In denial over denial
Released 21 Apr 2011
Don Nicolson is Federated Farmers President
Two years ago at Copenhagen, New Zealand committed to cut emissions to between 10 and 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Soon after, a number of major western economies entered the economic equivalent of global cooling and, aside from the odd political platitude, the wind was taken out of the global climate change sail.
Recently, Climate Change Minister, Dr Nick Smith, added another target - a 50 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. When these targets are missed I doubt reporters will be doorstepping octogenarian ex-cabinet ministers for a ‘please explain'. One thing for certain is that the policy framework to meet these targets doesn't come cheap. Over the past two years, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry spent $55 million on policy advice related to climate change. That's just one out of 41 departments and ministries too and is more than the $50 million over ten years, Government is putting into the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium. Farmers, through our commodity levies, are matching this dollar-for-dollar showing how individual farmers invest in research. Confounding some assumptions, Federated Farmers has repeatedly backed pastoral greenhouse gas research to advance efficiency. If less animal energy is spent producing gas that means more energy for meat, fibre or milk production. It's why we want more money for research and far less spending on policy or supporting foreign carbon foresters.
While impressive ‘emissions reduction targets' may sound great on the cocktail circuit, they mask what ought to be a greater emphasis on efficient resource use and building community resilience. Take water. Farmers have voluntarily moved from less visible, but inefficient, flood irrigation, to highly efficient, but visible, spray irrigation. Without ‘emissions reduction targets', everything from cars to appliances have become better over time and largely cheaper too. A Mark IV Zephyr from 1971, adjusted for inflation, would cost over $47,000 today and a radio was an optional extra. Perhaps surprisingly, resource efficiency is something we and the Green Party agree upon. The fear of many farmers is that a policy fixation with ‘emissions reduction targets' may trip up the development of more efficient technologies. While we may get zero emission vehicles for example, manufacturing processes and recycling mean no vehicle can ever truly be zero emission.
Given New Zealand is apparently producing 23 percent more emissions than in 1990, the latest target means a 73 percent reduction below current levels. Statistics New Zealand's population projections show why efficiency is key and how ‘emissions reduction targets' fly in the face of common sense. By 2051, there could be 6.7 million of us - 2.3 million more than today but by 2050, we will somehow be producing 73 percent less emissions. How can this be done when between 1991 and 2051, New Zealand's population could have increased by 95 percent? We can safely assume there will be millions more motor vehicles and more than a million new households too. This all means more air travel, more shopping centres, more energy, basically, more of everything. It's a long, long way back when Dr Smith acknowledged last year that electricity emissions saw the greatest percentage increase - up 120 percent since 1990.
There is one way to get emissions 73 percent below current levels and that's to turn the clock back to 1946. A time when there were 1.7 million New Zealanders, fewer motor vehicles and overseas travel was by flying boat or ocean liner. Let's focus on what we can control - efficient resource use. That is unless we concede the McGillicuddy Serious Party's ‘great leap backwards' was a serious policy after all.
