Federated Farmers has put the record straight about the”free ride” which the opposition think farming is getting through delaying the admission of agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme and the way it is being reported:
Some media are reporting the latest revision to the ETS as ‘the Government excluding farmers from the Emissions Trading Scheme until 2015’. This is factually incorrect.
It is vital for accuracy to refer to the 2015 delay as applying to biological emissions only (methane and Nitrous Oxide from livestock and soils).
All New Zealand farms and orchards have been in the ETS since 1 July 2010.
We wish to counter a belief among some media that farmers do not pay the ETS on farm inputs or that farmers somehow receive a rebate. Both these assumptions are incorrect.
Like all New Zealand businesses, farms pay the ETS on fuel and electricity they directly consume. They also pay it indirectly through the supply chain on things as diverse as processing costs, animal remedies, wire netting, fencing, feed and fertiliser. Indirectly, it also affects the cost of professional services farmers consume too.
There are few exemptions to the ETS and apply mostly to international air travel and international bunker fuels to and from New Zealand.
The cost of the ETS on dairy, horticulture, sheep, beef and deer: The cost impact of the ETS on dairy, horticulture, sheep, beef and deer farmers is conservatively estimated to be a minimum of $106 million per annum: Fonterra Cooperative Group estimates its individual dairy farmer suppliers directly pay $3,700 a year in carbon costs for fuel, energy and their share of the carbon costs being paid by Fonterra for processing emissions (approximately $38.8 million per annum). Beef+Lamb NZ, Meat Industry Association & Deer Industry New Zealand calculated the individual cost on sheep, beef and deer farms of the ETS, to be $2,000 per annum (approximately $27.8 million per annum) HortNZ, in its 2011 submission, highlighted smaller greenhouse glass operators facing additional ETS related costs of $30,000 per annum. In 2008, it estimatedthe ETS would add industry costs in excess of $40 million.
These compare to typical households paying additional ETS related costs of around $133 per annum. It should be noted that many farms and orchards are households too.
Farmers are paying for research which is likely to lead to practical ways to reduce biological emissions.
But in the meantime there is no point imposing extra costs on food production with absolutely no benefit for the environment.
Yes, very amusing, Ele.
Pathetic response. Didn’t the playbook have anything better to add.
Better give the ginga or the jade adorned one a call.
Oh hang on that will just result in call number 397 for a commission of inquiry, so on reflection don’t bother.
Wouldn’t it be a sad day if balance was introduced to a debate, particularly if such a contribution added some inconvenient facts that the repeaters cant be arsed to discover and publish
So much easier to use a blanket of ignorance emanating from kermits mansion that is so much more effective in saving the Planet and creating a sustainable future, not.
Tell us again how many carbon credits will “Robin” be needing as the “boy wonder” travels to Europe to discover what any other citizen of the worlds little food bowl in the South Pacific can learn from the internet.
” There are few exemptions to the ETS and apply mostly to international air travel and international bunker fuels to and from New Zealand.”
The rationale of the above paragraph, quoted from the post of Homepaddock, is further realistic proof as to the Ponzi status of the ETS scheme.
Though I suspect Air New Zealand and our Minister for Tourism would not agree.
That pesky ulcer playing up again, Gravedodger. Or is it an over-production of bile that’s burning up your insides?
It’s astonishing that farmers would try to smooth over the exemption that’s been granted them by National, one that has to be covered to the tune of $80 million according to Key, by bleating that they already paying, like everyone else. That’s a truuism that no-one’s disputing. It’s a straw-man put up to distract from the real issue – that farming produces huge amounts of biologically-derived emissions that have to be paid for. The general public will pay for them, without benefiting from the production of them, as farmers and growers do.
And so, Gravedodger, you may think that sniping at one politician taking trip across the globe obscures the issue sufficiently, or that childish name-calling (from one of your vintage – shame!) can hide what’s really happened, but it doesn’t.
Robert Guyton is as usual totally illogical as is worrying about “agricultural emissions” – a sure sign of a civilization that has lost its marbles and is on the way out.
None of this crap puts real edible food on anybodies table and all this garbage does is provide a livelihood for a few over educated dolts whose value to society at large is zero while pouring real money and resources down the drain.
Robert – one of the Kyoto protocol’s many failings is inconsistency over who pays – producers or consumers. With fuel it’s the end user, with food it’s the producer.
None of our competitiors is stupid enough to impose that tax on producers when there’s nothing they can do to reduce emissions without huge reductions in production. Government recognise the stupidity of reducing food production in a hungry world when it will impose costs without benefits so none include biological emissions in their ETs.
The child prodigy’s speakers tour is no more than total bollocks and the hypocrisy of his troughing singles him out for special mention. The others are just as deserving of contempt.
My health is really good for one just consuming oxygen as I await my fate but your latest pathetic one liner designed to prevent notice on our hosts blog reaching the high altitudes of disappearing altogether, finally elicited a response due almost entirely to the depressing vista out my window that only extends for around 100 meters.
I for one really appreciate the days when your time is taken by your world saving activities on your Regional Council, they are truly blessed relief.
We wouldn’t want to descend to ad hominem attacks however tempted we might be so apologies for my intemperate outburst, however justified it might have seemed to me at the time.
Gravedodger, Andrei and Elle .. you are wasting your time with bOb and indeed hi buddy, JUDGE HOLDEN.
And bOb accusing anyone of name calling is a hoot
“We wouldn’t want to descend to ad hominem attacks however tempted we might be …”
You do make me laugh, Gravedodger-Namecaller! “Ginga” and “Kermits mansion”, “Robin” and “Boy Wonder” – not slights from the finger of a hypocrite? Funny fellow, Punchinello.
jabba – you have nothing, add nothing, nada, nil, zilch, zero. Scoop up all of your comments from past weeks, pile in a corner, direct a very bright light toward them and you’ll see – the corner.
Ele,
The Kyoto protocol doesn’t tell us how to pay for out emissions, just that we have to. In the ETS it’s suppliers of fuel that need to give up credits to pay for their allotment.
In this case, farmers are getting a subsidy from the government for their biological emissions. You make a case that they need that subsidy, but it’s silly to pretend its not one.
What is this subsidy? Who is paying it? How is it assessed? Who gets the money? Are Australian farmers also getting this ‘subsidy’? Is anyone else getting the subsidy or are we in New Zealand the lucky ones? Is there some way I can get more of this subsidy, should I structure my business around it like the farmer in “Catch 22″ or…is there a catch? Please explain.
I repeat my comment from 11:50 .. but include a (sic) after hi. Even though bOb, or Toadvine, makes spelling mistakes (I couldn,t care less) all the time, his best friend, big JUDGE HOLDEN hates them
The Kyoto protocol is a crock – which we shouldn’t have signed.
We have to get our “emissions” to 1990 levels but not being a heavily industrialized country to do this we have to count agricultural emissions, something which no other nation in the world does because it is bonkers to do so.
Actually the whole thing is bonkers it means that if I want to invest in a steel mill, say, I wont invest it in NZ but in India because unlike the morons who rule in NZ India is not under any obligation under Kyoto.
And this means, for example, we don’t build our railway rolling stock in NZ but in China, which means young men go on the dole instead of becoming boilermakers and fitters and turners.
Utter lunacy and close to being treason, actually signing the damn treaty probably was treason.
from memory, the unions killed off boilermakers and turned construction towards concrete in favour over steel