whole lot more carbon. and fact: forest is a more effective sink than pasture.
the methane per litre argument is valid. as is the permanent forest sink eu argument, but we’ve got to face the fact that science, markets, and governments internationally are all pointing toward a price on carbon.
this post is part of the discussion on how to best marry our local situation into the global response to a global problem.
… so we keep talking…
December 19th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
To show the hypocrisy of this Govt,the SOE Land Corp has been going like the clappers in the last year or two bulldozing thousands of hectares of trees and converting it to dairying!
December 19th, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Mikey,
We should be moving away from Ratiata anyway and putting R&D into developing high quality native timbers. We are in a precarious position and should not do anything to harm the efficient industries we have.
We should also collaborate a lot more with our trading partners, especially aussie and the US on strategic planning. They have massive R&D and analysis capabilities and we should not insist on re-inventing the wheel the whole time. Had we sat up and taken notice that their risk and policy analysis may have been based on more than just right wing pontificating then we may not be in the pickle we now find ourselves.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
MIkey
Don’t disagree wiht you on pricing but it was not my argument re the capture abilities of pasture and trees but Owen MacShane’s. I just don’t know what the answer is but he claims that neither does the govt yet it is making far reaching and costly decisions on that non knowledge.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
“I am inclined to think that rulers have rarely been above the average, either morally or intellectually, and often below it. And I think that it is reasonable to adopt, in politics, the principle of preparing for the worst, as well as we can, though we should, of course, at the same time try to obtain the best. It appears to me madness to base all our political efforts upon the faint hope that we shall be successful in obtaining excellent, or even competent, rulers.”– Karl Raimund Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies
And with those prescient words we can see the paradox of the Agriculture agw policy released this week.
All of the proposed policies will ACTUALLY increase temperature,emissions of GHG,voc and reduce the fertility of the soil.
December 19th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
From the same people that have vociferously fought off all attempts at any form of carbon tax; we now have the sordid spectacle of them lining up and whining about how they should be eligible for a carbon credit.
Ultimately the NZ govt is going to be liable for the nett carbon position of the nation as a whole. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that individual forestry owners get to claim the credits, while at the same time refusing to support the need to pay for the costs.
Even more egregious is the attempt to claim a windfall from forests planted prior to 1990. Again, Kyoto will give NZ no credit for these forests, so why the hell should the NZ taxpayer be forking out a credit to forestry owners for them? Such a payment would be a direct cost to the taxpayer. These forests we NOT planted with the possibility of a carbon credit in mind because at the time such a possibility did not exist. Besides how far back do you want to go in time? And why only commercial forests? And by the same reasoning we can ask why not give DOC a huge carbon credit for its massive area of indigenous forest?
And all this no doubt from the same people who also vote for a tax cut.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
Welcome back Redrag. I too see the irony in this situation, although we may not agree on the cure.- I dont see what voting for a tx cuts got to do with it.
No one should be paying carbon tax and no one should be getting the carbon credits – the government now needs those to buy its way out of the pickle. These things are just distorting the economy and subject to the same corrupt cronyism which is already rife. The economy should run on supply and demand of commodities people need, not thin air.
New Zealand has a rich history of social experimentation and I put this crap in the same category. We are only a small country. We cant save the world ourselves no matter how much we would like to think we can. Had we listened to the governments that have enough money and expertise to do the risk and impact analyses properly perhaps we would not be in this jam. We need everything we’ve got to fix our own environmental disasters and clean up our own back yard.
If we must now adopt this ludicrous trading system it should be equally spread over all forests commercial or not. But we should try to wriggle out of it and not sign up again in 2012. And if the government wants the tax it should collect it off the end user of the products.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:29 pm
RedRag I see your beloved socailists are going to give big business a tax break but the low paid worker, the voter base for Liarbour, is told to get fucked. I bet that gets up your nose, I think it’s a fucking joke!!ha ha.
I also find your arguments egregious, I’m sure if I tell the local council my rates demand is way to high because the land I brought on the sea shore in 1990 should still be taxed on that value. I could not foresee the rise in the value of sea front land. Do you not think the council would die laughing. Sorry mate the forestry owner didn’t sign kyoto the government did so we all carry the can.
December 19th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
mickeymike,
Can you please direct me to the evidence that supports both the ‘facts’ that are claimed in your comment.. thanks db.
your quote:-
“insider, ok, so forests produce methane. but fact:
they store a whole lot more carbon. and fact: forest is a more effective sink than pasture.”
