Fed Farmers on ETS
May 8th, 2009 at 10:11 am by David FarrarThe Fed Farmers VP has an op ed in the Dom Post:
Today, we can ill afford to further weaken the economy unless we wish to replace recession with depression. Research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research shows that the ETS could lead to 22,000 job losses.
The Agriculture and Forestry Ministry says the ETS will progressively reduce farm profitability and viability by 61.6 per cent for the average dairy farm and 80.3 per cent for the average sheep and beef farm. That is an economic implosion.
All of this will be taken from a sector that has outperformed the rest of the economy for 25 of the past 27 years.
The ETS over-reaches itself by putting a price of carbon on all emissions, whereas Kyoto requires New Zealand to account only for emissions above 1990 levels. We don’t need an ETS to meet our Kyoto obligations.
For better or worse we are in Kyoto. But whether a carbon tax, an ETS or simply just paying our liability (if we even have one) is the best option is far from clear. And if we have an ETS, will we be the only country in the world to include agriculture?
Worse, the ETS takes us where no other country has gone and applies a price of carbon to emissions arising from food production. It also prevents productive land being used for farming if it has trees on it. Forests are best planted on marginal land unsuited to food production, so we need pragmatism not dogmatism.
Therefore, we must ask, where is the global upside if New Zealand artificially throttles back its agricultural production, allowing less efficient producers to fill the void?
And that is why any replacement to Kyoto, must include all emitting countries. Otherwise we will damage our economy and damage the environment more.
But before anyone accuses Federated Farmers of being reactionary, climate change is real. There is no doubt that 6.8 billion human beings affect the environment and humanity grows at the rate of 80 million new mouths each year.
So, if we abandon the ETS, what could be done to get New Zealand through to 2012 when the Kyoto protocol lapses?
Given carbon is cheap right now, the Government could purchase Kyoto emissions units to put in the bank, giving us the means to meet our liabilities through to 2012.
A low-level carbon charge could be introduced and set at a rate that recovers just enough revenue to account for any emissions deficit.
The Government could fund the planting of lots of trees to develop new forestry sinks and jobs. Instead of following the international pack, New Zealand could lead it by pushing for each country to allocate a percentage of GDP toward climate change initiatives.
It is interesting that even Australia has delayed its ETS by a year.
Denmark, one of Europe’s greenest countries, considered a tax on its farming sector in February but quickly realised what folly this was and excluded the primary production of food from its Kyoto response in March. Denmark correctly saw there was no point in sacrificing its farmers when less efficient countries would only produce more.
In Denmark, agriculture accounts for about 19 per cent of all exports; in New Zealand, it’s a jaw- dropping 64 per cent. So why should we care if New Zealand agricultural emissions actually increase? Our farmers generate enough food to feed at least 1 per cent of humanity but are continually chastised for the supposed 0.1 per cent of global emissions this generates.
He makes a strong case.
Tags: Climate Change, ETS, Federated Farmers
May 8th, 2009 at 10:31 am
The satirical website the Onion had a very poignant way of expressing this issue. It involves a photo of a man looking directly into the lens as he is being photographed and saying to his grandkids “we had to destroy the environment so that we could keep the economy going”.
I get the feeling that in 50 years time when the icecaps have melted, sea levels risen dramatically and the equator is uninhabitable there will still be people debating about how action should be held off because of the cost to the economy.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 10:35 am
“But before anyone accuses Federated Farmers of being reactionary, climate change is real.”
Well then, there’s goes any sympathy I might have had for their cause.
Let them sink in their own shit.
Another bunch of appeasement focused group think jelly backs.
Let the accusations come you damn spineless losers, and when they do, you confront them with strong counter argument.
Jesus I’m sick of you gutless PC wimps caving into the left time and time again.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 10:37 am
It is estimated that NZ could easily feed 1% of the world’s population while only producing .01% of the world’s carbon emissions in doing so. So we are already some of the most efficient produces in the world it must be stupidity of the highest order to destroy a system so efficient simply to pay lip service to some AGW con artists. But it’s not about the figures it’s about control and taxation for bigger and more oppressive government, be it local or the NWO
Also why are trees always consider the best stores of carbon, another lie. Grass is also carbon and grows a bloody site faster then trees. If National are so thick to buy into this con they are no better then the stinking socialists they replaced. Follow the money because we will see fuck all of it if this shit comes to pass.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Wasn’t that NZIER report based on the first reading of Labour’s ETS?
