Farmers won't be 'thrown to the wolves' - Key
The Government won't throw farmers to the wolves by forcing agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2015 without other countries doing the same, Prime Minister John Key says.
Agriculture's entry date, when farmers will start paying for their greenhouse gas emissions, is a hot topic because Labour's new policy is to bring them in two years earlier, in 2013, to fund research and development tax credits for businesses.
Mr Key gave a strong indication today that he didn't think the 2015 date would be enforced.
"We have said we will review the 2015 date and will only bring agriculture in if it's consistent with other countries," he said at his post-cabinet press conference.
"At this point we're not seeing a lot of movement from other countries.
"In fact, if New Zealand was to come in with agriculture in 2015 we would be the only country in the world doing that."
Mr Key said farmers had to be competitive internationally and putting "a big fat tax" on them would compromise their position.
He also said it was more difficult for farmers than it was for households or businesses to mitigate emissions.
"If you're going to put an ETS on them for the emission of methane and nitrate gases that come from the burping and farting of animals, when there is no other option, that's pretty tough on them," he said.
"The ETS is there to reduce emissions ... it's not easy for them to reduce their emissions short of shooting productive animals."
Mr Key said work was being done on nitrate inhibitors and farmers were effectively already paying ETS levies because they were big users of electricity, petrol and diesel.
"To argue they are not paying something towards emissions trading at the moment simply isn't correct," he said.
The Government has previously announced a review of the ETS and Mr Key said the report would be available around mid-July this year.
"So 2015 isn't guaranteed ... we're very conscious of the international competitiveness of our export sector and it (agriculture) is our largest export earner. We think our farmers should be competitive," he said.
"National doesn't see the ETS as a money-making device ... I don't think you can throw our biggest export earner to the wolves.
"If other countries are going to step up and do their bit, then New Zealand should do its bit, but not in isolation and certainly not in 2013."
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions48
Key is pathetic.
Canada dumped the Carbon Tax totally, so should we.
Or do we have wait to see what Australia does before we decide, as usual.
is this factored into the budget forecasts? I doubt it.
Maybe the farmers will be taken care of, but the Government continues its wider "domestic wealth destruction culture" (Brian Gaynor's term) with its planned asset sales. Assets that currently earn money for the country are being tossed to the wolves for reasons that are more ideological than practical.
ETS needlessly adds to our cost of living. All to pander to some green prats in academic ivory towers. Oh yes, and to sill Nick Smith.
Key is a slow learner either that or he has been knobbled by the greenies.
ETS = SCAM
All NZ taxpayers are being conned ($21 Billion Labour con - read whaleoil leaked treasury paper)
Dear John,
Whether we refer to the ETS or just plain pollution with no master tax plan around it, the farmers are polluting our land and waterways and not paying for the damage.
They take our pristine water from our rivers ( which is an environmental issue on its own ) and after using that resource on their land at no cost, the polluted by products of farming are released into the soil, the aquifiers and the rivers.
Sure they are a major part of our economy - but they also do very well from it - they should have the same business risks and business costs as any other industry. No other industry is provided with raw materials at no cost.
You " throw every other business to the wolves " every day of the week, so why are farmers any different????
It needs to be more equitable John. We have had years of sob storied from the farmers - too wet, too dry, commodity prices too low etc etc etc. Now when they have the highest commodity prices in years they are still not prepared to pay their way.
I feel John that you may be politically naive if you think the majority of Kiwi's are going to support you continually backing the farmers and allowing them not to feel as much pain as the rest of are prepared to take for the sake of this country. We're all in this together aren't we??
Perhaps initially you could explain the linkage between taxation and pollution. Have you ever heard of regulations?
Then perhaps we could deal with the half-truths in your post.
Maybe, not "thrown to the wolves"; but, I wouldn't rule out dingos.
The raw materials for farming are sunlight, air and water; or if you wish, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen for the most part.
I am not aware of any jurisdiction on Earth which charges for the rain and the air; what planet are you on? :-)
Not surprisingly farmer Brown you would not have got past form two at school - unless ofcourse you took our tax payer funded school bus to a District High School until you had to leave at the end of form 5 ( year 11 these days ).