December 19th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
mickeymike,
Can you please direct me to the evidence that supports both the ‘facts’ that are claimed in your comment.. thanks db.
your quote:-
“insider, ok, so forests produce methane. but fact:
they store a whole lot more carbon. and fact: forest is a more effective sink than pasture.”
December 19th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
This country has bolted headlong for the corner flag carrying a crock of shit.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Redrag,
What the forestry owners are ”whining” about is that they have had a govt. unilaterlly take property rights from them with no compensation.Most people would call that oppression but I guess with your moniker you would think it was a good thing.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
towaka, I think what he is saying is that if any of the tree owners actually were pro-kyoto because they thought something was in it for them, then he has no sypathy for them and neither do I, thats all.
If you dance with the devil you’ll surely get burn’t. hasnt decades of watching successive governemnts in NZ tuaght us anything.
So come on own up – did any of you forestry owners actually lobby FOR kyoto?
December 19th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
If it is fair to tax deforestation it is fair to pay for reforestation. Simple.
RedRag, imagine the Govt bloat created by the Special Forrest Tax units that would be set up in IRD, I would have thought that alone would have made you think the idea was absolutely required. Add to that it’s recycling money from one group to another and it’s all sounding like the sort of policy you normally insist on.
You OK RedRag ?
December 19th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Burt, neither should be happening. The government should not be paying to plant trees or singling them out for tax. The government has no right, in my opinion, to sinlge out any one sector,person, race, creed etc for punitive taxation oro special treatment.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
towaka,
OK so by your logic if you insist that Kyoto forest based carbon credits are some form of “property right” (since when!); then surely you have no argument against the idea that in carbon consumption must be an equal and opposite “property liability”?
Funny how the Right has vociferously denied “climate change” until the position became utterly unsupportable; undermined the proposed “carbon tax” by refusing to support it; scuppered the “fart tax” which was intended to fund research into our single largest contributor to the problem….and yet all of a sudden when it they realise there may be a quick buck in it for them, Kyoto carbon credits have suddenly become a “property right”.
Props to Porc on this one for at acknowledging the innate dishonesty in the forest owner’s position.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Porc,
What I know of the forestry sector(I live next to a leading farm forester)was that they were always suspicious of Kyoto.With the Govt nationalising all of the carbon credits of the forests with no real consultation.None of them were happy with this with I suppose the thought being If they took the risk and planted the trees surly the credits belonged to them.So now they end up with the double whammy of no carbon credits and having the Govt saying they can not change there land use if they wish.This at a time when pine trees are a ”dead loss” as a crop!
December 19th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
The dishonesty of the forest owners position is matched only by the Govt. Take the global credits, tax the local offenders and offer no incentive to the productive…. I do understand your support for this RedRag. But lets not target just one bunch of self serving biggots.
Yes it is laughable that having screamed for the credits the same bunch squeel like a socialist party asked to pay back $800,000. It’s very funny to watch, but lets be honest – we all want to be paid (a bonus) for doing something we were already doing and none of us want to pay a price (tax) for doing something that has been free up till now.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Burt,
You are missing the point.The forestry owners growing the trees which we all benefit from and are being punished for it.Also you are confusing a carbon tax with a punitive land change tax.
The foresters on the rural news today were spewing as the way they see it, they are the good guys soaking up carbon and are being hammered and there dairy farming neighbours who are (according to the theory) producing all the methane and are getting away scott free.
For the record I am on Augie Auors side on this one.He said that he ”hopes to live long enough to prove the bastards wrong” in regards to GW.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
towaka
I think it’s the Govt that have confused a carbon tax (or credits) with a punitive land change tax. They are fishing for distractions and trying to look green for 2008.
I’m simply pointing out to RedRag that the point ‘the forest owners are bitching’ is not the point of this thread. Discussion about the tax is not to be distracted by laughing at the rightfully offended parties.
I agree with you 100%. Property rights just being walked all over agin….
December 20th, 2006 at 9:27 am
LEt us assume that forests absorb more carbon than pasture.
Let us assume therefore that there should be a Kyoto penalty charge for converting forest to pasture.
Will those who support this idea provide the equation which provides the amount to be charged.
(Trade depends on a department of weights and measures which keeps everyone honest. hence we have standard metres and standard kilos etc).
But if I am going to pay someone because I have generated a net tonne of carbon how do I do the calculation and who confirms that I am not cheating?
December 20th, 2006 at 9:54 am
It’s not science, it’s politics. By scientific standards the whole idea of kyoto making any difference to climate change is nuts.