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Mickysavage, were you born a dickhead or have you had to work hard to become one?
[DPF: 20 demerits]
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 10:48 am
We have signed Kyoto but it will at best do nothing to improve the global environment and might even make it worse.
If we shot every farm animal in NZ global crabon output would increase as less efficient producers elsewhere increased production to make up for the shortage of food.
But does anyone really believe any country will write a cheque for its carbon liability and send it to another?
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 10:52 am
“does anyone really believe any country will write a cheque for its carbon liability and send it to another?”
Obviously Federated Farmers does. Or at least those elected to represent them do.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Even the most dire predictions from the IPCC don’t predict that the ice caps will melt completely in the next 50 years.
Vote:Besides which, I still think it is highly doubtful that people are affecting the climate as much as some think we are. We can’t even tell the weather properly for the next week, let alone predict conditions in 50 years time.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Homepaddock>But does anyone really believe any country will write a cheque for its carbon liability and send it to another?
I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it. It is pure fantasy. Greens will tell you that other countries will enforce trade sanctions against NZ if we don’t. Which would be the flimsiest excuse ever for what is, essentially, an act of war. But we’d be in good company and quite able to trade with all the other countries that refused to pay their Kyoto liabilities. Which will be most of them whose economies didn’t collapse when communism ended.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Mickey, You’re an idealistic fool.
I’m afraid son, that without an economy, there will be fuck all people to witness what happens in 50 years time. Without an economy, the world will be thrust into poverty, disease, crime and gratuitous violence will not only be commonplace, they will be the Norm. People (that manage to survive) would be desperate, and we know what desperation does to the human psyche.
The word Chaos does not even begin to describe what will happen to society.
But in your idealogical eyes, you don’t even begin to see the implications of all your idealisim. The environment cannot be saved at the expense of the economy. Much like the economy must not be saved at the expense of the environment.
The idealists (from both camps) are yet to figure this out, and until they do, we’ll continue to get fuckin nowhere with either objective.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 11:16 am
One of the problems we have with GHG emissions policies is that it treats releases by stored carbon (fossil fuels) as the same as cycled carbon. Farms simultaneously release and capture carbon.
Kyoto does have a number of fish-hooks that specifically target efficient agricultural and pastoral economies, and countries with low numbers of wild ruminants (as the millions of white-tail deers in the US or moose in Scandinavia are not included in countries emissions). In effect, NZ is forced to count almost all our ruminants as contributing to GHG emissions.
I presume the only reason we signed is we thought that forestry would provide a decent counter (global timber prices leaped in 1990-91 when the Pacific NW was shut down to save spotted owls- we were planting trees very quickly). We didn’t count on a government that would implement economic policies to cause replantings to crash, whilst undermining confidence in the sector by getting into a battle with forestry-owners over carbon credits, and casually throwing aside agreements like the West Coast Forest Accord.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 11:38 am
“The idealists (from both camps)”
Don’t buy into that Watermelon Propaganda.
There is no other camp.
There is only the Watermelons with their far left fascist agenda.
Nobody wants to destroy the environment. The myth that there is a greed focused group out there ready to rape and plunder is propaganda the Watermelons use to justify their existence.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
“But before anyone accuses Federated Farmers of being reactionary, climate change is real. There is no doubt that 6.8 billion human beings affect the environment and humanity grows at the rate of 80 million new mouths each year.”
If this is correct, and I’m not completely rubbishing the suggestion, the ETS and all the rest of the Kyoto bullshit will do no good at all.
The only answer is to take out about 2 billion of those polluting, carbon producing, “mouths”.
I hope CNN is there when it happens.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
So Fed Farmers’ conclusion is that the Govt (ie taxpayers) should fit the bill for emissions, not the polluters.
surprise
surprise
surprise
The relevant counter-factual to consider is what damage to the economy would higher taxes to pay for kyoto liabilities do? as opposed to polluter pays as under the ETS.
Fed Farmers do not make a strong case. Mr Farrar, this is basic CBA economics I would’ve thought you’d be on top of??
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
mickeysavage sounds like one of those guys back when they were sure the earth was flat
You know if you sail that boat west you will fall off the edge of the earth into the great abyss.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
No, that is not correct. Fed Farmers have explained very carefully that they would prefer a carbon-tax to the ETS.
Other organisations such as the NZ Institute of Forestry also have a preference for a carbon-tax over the ETS.
A carbon-tax is consistent with a polluter-pays principle.