ETS is a quasi tax system to make polluters pay - isn't it? So i am saying that let's forget the ETS and the pros and cons of this scheme. Let's just take it back to the real world - on the farm polluting the crap out of the environment everyday with no responsibility on the farmer to return the environment to the state that he started from - are you with me cowboy?
I am saying that not only should you be made to fix the pollution or maybe even taxed to ensure that there is an equitable way of repairing the damnage, you shoudl also be charged for using the resource you borrow ( in pure form - ie water ) and return in a polluted state.
So the connection is that farmers should be paying their fair share and as major polluters - even more so - I don't care whether that is by way of tax or levies or whatever - your choice.
But is time farmers paid their fair share instead of living in some protected society - an analogy would be the investment bankers in the major financial centres who screwed the investors, lost the investors money and are still screwing the market
Why because Governments are too weak and are lobbied continually by parasites like this.
I see that once again your post is a fact-free zone.
But you do manage to fill it with red herrings, more than a few windmills, some outright falsehoods and a large amount of supposition.It is quite clearly not Farmer Brown who is in need of some education.
But if you knew anything about Farmer Brown's operation, and knew how wrong you were, then you would have little on which to vent your spleen.
So be my guest; you have only the vestiges of your credibility to lose.
Once again you are retard.
Water for farming does not just come from the skies - as you well know cowboy. Otherwise you and your mates wouldn't be creating irrigation schemes sourcing the raw material from our rivers. You would n't have bores that source their water from underground streams that are created in the mountains and surrounds. You don't own that water - we all do. And after you use it you have no right to put it back into the environment in an impure form that then flows into the underground and off your property on to someone else's property or community.
We pay for our water in the cities and as time goes on our water ( sourced from underground aquifiers or rivers is being tainted - FACT.
Sunlight - the more you pollute OUR air the less protected we are from the sun and the more likely farming will also be affected via climate changes - so retard it's in all our interests to do something about it.
Must be time to go and partake in your small dick hobby - duck shooting - how exhilrating for you - I bet your wife or boyfriend ( not sure of your persuasion ) will be excited when you bugger off.
Anonymous wrote:"Once again you are retard."
Farmer brown rests his case.
True to form when you greenies argument has no substance then revert to abuse or violence,
Grow up, or maybe you could jump in front of the milk tanker or something!.
It would be good if Farmer Brown (a real farmer - or just a clever name?) would answer the questiion about river pollution rather than respond with abuse. Bad day down on the farm? Sheep has a headache?
I for one have never been near a farm. If Farmer Brown is a typical farmer I won't be going soon either.
Are farmers are reckless polluters destroying the environment as they race around on gold-plated tractors swigging champagne? Or are they hard done by, salt of the earth characters who rise at dawn every day and slave to put food on our tables and export dollars in our wallets?
I assume you are referring to the tainting of the Waikato as a water source (I assume you are an Aucklander-you sound like one). Most of the tainting of the water comes from the large groups of people living in Taupo, Hamilton Ngaruawahia and Huntly that pump sewage into the river.
Nice to see that you have never been on a farm but talk about gold plated tractors. From outside we see the Fendalton tractors in cities doing major damage to the safety of school children but you know all about that dont you?
Farmer Brown would be perfectly happy to discuss any aspect of his own farming operation; he declines the opportunity to speak in generalities, or to discuss anyone else's farming practice.
If you have a specific question, I will try to answer it to your satisfaction.
NZ as a whole provides 0.05% of the worlds pollution, yet you blame NZ farmers for the hole in the ozone layer . Yup, sure is their fault alright .
Next you'll be saying natural resource extraction is bad for the economy because it will hurt our tourism industry .
I'm startled to see the high intellectual level of the debate on this issue. If you care to rise above calling each other names, you might consider the important issues at stake. On the one hand, no matter how sceptical you are, there is at least strong evidence that human actions are affecting the climate. As John Key rightly says, all countries should act together on this, On the other hand, politicians are acutely conscious of the voting power of powerful interest groups, and strongly incentivised to act in short term local, rather than long term global interests. I'm not suggesting the solution, just noting one aspect of the problem. At the end of the day, we all have to face the economic costs of our activities, (and the ETS is just a way of trying to price the economic cost of a negative externality that will not otherwise be taken into account). It may be that farming in the way that we currently do it in New Zealand is actually uneconomic when the full costs are taken into account. It may be that our consumption of oil is actually uneconomic when the full costs are taken into account. Either way, the effects only will be clear in the long run, and in retrospect. The prospect of a new Dark Ages is at least as possible as the prospect of an era in which scientific inquiry and industrial implementation overcomes these issues, but noone can determine which is more probable. I only imagine you all will continue to abuse each other and, like Nero, ultimately be seen to have been fiddling while Rome burns - those of us who got beyond the minimum school leaving age know that the fall of Rome ushered in the Dark Ages in Europe.