But politics, oh my. Let’s make people afraid of something (anything), then tell them only we have the answer. Then they will have to keep voting for us.
How can you believe anything this bunch of rotters say.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Porc,
You made an inquiry about where the Iwi`s fit into all this.Well there was a report on national radio this morning that said Maori own 40% of forestry land.I am picking this fact will make for a real ”bunfight”.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:40 am
hello redrag, may I expand on my mention of the carbon credits being confiscated/nationalized/held/whatever by the Labour government ? You abuse the position I take.
Recent investigation work by scientists in NZ (Dunedin) have established the potential of introducing a new crop into pine forests in NZ.
Valuable fungi. It is now likely that pine forests in NZ will be able to infect their trees with the fungi to grow high-value mushrooms.
This technology was not known in 1992 when my trees were planted. I intend to use that technology in my forest when it becomes available., to enhance the value of it and produce more wealth (and scrumptious mushrooms).
Would you then suggest that the government should announce that all revenues from the sale of such introduced fungi be taken by the IRD/Government ?
I maintain that any value from the trees we planted belongs to us, not the government. We can expect this type of development to continue as new discoveries are made and implemented.
The fact that carbon credits were an invention of the Kyoto accord and therefore cannot be a property right is what this government (Mr Hodgson himself wrote to tell me that when he was Minister of Forestry) uses to justify the retention of the value of those carbon credits.
Whatever you may think of that argument it is indisputable that forestry planting in NZ has been heavily influenced by the decision of the Labour government to retain the Kyoto carbon credits – heavily influenced to discourage afforestation.
If afforestation is required, then the government and its green supporters should legislate to encourage tree planting, not discourage it as they have done. The proposed/implied changes will accelerate forest destruction in NZ. In fact I advise farmer owners of immature forests on land which can be converted to pasture to implement that ASAP – because this government is clearly committed to the destruction of the forestry industry.
Ask the 1000s of people whose jobs have already gone how they feel about it – or don’t jobs for NZers count in your world ?
December 20th, 2006 at 11:01 am
richgraham, good points but if the system was working properly yu would have to pay a royalty to the dunedin research centre, which would then be used for more R&D.
And while I agree with you that now, if we must have this ludicrous carbon trading system, the forest owners should get the credits (from wherever) they should also expect to pay debits (back to wherever) when the trees are removed.
As Owen points out the system is virtually unmeasurable and to acheive that fairly would create yet another massive bureaucracy that will suck the life blood out of any benefits to the country.
Given that the tax system (and its bedpal the benefit/wealth reditribution system) is so hoorendously comoplicated in this country already we certainly dont need anymore of it.
Redrag, couldnt the government, even just as a sign of good failth and trust ever moot these taxes in a revenue neutral way? We have a massive surplus, and we are all users of the dairy industry’s products (including money!) so why not use some of that for anti-fart R&D?
December 20th, 2006 at 11:15 am
towaka – that will be an interesting bun fight indeed. Any predictions? I predict a “CO2 claim” and the compromise that the taxpayer has to pay the Iwi elite’s share.
Given that Iwi got 20% of the fish farm quota and get co mpo if they dont take all of that shre up in the time limit.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:54 am
This from the same gummit that stops hydro power because the fishing won’t be so good, stops wind power cause it might frighten the horses/ not look so good….. so lets burn lots of fossil fuels to make power instead. To offset the dire lunacy of the RMA as regards our Kyoto commitments, we will tax the daylights out of the non-labour voters.
SNAFU
December 20th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Porc,
My prediction will be that there will be an iwi exemption worked out.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
db, for some reason most of my comments with links are not getting past moderation.
i’ve got several sources for you on pasture/forest and methane/co2.
i’ll leave off for a bit – maybe they’ll get through soon…
December 20th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Hi mikeymike,
Thanks for your responce.
Please do not be put off by any moderation difficulties.
I am genuinely interested in your source of factual information and would ask you to use this email address to help me understand.
pamelabaigent@xtra.co.nz will get to me..
regards db.
December 20th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Re db there are some links on a post from saturday on the science behind some fallacies on forestry carbon sequestion and differentials on pastoral forestry sequestion.
June 12th, 2007 at 9:34 am
hieczqpvn zsqap kdojfsrml qfpjesawo xckiaq jxidqvs ijzmea
June 12th, 2007 at 9:35 am
hieczqpvn zsqap kdojfsrml qfpjesawo xckiaq jxidqvs ijzmea
June 12th, 2007 at 9:37 am
hieczqpvn zsqap kdojfsrml qfpjesawo xckiaq jxidqvs ijzmea