Why is that our leaders appear incapable of understanding the contributing factors involved in running a successful family business.
At a time when speculative decisions can have tragic consequences for the shareholders, one would hope that those who have responsibility for our survival maintain a tight control over the things that have been proven over time to matter.
We see the cornerstone industries of our economy - our agriculture industry in all its forms and the emasculated tourism industry bearing the brunt of the cost associated with our misguided pursuit of ideological purity and nobody seems to care.
While we all agree that it is desirable for those countries who can, take responsibility for reducing carbon emissions wherever it is possible, it makes no sense here in Godzone to cut the throat of our biggest foreign currency earners in the process.
The truth is that it doesn't have to happen this way.
Although a relatively small contributor to the nation's income via my property's production of red meat for sale to foreign markets, l still have a vested interest in our industry's ability to maximize its overseas earnings.We all do!
But now is not the time to be grandstanding on the world stage as the flagbearer of righteous government environmental policy when we should be doing all we can to ensure this period of high export earnings for all agricultural products with the exception of crossbred wool is maintained for as long as possible.
Because the time will come when the markets for the stuff we have to sell to the world collapse as they have in the past.
In fact, each new day brings another economic guru predicting a reversal sooner rather than later.
With this prospect in mind, we should be concentrating on making hay while the sun shines.
It's just common sense yet our deluded finance minister ignores the opportunities for us to have our cake and eat it.
How dumb is that?
Let's examine our options based on what we know to be true.
There is simply no need to reduce our herd size or to tax our agriculture emissions in order to reach our carbon neutral position while we have more than enough marginal hill country available to plant with trees of our choice.
So, why are we procrastinating about doing things that will benefit us all?
I'll leave it to readers to work out what goes on in those vacant spots occupying the chairs around the cabinet table.
And the sad thing is that all the signs suggest things will get a lot worse for our beloved homeland before they get better.
Surely, we are entitled to expect more from those in whom we placed our trust only eighteen months ago.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
5 comments:
Clive Bibby say that “we have more than enough marginal hill country available to plant with trees of our choice” to enable us “to reach our carbon neutral position”, a claim that he has made on a number of occasions hitherto. What is the land are we talking about here, and how much is there of it? Is it in public or private ownership? If the latter, how does government induce the owner to plant it, or sell it to someone who will? For that matter, are foresters interest in planting that type of land? I’d be interested to have this explained.
No need to explain the obvious Ewan
The government is already using different methods to persuade private land owners to plant their marginal land in trees.
A popular trick has been to offer cash incentives to Maori Incorporations dressed up as development finance. These are the properties that offer the greatest scope with large blocks of unused marginal land. But pakeha owned properties are also encouraged to plant their marginal land under the carbon farming scheme. l’m surprised you appear unaware of this happening .
Shane Jones began this process during his time as minister with responsibilities for the provincial growth fund.
If the marginal land is on Landcorp properties then it is much easier for Government to access and direct the development changes necessary.
The question is, what qualifies as marginal land, and how much of it is there? I assume that ‘marginal land’ in this context is environmentally unsuited for continued grazing landuse. How much of this is still in pasture, and is under ownership that is prepared, or able to convert it to forestry? I suggest that this wouldn’t come close to making us carbon neutral, given our prodigious use of fossil fuels and the number of ruminant livestock we have, (though, having said that, I’m all for planting trees, and have been doing so all my life). Still, I could be wrong. Perhaps ‘Anonymous’ could give us some figures – and identify himself and allay my suspicions as to who he is.
Ewan Mcgregor
Livestock emissions are net carbon neutral! A ruminant can't emit anything unless it has first ingested the ingredients. It ingests these ingredients from the atmosphere via the grass it eats. Yes it does convert carbon to methane but that only lasts 10-12 years before breaking back down into it's component parts and so the whole natural carbon cycle continues. Trying to mitigate atmospheric carbon by punishing those who work within the carbon cycle is just plain nuts! No other Counties are doing it just our pathetic sorry excuse for a Government.
The issue isn't so much about marginal land. The Zero Carbon Bill is based on erroneous premises. Dr Kelvin Duncan has explained in his book "Global Warming: a counter-blast to the man-made global warming hypothesis" that the main driver of warming is not CO2 emissions by humans. The models that alarmists use and their conclusions are based on an effect that isn't valid - the atmospheric greenhouse effect that postulated that that every doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will double the increase in global temperature. Notable physicists have shown that this is erroneous. Check the evidence - its factual and corroborated by science and maths.
James Shaw and his Labour cronies have forced climate change policies onto the population that will only destroy businesses that produce the most sustainable and efficient food in the world. It will lead to the importing of food products that have been produced by inefficient and non-sustainable producers that haven't reached the levels that NZ producers have. Who are the losers then?
Clive's point is that there is no need to reduce herd size or tax emissions. Why kill off the largest contributor to the NZ economy, particularly when food shortages are looming world-wide.
The Zero Carbon Act is overly bureaucratic and costly. It gives massive power over the economy to the Climate Change Minister. The New Zealand Initiative think tank has called it the most expensive legislation in our history.
The government's decision to force us to make significantly deeper emissions cuts than our trading partners, some of whom are not making any cuts at all, will damage our own economy and push economic activity to other countries.
What madness!
Post a Comment