As usual anonymous you throw around comments with no factual backup. A small percentage of dairy units use irrigation. Most rely on rain water. Hence the problems when there is a drought! If the farmeres all irrigated from rivers or particularly artesian bores then a drought would not affect them!
Further most of the polluted waterways (if, in fact, there are that many and this is not proven either) are those rivers and lakes that go through or are beside urban centres that have expanded 10 fold in the last 30 years. The water contamination is coming from urban areas. The algal blooms in the sea are all centred on areas of high urban concentration! In fact water quality has made some dramatic inmprovement in rural areas due to a concerted effort of farmers to plant up water courses with native plants to absorb any run off and the technological (I know you ludites hate that word) improvements in fertilisers that actually inhibit nutrient leeching. Not only that all farmers are completing nutrient budgets that mean that fertiliser usage is controlled to only what is necessary.
A further comment to you would be that the ETS is actually meant to be a scheme where carbon emissions are paid for, not water runoff.
Finally I would add that if the farmers are required to pay for animal burps and farts then why not extend that to humans doing the same thing. Your raving above anf those of like mind to you would surely soon pay off the national debt were it to be included in the scheme.
Brian Gaynor - the self appointed economic 'expert' (in fact, he's just another fund manager with a biased agenda) has a lot to answer for. It is mischevious of Gaynor to make alarmist and totally misleading comments like that. The goverment is in fact proposing to sell minority (non-controlling) shareholdings in some state assets. The capital that is released will be applied to investing in other essential infrastructure assets that will add value to NZ's economic growth. The nett effect on NZ's 'balance sheet' will be zero, but the the result will be a greater spread of assets (sensible risk management portfolio theory) - ALL of which will be controlled by Kiwis. Kinda' likie selling a 40% stake in your vege garden so that you can use the money to insulate your house and renovate your kitchen. You still control both, but net result is increased standard of living. Unfortunately our Mr Gaynor does not seem to understand this simple concept but the shame of it is that some misinformed people seem to take his word as gospel. Also, Labour and in particular Phil Goof are also very adept at spreading 'misinformation'. If more Kiwis opened their minds instead of their mouths we'd be all better off!
Climate was not a factor in the Dark Ages? That is an interesting view.
I thought half of dairying is now in the South island and 2/3 of that is irrigated from bores and from rivers.
The intellectual level of the debate here is unlikely to be raised by your introduction of the "religion" of CAGW. The only evidence of significant and dangerous climate change as a result of human activity comes from various models which have been found wanting in accuracy. Recently we had the High Priest James Hansen here saying that the IPCC grossly exaggerated in its reports, and advising the government to forget about nitrous oxide and methane.
So all hope is not lost; science may yet prevail.
Lets tax the farmers to within an inch of their lives and give it all to our brilliant scientists and creative geniuses who although they can't think of anything original at the moment will be highly successful with this 800 million to lubricate their minds.
I see Fonterra is promising a big advance for next season so we should also lift the tax take on farmers and give that to our brilliant doctors since not enough Kiwis can afford private fees and they feel inferior to their Aussie colleagues based on public health pay scales.
Probably the group of the population who have at least 1 sixteenth of Maori blood need not pay any tax if the Farmers paid their fair share. Goff, this a great idea you could use to swing a couple of hundred thousand votes.
Why not nationalize the farms under a Labour government and get the Farmers to work on them, running them super efficently using Labour methodolgies suggested by Helen Kelly from the CTU.
She knows alot about movies, mining, minimum wage, I bet she is also a farming guru.
Stealthtaxer, you may be just the person that Helen Clark is looking for.
You can spin it or politicise it as much as you want
BUT farmers do pollute the environment disproportionately and pay nothing for that priviledge.
And this is not a greenie moaning - it's a normal Kiwi who wants to ensure we all contribute as a country in a fair and equitable way.
