Settling on a scheme to charge for agricultural emissions has taken 20 years of consultation, compromise and scientific research - and agriculture’s leading lobby groups were partners in the process. But obstinate objections and contestable claims from loud outsiders got pride of place in some media this week.
Listen
Agriculture Minister Damien O'Connor, with Emergency Management Minister Kieran McAnulty and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern at the release of the government's farm emission pricing proposals. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver
Taranaki-King Country MP Shane Ardern famously drove an old tractor up the steps of Parliament in 2003 to protest against the so-called Fart Tax on farming.
Many things have changed since then.
His distant cousin Jacinda is the most famous Ardern in politics now and the volume of farm farts has risen sharply.
But almost 20 years on, emissions remain untaxed.
So it was big news last Tuesday when Stuff broke the news of the imminent release of the national plan to start charging farmers from 2025.
Stuff got an early look at the plan which would make New Zealand the first country in the world with emissions pricing over all sectors and all gases. Stuff’s climate editor Eloise Gibson reminded readers agriculture accounts for around half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions.
“New Zealand Inc is building its branding around being a country and primary producer with high sustainability values, which means they could be a first mover advantage in the global marketplace,” wrote Stuff’s political editor Luke Malpass.
“The He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) process has clearly been a mostly positive one, and has constructively brought the sector in to help determine its own future," he added.
Most mainstream news reports also pointed out farming’s biggest umbrella groups were partners in HWEN - and that the new scheme blended the farming industry's own proposals with some from the Climate Change Commission and the government.
TVNZ’s political reporter Benedict Collins said politics and lobbying had kept agriculture out of the emissions trading scheme for years, but there was now political consensus.
“All political parties agree our emissions need to come down; I think today you describe it as progress,” he told 1 News viewers.
Stuff’s Luke Malpass said the plan was “broadly acceptable to most reasonable players,” but also warned “the government's final call wouldn't make everybody happy.”
Indeed so.
“Federated Farmers claims the government's plan will “rip the guts out” of small town New Zealand, but Greenpeace says it doesn't go far enough,” said the Newshub website (as if Greenpeace had demanded the lungs, heart and spleen as well).
“I guarantee you generations are going to leave this country because it's just going to become one of those places that have got no money, so no point living here. But we're not going to let it happen. We're going to fight for it,” Newstalk ZB’s Drive show host Heather du Plessis-Allan told listeners on Tuesday.
She declared the plan “a shocker” that would force farmers to pay, ignoring the fact the choice of farmgate pricing came in part from farmers wanting a fair system for those already doing climate-friendly things.
Her ZB Drive show turned to one of farming’s most ardent government critics for analysis.
“You couldn't script a movie as bad as this if you tried to do,” said North Otago farmer Jane Smith.
“The government, our farm industry leaders and even the Climate Change Commission had become obsessed with pricing methane at the expense of reducing it. This should have been an emissions reduction scheme, not an emissions pricing scheme,” she told ZB’s Drive show.
What was announced on Tuesday is - at least in part - a reduction scheme. It incorporates $380 million to get new emissions reducing technology and practices to farmers, as well as a new research and development center and the funding of a joint venture with ANZCO, Fonterra, Ravensdown and other major players in the industry.
The government has also spending $55 million on an ‘on-farm support service’ to help farmers understand environmental requirements and reporting.
But none of that was mentioned by Newstalk ZB’s du Plessis-Allan or her guests.
In spite of 20 years of rising emissions and strong resistance to agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme, Smith told ZB listeners that it was farmers and not the government who had the right emissions reduction solutions.
Smith's claims went not just unchallenged by du Plessis-Allan - they were actually endorsed by her.
“Jane - it sounds like you should be running the show by the sounds of things,’ she said.
Jane Smith is also a regular on NZME’s rural radio show The Country, hosted by Jamie Mackay, a former farmer himself who is ZB’s regular Drive show rural commentator.
Smith has also in the past complained on his show about what she calls “the continual appeasement of government by agriculture industry bodies” and backed up McKay’s own claim of “a political crusade against farming.”
This week's Farmers Weekly reflects farmers' anger over the We Waka Eke Noe emissions charging scheme. Photo: Farmers Weekly
On Newstalk ZB last Tuesday MacKay went on to tell du Plessis-Allan too much damage to New Zealand agriculture would be caused by the new emissions charging plan - and the world wouldn't care if New Zealand met its emissions target or not.
“Totally, totally could not agree more. Do you want your kids to go to primary school or do you want to be cool with the planet and world-leading on this thing because (we) can't afford both?” said du Plessis-Allan.
Primary Industries paying for emissions bringing about the end of primary schools is a scenario only modeled in du Plessis-Allan’s head.
MacKay said on Thursday's Drive show the warming effect of methane emissions was "way above his intelligence level" - but also endorsed the views of another regular commentator on The Country, 'rural raconteur' Jim Hopkins.
Even before the emissions charging details were out this week, he condemned the idea as “stupid insane madness” that would plunge New Zealand into poverty.
Jim Hopkins is not an agriculture expert or an economist. He's a former broadcaster, columnist and comedian who was just re-elected as a Waitaki regional councilor. The interview on The Country ended with an angry swipe at “woke media” for using the name ‘Aotearoa’ and being a threat to democracy.
Political claims that this 'world first' scheme would bring 'first-mover advantage' for New Zealand - and enhance our national 'export brand' - were greeted with some scepticism and claims of wishful thinking.
But the claim that New Zealand’s farmers are the most emissions-efficient in the world was made often, usually to make the point that if New Zealand's production falls under the HWEN plan, other countries filling the gap would actually push up global emissions - a scenario that is considered in the HWEN workings.
The most often quoted evidence is a 2021 report by AgResearch(PDF), which was commissioned by the lobby group Dairy NZ.
This concluded that dairy milk production here had a lower carbon footprint than in 17 other countries - and far lower than in most of them.
“There is still potential to improve and achieve lower emissions, as other countries also advance their dairy sectors,” the report’s co-author Andre Mazzetto told Rural News.
But in the fine print, the report noted Uruguay, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden and Canada were not far behind - and that “country-specific” emissions measurement factors used by New Zealand might give New Zealand an advantage which could vanish once other countries fine-tune theirs.
This is now happening according to an updated paper by the same researchers published this week in the Journal of Dairy Science (PDF).
The Netherlands will certainly notice if New Zealand doesn't reduce emissions as well.
Its government recently ordered a controversial cut in nitrogen emissions by 2030 which will cost NZ$40b - and is likely to mean big cuts in livestock and hundreds of farm closures.
“We need to talk about our future with clear eyes. Because if we don't, those other conversations, the ones exporters have in places like London, Berlin and Shanghai will get much much more difficult,” Farmers Weekly editor Bryan Gibson said in his editorial this week.
In his daily podcast and newsletter The Kaka, business journalist Bernard Hickey said cuts in herds and emissions are in towards inevitable here - but farmers and politicians are still working through “the five stages of political grief.”
“We need to have less of the anger and denial, less of the bargaining and a lot more of the acceptance - and a lot faster. This process in our political economy (has) already taken at least 20 years and we haven't really started,” he said.
The same seems true of those in the media more willing to engage the anger and the concern that chimes with their audience rather than consider the context beyond vested interests - including their own.