Zero Carbon =Zero Farms

Last Thursday I visited a group of farmers in Whangarei to hear even more concerns about the Zero Carbon Bill, Firearms reform, and other current or proposed legislation that threaten their livelihoods and are creating much uncertainty and stress.
Even overseas media is watching and commenting. Whether you believe that man-made climate change is a ‘thing’ or not, you’d have to be concerned by the eye-watering potential costs claimed in this article from the New York Post, against the infinitesimal difference climate change policies like the Zero Carbon Bill will make.

In these artificial conditions, if New Zealand meets its promise of zero emissions in 2050 and stays at zero for five decades, then the greenhouse-gas reduction, according to the standard estimate from the United Nations’ climate panel, will deliver a temperature cut by 2100 of 0.004 degrees.

GREEN, GREEN GRASS OF HOME

Farming in New Zealand, thanks to our climate and rainfall that produce the beautiful green pastures for which our country is known world-wide, is already the most environmentally sustainable in the world. This should be the main selling point for our export markets.
Current and proposed policies for the allocation of carbon credits do not take into account on-farm forest plantations nor covenanted bush that existed before 1990, nor pasture. Why on earth not? There is still more science to be done on the ability of soil and pasture to sequester carbon, but it may well be found that farming grass fed beef and lamb is actually a net carbon sink. We could be selling our product around the world with that as a major drawcard. Instead, we are hearing of UK consumers steering away from NZ meat products because they believe them to be contributing to climate change.

The NZ government owes it to our biggest export earners to complete the exercise of measuring these factors before imposing restrictions on stock numbers or issuing penalties, either of which will force farmers to sell up to forestry interests as their farms become uneconomical. Not only will those forestry interests be given subsidies to plant trees, forestry will never bring in the same returns as sheep and beef, hence the huge cost to our economy.

Why else are farmers so concerned? Perverse incentives and unintended consequences are well explained in this piece from a King Country farmer.

(My source for both the above links was the 50 Shades of Green Facebook page.)

THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY

Here in the ACT Party office, we’re not sure whether to be annoyed our policies are being copied, or just pleased that National is making the right sounds again about RMA reform, and agrees with us on congestion charging.
Introduced by National in 1991, the Resource Management Act has had a very chequered career. As a brake on economic growth, few pieces of legislation have been so effective. The red tape jungle created by the RMA means the cost of developing land and building houses has gotten completely out of hand. It’s no longer an influence over the cost of building or renovating a house, it’s the principal determinant.

Neither of the two major parties has asked why the RMA needs to exist at all. That was until Monday, when we were told National has finally decided to do something, with Judith Collins saying her party will repeal the RMA. Then it’ll introduce a piece of transitional legislation to cover up the hole. As an aside, why do National and Labour adopt these temporary approaches, rather than get such an important law right first time? Then the Nats will split up the building planning and environmental aspects of the current act (I smell the arrival of more bureaucrats) and – finally – implement a ‘developer-friendly’ solution. No mention of a house-buyer friendly solution.

Can we believe this is all going to happen? Quoting Stuff:

National campaigned in 2008 on reforming the RMA, with Nick Smith saying at the time “New Zealand will not achieve the ambitious goals John Key has for our country if we do not have the courage to reform the Resource Management Act.”

National did nothing of substance to the RMA over its nine year term under John Key. Collins said National couldn’t get its partners to accept the need for change – pardon? ACT constantly pushed National to make the necessary changes. Our press release yesterday gave this reminder:

National and ACT had a majority in 2008, but, despite pressure from ACT, National wouldn’t budge. The Nats refused to discuss the RMA in coalition negotiations in 2014. We still have the emails. In 2017, ACT and United Future offered to help Nick Smith cut planning red tape, but in the end he did a disastrous deal with the M?ori Party which included iwi co-governance arrangements.

This ‘new’ policy of National’s joins a growing list policy of positions that prove ACT has been right all along.

The other, also announced just yesterday, was congestion charging. This is no different to our policy that has been in place since 2017.

LET’S DO THIS

The only way to be sure National will do either of these things, is to have more ACT MPs to hold them to it.

FREEDOM TO TAKE RISKS

Of all National’s big announcements yesterday, this one seems a little offside. They want cyclists to be fined for not using cycle lanes where they are available.

One has to wonder how big a problem this even is, and if cyclists aren’t using the cycle lanes, has anyone asked them why? Perhaps they’re poorly designed, or poorly maintained, or not kept free of obstacles. A cyclist is naturally going to ride where they think it’s most safe for the speed they want to travel. And did they ask the Police if this was something they wanted to enforce? Surely we all have bigger priorities. This seems overly interventionist. The Cycling Action Network agrees:

“Say if you don’t use the carpool lane and you’ve got three people in your car, do you think National wants to fine you for that? If you get on the bus and don’t say ‘thank you, driver’, are we going to be fining people for that?”.

One of the arguments I often hear for insisting cyclists use these lanes, and wear helmets, is that if they have an accident and hurt themselves or anyone else, we are all paying for them through ACC. If it was possible to opt-out of ACC and take private insurance instead:

1. Those of us who choose to do so will no longer feel that we are funding the consequences of other people’s choices; and
2. Participants in risky activities can negotiate with their insurer to cover them in the event of an accident.

Ad Lib will take a break now until later in January. If you’re stuck in holiday traffic this summer, imagine how congestion charging might have eased it, and remember, if you’re in traffic, you are the traffic! Turn up the music, wind down the windows, and enjoy the scenery. Have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Stay in touch

One of the easiest actions you can take to support ACT is to like our Facebook page. Liking our page means our messages travel to a larger audience (people who know you), and also helps you keep in touch with the messages we communicate to the electorate.