Carbon credit illusion, ideas for the future

Clive Bibby

Opinion

Business support packages that are based on unsustainable incentives can do more harm than good. And those that involve special treatment of foreign companies, to keep them operating in this country, can prove disastrous — even if considered solely on the employment they initially provided. Tiwai Point aluminium smelter is a classic example of what not to do. 

We here on the East Coast are seeing the results of the abused carbon credit policy that has already gone a long way towards destroying our once great livestock farming industry.

It is one thing to encourage cash-strapped farmers to plant pine trees on some of their marginal hill country land, which will help the nation achieve its carbon reduction objectives by the year 2050. But it is another thing to incentivise overseas owners, who show no allegiance to this country, to buy up large swaths of our best farming properties and lock them up as a contributor to our productive capacity for the best part of 30 years — the Huiarua/Matanui example being the worst of its kind.

It simply makes no sense. We in this region are seeing the results of this folly, with associated farming and forestry business failures happening on an alarming scale.

It must not be allowed to continue.

The emissions trading scheme may well be responsible for the welcome addition of marginal hill country profits to the farm balance sheet — and where it has been a successful development, the community as a whole has enjoyed the benefits of the increased regional income.

But where the properties that would normally be making significant contributions to the nation’s coffers are sitting idle for the duration of a pine tree life cycle, there is virtually no income generated or employment opportunities available.

Tairāwhiti is facing a real dilemma. But l am confident we, as a community, can rise to the occasion by addressing one simple question.

How do we restructure our economy in a way that accommodates the worst aspects of climate change while still maintaining existing cornerstone industries — albeit, some in a reduced capacity — while using our natural resources (some of which we have in abundance) differently as a basis for growth?

And here’s the rub.

My recent comments on this subject have drawn criticism for lacking ideas on how to fix the problem.

Obviously, my critics haven’t bothered to read my repeated submissions to council, including my ideas that could become top priorities for the regional Long Term Plan.

Unfortunately, the facts are that the authorities responsible for implementing long-term policies -— local and central government — have, at least until the recent general election, shown a contemptuous disregard for ideas that make sense, especially given our limited options.

They include transferring significant amounts of the traditional earning capacity from the East Coast livestock and forestry industries to what needs to be a fully irrigated 18,000 hectares that is the Poverty Bay Flats.

Cleary, we cannot continue to operate those cornerstone industries on the erosion-prone soils of the East Coast in the same reckless manner as we have before.

But so far none of these ideas have been given even common acknowledgement as possibilities for the future.

You can’t expect the public to support council in its efforts to save us from ourselves if, when we respond with well thought out, workable plans, no one is listening.

Possible changes will not happen while our leaders procrastinate and argue over who should control the much-needed development.