Also, both the ETS and a carbon tax are not going to differ in terms of the ‘burden’ of the tax. Some will be absorbed by producers and some will be passed onto consumers in terms of higher prices. You can’t islate households from the tax.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
The one argument from the Feds that always amazes me and which people on this thread buy into wholesale is the notion that we are the most efficient producers of dairy.
While this has certainly been true in the past, with every passing day we are being outstripped by our Latin American cousins, who have all the environmental advantages we do, plus all our advanced technology because we’ve either given it to them or sold it to them, but most importantly, they have cheaper wages.
It’s the kiwifruit story all over again.
The idea that we are the most efficient is rapidly becoming a myth, but we won’t move on. A bit like all us city folk driving our Toyota 4WD utes around town saying ‘bugger’, pretending that we are all rural cow-cockeys. We ain’t, and most kiwis never have been, rural farmers. Me included. Bugger!
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Jeanette chose to leave the room when the skeptical people made their presentations. “hear no evil …” I suppose.
Anyhow, my submission to the ETS select committee was that our own science funding has focused on the wrong areas.
We have set out to be “leaders of the followers” rather than leaders in the areas in which we already excel, and where we are currently desperately short of knowledge – namely the biological exchanges in our agricultural sector.
We have focused on gases emitted into the atmosphere by belching ruminants because the IPCC is essentially a group of atmospheric scientists exploring theories of the effect of changes in atmospheric gases on climate. (this is Freeman Dyson’s argument, not mine, although it is easy to see he has a point).
Dyson writes: “I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests.”
New Zealand is a land of fields of farms and forests, and our economy depends on them.
Once again Dyson argues that the planet’s biomass holds the key to carbon sequestration and pleads for more scientific research into its workings.
He says:
“We do not know whether intelligent land management could increase the growth of the topsoil reservoir by four billion tons of carbon per year, the amount needed to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All we can say for sure is that this is a theoretical possibility and ought to be seriously explored.”
If our governments, of any hue, want to make a useful contribution to ‘climate science’, while serving our economic and social interests rather than destroying them, Freeman Dyson has shown the way – and he has been showing us the way for about 15 years. Shouldn’t we start to take some notice?
Dyson’s approach also has the benefit of being a ‘no-regrets’ policy. Improving and increasing the top-soil on our agricultural lands delivers obvious benefits. If it finally transpires that the whole fear of AGW proves to be yet another false alarm then there will be few if any regrets about the increased depth and quality of topsoil and an improved understanding of how top-soil actually works.
We would also be able to make further contributions to feeding the world – a problem which will never go away.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
frog, context, context, context.
When people like me say our farmers are the most efficient in the world we are not saying they are necessarily the cheapest but that we are among the most energy efficient and that we produce less methane per kilo of milk and beef than other producers.
Hence if we reduce our production those who step in will use more energy and release more methane.
There is more to these arguments than lowest cost which the Greens are normally quick to remind us. Poorly insulated houses are cheaper than well insulated ones.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
MICKEY::::::::::I get the feeling that in 50 years time when the icecaps have melted, sea levels risen dramatically and the equator is uninhabitable there will still be people debating about how action should be held off because of the cost to the economy.
But Mickey none of this is going to happen. Haven’t you heard its not GLOBAL WARMING any longer your crowd now only refer to it as CLIMATE CHANGE ever since it became obvious that we had GLOBAL COOLING, and of course we have had CLIMATE CHANGE ever since the time of Noah.
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
It’s the sun, stupid(s).
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Thanks for the demerits David, cool!!!
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
While this has certainly been true in the past, with every passing day we are being outstripped by our Latin American cousins, who have all the environmental advantages we do, plus all our advanced technology because we’ve either given it to them or sold it to them, but most importantly, they have cheaper wages.
So cheaper wages = lesser emissions do they? Are you advocating dropping the minimum wage? By your logic that is why our Latin American cousins are outstripping us.
Comrade Norman called, you must report to the re-education camp immediately!
Vote:May 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Frog I have relations farming in South America ( Uruguay ) and it’s far from being the land of peaches and cream. Property rights are dodgy at best and corruption is a favourite pastime. Bevan is dead right, it’s easy to be bloody clever and make a profit when your labour is cheap and plentiful. Our greatest advantage is having a government that generally follows the rule of law and is willing to defend property rights. I’m afraid until they can find a government that serves the people and not themselves then we have little to fear.
Vote: