Thank you for your continued interest in 50 Shades of
Green as we push forward our advocacy to stop irreversible changes to regional New Zealand, and to support farming and farmers who drive valuable export income for all. Our advocacy also works to increase awareness with those who have little knowledge or understanding of the impacts being driven by Government Policy changing our landscapes by stealth.
We are confident New Zealanders do not want to see their diverse and beautiful country covered in a sea of exotic pine.
|
|
10,000 submissions to the Climate Change Commission blueprint to Government! - Amazing.
Of concern to us, many submissions push for more trees and still consider planting exotic trees for carbon is the way to go. It is distressing to say the least that this accepted short term solution is at the expense of our provincial communities. The lack of a mechanism to limit the amount of land that can be planted in exotics for carbon will see the demise of regional New Zealand. This is what drives our passion to continue to fight to pause the sale of farms to blanket exotic forestry and to ask for your continued support.
Even many foresters now understand. 50 Shades of Green is not against forestry, their industry itself is of risk of a slow death if the price of carbon keeps rising, and there is no limiting mechanism. Here is an abridged quote from a recent forestry newsletter on the potential rise in carbon pricing and what it is going to do to production forestry. “If we (business and individuals) are not that good at reducing emissions then at $200 per tonne, we may as well pack up the logging toys and go home” (In other words, there will be no production forestry because it will all be planted for carbon units with no intention to cut. We say the damage is happening now, with the price of carbon already at $35/tonne and the speculation of a future rising price).
|
|
In a recent interview on Nine to Noon Kathryn Ryan quoted the reason the Climate Change Commission says while they recommend further planting, …’they are not looking at that as the answer to the problem, eventually a future generation cannot offset its emissions because it has run out of places to put trees.’
We say, while rhetoric is busy coaching business and people to think they can offset their emissions via a tree or two, people will not change their behaviours. Simply put, our view is: offset at source, not at the expense of your regional neighbour.
You can read our submission here https://www.50shadesofgreen.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/CCC_Submission_Final.pdf
|
|
You may have noticed there is now a common agreement that the ETS is not fit for purpose. From that perspective we find it ironic that on the one hand our industry advocate says, “We welcome the Commission’s clear message that New Zealand must significantly decrease its reliance on exotic forestry to offset its gross emissions and meet its climate change targets.
“However, while the Commission suggests New Zealand must reduce its reliance on forestry offsets, in particular from pinus radiata, the levels of budgeted removals are still very high and will lead to swathes of New Zealand sheep and beef farmland being converted to pine trees.
“This is not supported by New Zealanders, and it will have significant negative impacts for sheep and beef farming and for rural communities”
Yet on the other hand is holding field days for farmers on planting exotics.
We ask the question, why is Beef and Lamb running ETS field days when it is widely accepted it’s not fit for purpose and the ETs needs a fundamental overhaul?
Look at what is happening to our Sheep and Beef industry with a landslide of farm sales and land going to forestry driven purely by the NZ ETS. Add to that the huge money being given to investors to retire good productive farmland. This is promoted by a government that is willing to sacrifice beef and lamb production for a short-term, short-sighted solution to satisfy goals under the Paris accord. We think, because it’s too unpopular to inconvenience the wider voting public and put restrictions on them or force behavior changes to reduce emissions
A Sheep and Beef farmer recently wrote to us to saying “I am passionate about our wonderful pastoral farming industry yet I feel betrayed by Beef and Lamb who through their support for these field days is embracing and promoting government policy which is killing our industry. Surely our industry groups such as Beef and Lamb should be on the contrary pushing back and fighting for changes to the ETS that will protect hill country farming”
His point is, while we cannot argue that it’s currently more profitable to retire land to pines and collect the cash, and while B+L could argue they are doing the right thing by providing farmers with insight into how to diversify and integrate trees into their farm, the reality of the NZ ETS is whole farm conversions to pine forests that many of which will eventually rot and become a fire hazard with huge environmental, social and economic impacts for NZ
If the ETS is not fit for purpose, rather than support it lets push for change
Planting trees is a great thing to be doing on farm, it is part of many farm policies, but by encouraging farmers to join the ETS it is endorsing it. The long-term consequence is, as more and more farmers get involved in the scheme it will set it in concrete and make it much harder to go back and make necessary changes to protect our industry from extinction. Both the Environmental Defence Society and the Climate Change Commission have been explicit the ETS is not fit for purpose, so we feel this a great opportunity for B&L to push for change
[1] Refer to the Department of Conservation website that lists the many negative impacts of wilding pines and reflect on the irony that we have one government Dept spending millions of dollars killing conifers in the South Island and another Government Dept paying to spread them over our productive hill country in the North Island)
|
|
|
|