ETS ball and chain on ag – AbacusBio

The proposed ETS will add costs to agriculture but not necessarily reduce any greenhouse gases,  a report by Dunedin consultants AbacusBio says.

The report said that rather than being a gun to the head of agriculture as described by its critics, the emission trading scheme as proposed would be a “ball and chain dragging farmers down”. . .

. . . AbacusBio consultant and report co-author Peter Amer said while processors would have to collect a levy on every kilogram or raw product handled to cover the sector’s ETS obligations, it would not be an incentive for farmers to reduce their emissions.

He said it would need a costly bureaucracy and lead to inaccurate accounting because it would be difficult to match the number of breeding stock born on farms with the number of cull stock killed.

The AbacusBio report suggests allowing farmers to opt into the scheme and to prove they have lowered emissions.

“Well-organised and motivated farmers on medium to large-sized farms opting in and reducing emissions would become the innovators leading a change in industry farming practices,” the report said.

Benefits to these farmers would need to exceed the bureaucratic cost, but it would also be a test of emission reducing technology and practices, and help develop emissions assessment and auditing practices.

And there’s the difficulty – the costs are likely to be high and we have yet to get the tools to reduce emissions.

Dr Amer noted only four of the 34 recommendations made to the government by the ETS review committee related to agriculture.

This indicated the sector lacked political clout, but he said it was political reality that our customers in Europe, the United States and Asia were “embracing climate change issues,” even though our competitors were unlikely to face comparable levies.

“It will be critical that we claim the moral high ground on the social and ethical integrity of our products, and in this way claw back some of the disadvantages of our agricultural ETS.”

Our most important industry lack political clout, climate change issues are the cause de jour and no-one else is including agriculture in their ETS.

How do we claim the moral high ground and at what cost?

5 Responses to ETS ball and chain on ag – AbacusBio

  1. Andrei says:

    The ETS is bonkers to start with and putting it onto agriculture is sheer lunacy.

    It makes no sense whatsoever, the climate will develop however it is going to and no politician can do anything about it – the ETS is just a way for the parasitical class to feed off the productive.

    It absolutely infuriates me to see wimps like Nick Smith and raving pansys like Charles Chauvel neither of whom really have a clue about how the natural world really works arguing about how best to screw over the people who get up with the chickens to produce the wealth that supports us all in the name of “environmentalism”.

    Like

  2. Chris Bird says:

    The whole ETS thing really concerns me as the science is defiantly not settled.
    Are you aware that there is a petition to The House of Representatives organised by Neil Henderson, a farmer from Gisborne regarding this.
    Go to http://www.climaterealists.org.nz for details and petition forms.
    This needs to be returned to him by 6th November to try to get Govt to see that ordinary NZers can’t afford to pay the likely costs of this scheme.

    Like

  3. murrayg1 says:

    There will always be deniers, particularly if the income of the denier is at stake.
    The problem is that we have to leave the planet in a habitable condition, and are not doing so.
    That’s the only yardstick – there is NO other.
    If it costs, tough. If it costs so much there’s not a ruminant left in the country. tough.
    Don’t worry about a parasite class, there isn’t the carbon sink on the planert – and never will be – to assuage the sin we are perpertrating on future generations. Google: sequestration – see, it’s not happening. Mature forests are a locked-up biomass, a zero-sum game if left alone, a go-backwards if you remove it. Growing forests is the only proven way, and it can only be too little, too late.
    I find it interesting that ignorance and arrogance so often end up bed-fellows, and thst it’s taking such a long time to realise that Business as Usual is not a sustainable option.
    Just what the folk at the weekend’s Blue/Green conference think of what our generation did to their planet, would be an interesting question – they obviously represent a needed clean-out.

    Like

  4. Andrei says:

    The problem is that we have to leave the planet in a habitable condition, and are not doing so.

    The problem is that there are clueless insular people most of whom have never been further afield than Sydney in their lives and therefore are utterly oblivious to how harsh life really is for most.

    I suggest Murrayg1 that you take a trip to Burkina Faso and see how habitable and sustainable that place is. Perhaps even a trip to Jakata, which is developed in comparison would open your eyes to the human misery that your idiotic world view would impose on MY CHILDREN in the name of your wacko green religion and your puritanical calvinistic outlook.

    We are not making the planet uninhabitable we are trying to make it suitable for people to live a worthwhile and fulfilling lives with opportunities and hope for the future – something the vast majority of humanity does not yet enjoy and it is fools such as yourself who will ensure that they never do.

    Like

  5. murrayg1 says:

    My my! Do I detect a thin-shinned gene?
    There are not the resources on the planet to do as you wish, too many people wanting them, and we actually ‘peaked’ last year.
    Your approach only worked on the upside of the hubbert curve – not just oil, but of all finite resources. Given that your approach carved into them at an unsustainable rate, it’s obvious that your approach was going to be sustaining too many at the point where supply declined.
    Think of it as starting with a perfect paddock, then overstocking it, whereupon you find the supply of fertiliser dwindling. It’s a no-brainer, you de-stock, or you end up with an acidic dust-bowl. You and only you make the call – continuing to justify your stock numbers and then complain about their condition, is what you just did.
    Only a fool would do that.
    You won’t raise people from poverty now, and more will join their ranks. Exponentially.
    Don’t blame me for that.
    I’t is not my – or any environmentally-aware person’s – wish to stymie your children, we are warning about what your approach is doing – which is just that. No doubt the blame-shift mentality makes you think I’m responsible for climate change, too?
    Get real, get informed, get responsible.
    You ARE INDEED MAKING THE PLANET UNINHABITABLE – and it’s time folk like you fronted up to that.
    I’m an old petrol-head – still am, and yet I have. Why do you have so much trouble?
    Don’t ever say nobody warned you.
    There is a lot to be done, some of it challenging and fascinating – but maintaining business as usual is not one of them.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: