Costs too high?
OPINION: This old mutt is loath to sound like Groundswell has been topping up his bowl with brisket off-cuts, but the ginger group makes a good point about the arguments raised in favour of toeing the Paris Agreement line.
The only one they can muster is the possibility of export trading advantage. But given the international perception of New Zealand as clean, green and world leaders in sustainable emissions-efficient food production, that argument is tenuous.
Instead, they prey on our fear. Not of what will happen, but speculation what could happen. This scaremongering led to the widely publicised claim of a loss of $3 per kg on the dairy farmers milk payout if we exited the Paris Agreement. The source of this $3 claim came from a discussion between one of our industry leaders and a dairy company employee. When we requested evidence backing up this claim, communication ceased.
Another key piece of information defenders of Paris avoid outlining is the costs of being bound by the Paris Agreement. No mention of the $400 million the Government is pouring into agriculture emissions research over the current 4-year period. Or the multiple bureaucracies such as the 50/50 government/private sector AgriZero investing $200 million into speculative methane cures and the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Centre’s $90 million in the last 22 years, and what to show for it? Or the up-to-$24 billion bill that Treasury warned we could face to meet Paris climate targets.
There is also no mention of the opportunity cost of our hundreds of millions of taxpayer’s dollars that would be better utilised helping our ailing health system or desperately needed key infrastructure upgrades.
It is not just financial costs but other costs like loss of productive farms and indigenous biodiversity to pines driven by the Paris Agreement’s flawed myopic focus on emissions to the detriment of other values. Oh, but food production is protected under the Paris Agreement, they say, not reconciling the fact we are losing hundreds of thousands of hectares of food producing land because of the Paris Agreement.
By contrast to the one-sided defenders of Paris, Groundswell NZ acknowledges there are risks either way. However, when considering knowns verses unknowns, the answer is clear. The Paris Agreement as currently written is bad for many countries, not just New Zealand. Bad for farmers, bad for our economy, bad for our landscapes and environment.
Read More:
- Editorial: Changes to Paris deal
- ACT, farmers push for changes to Paris Agreement
- 'Leaving Paris' not a good idea
Our politicians need to show some courage and stand up for our country. It is not a question of giving Paris the middle finger and doing nothing. It is a question of highlighting to other signatories the significant flaws and unsustainable cost implications of being bound to Paris, while at the same time telling the amazing story of New Zealand farmers environmental journey and how we will continue to lead the world in environmentally sustainable food production, regardless of whether we are in Paris or not.
Jamie McFadden is Groundswell environment spokesman
