Have your say this week on ETS review

Kerry Worsnop

It’s becoming harder to muster enthusiasm for yet another submission on the vexed topic of trees and carbon — simply because so little evidence exists that anyone took any notice of the last submission, or the one before that, or even the one five years ago before any of this very predictable mess became reality.

Credit should be given to the Climate Change Commission, which alone among concerned agencies made a concerted attempt to understand the complex issues involved, and unequivocally called into question the validity of our “spray (plant) and walk away” approach to carbon units.

The commission’s very direct scrutiny, and catastrophic evidence in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle, have brought the unsustainable nature of the current approach into sharp focus.

However, much like the unpalatable priorities of previous consultations, the easy answers have not resolved themselves and the conflicts paralysing the Government to date remain.

It is highly likely that those in charge are quietly hoping the chaos of an election will sweep away or drastically delay the nation’s quest for a solution, given that no solution now exists that does not enrage someone somewhere. Such is the nature of cutting loose a wildly profitable policy initiative designed to appeal to the greatest number of participants possible.

Predictably, many of those participants are now deeply unhappy with proposals to amend the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and the implications for investments they have made. In seeking to let the “market” decide the cheapest route to Net Zero, the paradox of climate change policy has been laid bare. There is no truly cheap route. As we have now heard many times over — we can’t plant our way to climate change nirvana.

In fact, a rejection of “net” concepts is under way globally for the unsurprising reason that land-use competition for biofuels, bioenergy and offsetting have the aggregate effect of reducing food supply and increasing food prices, which in turn incentivises the creation of new farmland in previously forested landscapes in poorer countries. This does nothing to increase climate resilience and even less to support biodiversity — but “doing something” seems to sooth the conscience of wealthy nations, and decorates the pages of corporate sustainability reports.

The ETS forestry settings and a high carbon price have so far achieved little beyond doubling land prices, driving widespread forestry conversions on all classes of land and the rapid development of an industry designed to make money from carbon.

We have seen what leaving the floodgates open to carbon forestry means for our country and we need to reject it, even if it costs us money personally — which, for many on the land, it will.

We know that if land is unsuitable for farming, it’s unlikely to be suitable for forestry. Until three years ago, reversion was one of the preferred methods in this region of retiring land from farming (under the One Billion Trees scheme). But with the rise of the ETS, reversion ground to a near standstill and exotic forestry roared away, much of it on land that will never be harvested.

So back to why and how we muster the will to write yet another submission. Very simply — because many of those vested interests who would defend the status quo will certainly be submitting a finely crafted submission, some will likely be granted meetings, others will use networks to try to influence the outcome.

We, as members of the community, have no such avenues — however, we have our own future to reflect on, and that of our children and those who come after them. If these matter to you, then offering your view is the most useful thing you can do. Send it to NaturalResourcesPol@mpi.govt.nz by the end of this week.