Our country’s division deepens with this rhetoric.
I’ll briefly point out the two key differences that have led to this nationwide uproar and protests.
First is the fact the levy price will be set with primary consultation from the climate commission, not a recommended industry advisory group. The climate commission does consider both socioeconomic consequences and emissions.
The second difference is sequestration.
Without going into the details, if you look at the policy, the sequestration suggested is a vast improvement on the status quo with the intent to reward farmers where possible for riparian vegetation and the possibility of pre-90 native forest.
As Andrew Thompson asked on the Rural Roundup on the excluded sequestration, “are we dying in a ditch over something that’s not that significant?”.
This last point is technical and a good topic for more debate, but surely these two differences can’t be the sole reason for our country’s division.
Imagine if we went to the cigarette lobby and asked them to write their own tax policy, backed them 100 per cent in whatever they come up with and then let them set the tax price?
Farmers have authored some great solutions here to emissions pricing and are the key group to consult on the levy price, but can’t be the sole decision-makers of their own policy.
The timing of this seems completely wrong.
The whole country accepted over a year ago that we would have a price on agricultural emissions and have moved on to collaborate on the best way to do it. If farmers wanted no agricultural emissions price, they should have been protesting last year and against their industry representatives who were moving forward.
Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Finn Ross on The Country below:
There has also been a lot of talk with National criticising Labour over a reduction in stock numbers in the sheep and beef sector from this policy.
I want to point out that National and HWEN have not made a claim that their endorsed policy would lead to a lower reduction in stock numbers.
Kelly Forster HWEN Director said using the government prices in HWEN modelling, “there wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination a 20 per cent reduction in the sheep and beef numbers”.
Sure the industry has some valid concerns about the government proposal, but is it really so different that it could all crumple? Is it reasonable to expect the government to accept 100 per cent of an industry proposal on how they are taxed?
I think the industry representatives are worried about a backlash against them from their constituents on their policy which endorses emissions pricing, which is why they need to be seen driving such a hard line on these changes to the government.
Some in the industry have said no deal is better than a bad deal, is this really so bad that this is worse than agriculture going into the ETS? Because that’s what happens under no deal.
The majority of New Zealand has now accepted the need for agricultural emissions pricing, as we do for every other industry. Emissions pricing is critical to keep building on New Zealand’s position as the world’s food and fibre leader.
Yes, there might be some other technical differences in here, but there are some major wins for the sector, split gas approach, farm levy level pricing and recycling 100 per cent of levy money.
Let’s reframe the discourse and have a healthy debate on this, ultimately, we all have the same goals, to ramp up our fight against climate change and to continue to innovate as the best food and fibre producer in the world.
Surely, we can all unite around this goal because this toxic division is destroying our industry opportunities.
Unity over division.
- Finn Ross of Lake Hawea Station, Carbonz, Future Farmers NZ, Both Sides Now, is also a PHD candidate in climate change and marine science.
