Greenpeace, climate change and agriculture
One of things that most strongly differentiates the Green Party’s holistic approach to dealing with climate change from other parties is that it does not have a blind spot on the issue of agriculture [pdf].Greenpeace, in it’s survey of political parties policies on climate change, asked all parties whether the farming sector or taxpayers should pay the cost of the agriculture sector’s greenhouse gas emissions until 2013 and beyond. Greenpeace said in its survey:
New Zealand has a unique greenhouse gas profile with around 50% of our emissions coming from the agricultural sector, mostly in the form of methane and nitrous oxide. The Government currently has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the agriculture sector so that taxpayers will completely subsidise the agriculture sector’s emissions until 2013 with taxpayers picking up an estimated $1.4B price tag, but the agriculture sector has not met their side of the MOU, which was to conduct research into possible ways to reduce those emissions. Techniques currently exist to reduce emissions from the agriculture sector, ranging from using nitrification inhibitors, reducing fertiliser use and changing land use. Nitrogen fertilizers are responsible for a significant portion of agricultural emissions and a national shift toward organic farming has the potential to make substantial emission reductions in the industry while simultaneously taking advantage of a valuable niche market. The sector must be given an incentive to research and utilise these techniques.
The Greens responded that the agricultural sector ‘should be required now to pay for all emissions above 1990 levels (that is mainly from dairying).’
Every other party either did not answer or gave answers that amounted to taxpayers encouraging some of industrial dairy’s worst practices in the form of economic subsidies. It’s ironic given some of those same parties’ rhetoric on the issue of tax payers and tax cuts.
March 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pm
What you have to do fwwog is stop the slogans and negotiate with NZ GOVT 2008 NAT now,
there is only this thin window of opportunity fwwog before the close down.
If Winston can do it on less than 1% why can’t you
March 31st, 2008 at 1:47 pm
However, in the Green Party brochure, ‘Kicking the Carbon Habit’, the Greens claim that ‘industries who compete with companies in countries with no price on carbon, and whose survival would be at risk from higher energy prices, should be largely protected from this carbon price until their competitors also face a carbon price’.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this Green statement was about giving NZ agriculture protection from climate change regulations. If so, this appears to contradict the Greens’ (hypocritical?) claim of differentiation from the parties. Can this be clarified?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Furthermore, although the Greens often trumpet their sound-bite that ‘polluters should pay’, the party’s finer print shows that they are quite soft (by their own standards) on business and farmers.
In terms of farmers, the party has said, ‘we are not proposing that farming should cover the cost of all its emissions’. The Green Party has in the past singled out sheep and beef farmers for a total exemption and suggested that dairy farmers should only pay for about 20% of their emissions.
True or not?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 31st, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Bryce, the Green policy re this is:
Other than by reducing stock numbers there is no way to avoid methane emissions from livestock at present. Nitrous oxide emissions from farming can be somewhat reduced with new technology but this is still being researched. It is therefore not reasonable to require agriculture to face a carbon price for all its emissions.
The growth in dairying is so fast that it threatens not just our Kyoto position, but also water availability, water pollution and other environmental effects. It is therefore reasonable that the agriculture sector face a price for the growth in its emissions above a baseline. However the Green Party believes that it is not reasonable or efficient to expect individual farmers to engage with the world carbon trading system.
The Green Party will:
1. Set the baseline for agriculture at the level of their emissions at 1990 because that is the point after which NZ becomes liable for the emissions according to the Kyoto agreement.
2. Exempt the beef and sheep industries from any requirement to purchase units unless their emissions rise beyond 1990 levels as currently their emissions are below 1990 levels.
3. Place the liability for any increased emissions from the dairying and deer farming sectors with the large processing companies rather than with individual farmers. For example if Fonterra processes 90% of our milk, they will be required to purchase enough Kyoto units to cover 90% of the increase in our emissions from dairying since 1990 and remit them to the government.
So it essentially requires the agricultural sector to pay for all their emissions for which NZ has obligations during the first Kyoto period, rather than for their total emissions. So unlike other Parties, the Green Party will not have the taxpayer subsidising the agricultural sector’s emissions.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
So, if I’ve comprehended this all correctly, in a nutshell the Green Party says that:
The Greens WON’T make agricultural producers pay for ALL of their emissions, but will make them pay for MORE than other parliamentary parties would.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 31st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
No, if you are looking for a nutshell, you could return to the statement in my original post which is that the agriculture sector should pay for all emissions above 1990 levels.
March 31st, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Suppose that’s one way to put it Bryce. Although, as a Green supporter I’d prefer to put it this way:
The Greens will require the agricultural sector to pay for all its emissions that New Zealand has an international obligation for under Kyoto.
March 31st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Hi Frog - the reason I asked for clarification rather than just relying on your original post is that you post appears to contradict other things that the Green Party has said about climate change. The things that contradict your post are the statements by the Greens that:
* ‘we are not proposing that farming should cover the cost of all its emissions’
* Farmers ’should be largely protected’ from charges for their emissions.
* Sheep and beef farmers should receive a total exemption and dairy farmers should only pay for about 20% of their emissions
This all means that the Greens’ stance isn’t all that different to the other parties. You guys might be tougher on farmers than Labour and National - but only by a degree. Therefore you aren’t exactly differentiated from other parties. Maybe you are buying into the centrist consensus on such issues in order to be “all things to all people”. This might be part of the reason that the Greens fail to attract much voter support these days - people just don’t perceive you as being much different from the rest of politicians.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 31st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Born and raised on a farm I can say….
What’s needed is a financial reward for farmers who can achieve best practice.
If a hill country farmer can plant enough of the worst (and riparian) bits of the farm in forestry to cancel out the emissions from the stock on the best bits of the farm, we are on to a winner. (incidentally she will probably find that stock numbers won’t drop at all) That farm should then be accredited with some form of ‘Gold Standard” and go to the head of the queue in market access and get premium prices raised by the premium product marketing.
Dairy conversions could do the same, best practice= premium product.
March 31st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
We should claim an exemption for food we export overseas - this would reduce our Kyoto burden.
Given any food they produce locally has a higher footprint than here, our case is strong.
We should also claim a rebate for emission increases caused by a population rising from immigration (from other countries).
Quite simply if we were treated fairly, opposition to conservation practice in use of scarce carbon would dissipate.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Devil’s in the details, chapos and chapesses.
Define a ‘1990 level emission’, on a hypothetical dairy farm (state area, predominant pasture species, stock units etc) in a way that will stand up to a concerted judicial examination.
Because dairy is a corporate activity, with deep pockets for legal eagles and other Predatory Boids. And said examination of definitions is the first step.
And if you cannot get this simple definition down pat, how ya gonna have a Policy?
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm
# waymad Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
> Define a ‘1990 level emission’, on a hypothetical dairy farm (state area, predominant pasture species, stock units etc) in a way that will stand up to a concerted judicial examination.
> And if you cannot get this simple definition down pat, how ya gonna have a
Policy?
it probably isn’t a simple definition, and I’m not aware of anyone other than you seeing a need to define it. Why would you?