I see Fonterra has announced this morning that the payout is slightly down for next year - so we will now have dairy farmers saying that they can't afford to contribute. We all know the Fonterra pay out " tease " happens every year and the they gradually build on the price.
Fallacious logic by a National Party professional writer. Why do we have to pay twice for the same assets? Why won't the new owners on-sell them 'before lunchtime' to overseas interests for a short-term profit - permanent loss to the country?
Great plan Phil - decimate the one sector that has real prospects on a world stage! There that should save us!!
I 'm always amazed at the ignorance of those that promote AGW. Really, you climate change doomsayers need to have a good look at the gaping holes in the flawed theory of AGW. I'll give you a starting point - no atmospheric hot spot.
Yet again you fail to provide any factual basis for your "spin".
Everybody "pollutes " to a greater or lesser extent.
You say "disproportionately", but fail to say how you calculate this , or to what parameter the alleged pollution is disproportionate.
GNP? GDP? Taxation contributions?
Hey Farmer Brown, I have a great way to reduce emissions. How about we institute a policy of culling the bottom 5% of the population every year who generally post under the name Anonymous. That way we reduce the amount of emissions generated by these useless non-contributing lifeforms, set a future course of actively reducing the prolific levels of breeding by these no hopers and ramp up the average intellect to make NZ a better country.
My local river is full of cowshit and fertiliser runoff. Who's going to pay clean it up? Joe taxpayer, or the small but oh so vocal segment of society who are polluting the river and just happen to be making obscene amounts of money. Trickle down economics? The only trickle down I'm seeing comes from a cow's arse into our formerly pristine waterways.
Farmer Brown:
(a) Are you a real dairy farmer?
(b) What is your approximate income after tax for this year?
(c) Where do you source water for your farm?
(d) What provisions have you made to reduce pollution from your operation?
He's not a real farmer - he's a National party PR troll.
If you have anything more than supposition, hearsay, or mere conjecture to offer in this regard, then I am sure your regional council will be all ears. Give them the information.
Your comment is clearly exaggeration, but it may even be fantasy
Wow - what an insightful comment - must be a member of the labour think-tank ...
Yes I have been dairy farming for 35 years.
My after tax income was $50,000. My partner earned the same.
The farm water comes from artesian bores.
I have been an organic farmer for 30+yrs.
I have used fertiliser( RPR) at low rates twice in the last twenty five years and I have a very low stocking rate.
There is no irrigation here.
National has never got my party vote.If Key sticks to his word above, there could be a first time.
Obscene amounts of money? You are dreaming.
But out of interest, if I offered you a job, ( assuming you had the skill set) on call, 24/7/365, no paid holidays,( you pay your replacement worker if you have time off), average 80 hour week (7 days), what sort of salary do you think would be fair?
That's right. Global problems, real or conjured up, require (ahem..UN) global governmental solutions.
Environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists' replacement ideology for communism/socialism. With communism largely discredited today – after all, 100-150 million people died at the hands of communist "visionaries" during the last century – elitists who desire to rule other people's lives have gravitated to an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda.
Thus, while scientists and climatologists who dare to question the rigid orthodoxy of man-made catastrophic global warming are openly ridiculed and threatened with decertification, the movement for global governance, complete with global taxation, is moving into the fast lane.
Global warming will be one of the most powerfully coercive weapons in the globalists' arsenal for the foreseeable future.
Taxing the farmers would ultimately cripple the agricultural sector and make farming uneconomical. Farmers really dont make as much money as you all think. High turnover = high inputs and subsequently costs. Like key said - already paying ETS levies because they were big users of electricity, petrol and diesel. You cant stop animals producing methane
Not all farmers are making the effort to try and keep pollution down however most are making the effort. The development of new products such as eco-n as a partial replacement for nitrogen fertiliser resulting in less nitrate leaching into the rivers. Every small step counts! You dont see the media talking about things like that now do you?
Oh and water is not cost free! Farmers pay for the water they use and it is a huge expense.
i thought the govt is gonna sell majority share of it's asset. Nats always been saying they wanna have minor stake.
And how you gonna improve life, when private sector is gonna weld power on how to spend '40% off' vege sale, not state. they might wanna invest overseas. and mate trying connecting dots in your argument.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below