Is it time to take a deep breath and stop to consider the whole climate change debate on a global scale rather than just
based on NZ’s commitments under the Paris Accord?
We should also consider how we measure the climate change impacts on the environment and move from a per capita basis to
one where impact is measured against production outcomes, as this will give a truer picture of the direct impacts on the
environment from agricultural production on a global scale.
In this week’s Farmers Weekly, “George Moss likened the position New Zealand farmers find themselves in to Team New
Zealand in the America’s Cup.”
It’s a great analogy.
NZ farmers are at the front of the pack in terms of sustainability. But that position needs to be defended and there are
others closing in.
It’ll take effort from the whole team to get the boat across the line.
And farming isn’t alone. Every sector faces big challenges with some confronting their very existence.
It won’t be plain sailing, but there’s time and the roadmap is now there."
In saying that we should consider the part that NZ can play in the whole global impact in relation to climate change.
Fact: In the global scheme of things NZ plays a very small part in controlling the direct impacts on climate change.
Fact: Agriculture has a direct impact on the environment and contributes to climate change issues.
Fact: NZ can improve and lower its level of impact through changes to our methods of agricultural production.
Fact: The level of reduction in direct impact that NZ will make through those changes is extremely small in relation to global
measures.
Fact: The measurement of NZ’s direct impact on climate change is significantly overstated when measured on a per capita basis
as it is at present, due to our very low population levels compared to our agricultural production and its impacts.
Fact: The large majority of our agricultural production is exported all over the globe and used to feed many other countries
populations.
Fact: Most other nations that we are measured against have significantly larger population bases and lower production figures
which means that their per capita impact is measured much lower than NZ’s which is not a true reflection of the direct
impacts that their agricultural production has on the global environment in relation to climate change.
Fact: If the environmental impact from agricultural production was measured by comparison of impact against production
quantity then the NZ agricultural industry would be seen as far ahead of the rest of the world in relation to this
measure.
This is not an excuse to say that we should not have to do anything to reduce our impacts on climate change as we have
committed to doing so and rightly should support that commitment with direct action.
My problem with the current situation is that if as has been suggested in the climate change report, we take all of the
actions proposed, we will likely end up with a reduction in our total production outputs and therefore have less product
to export.
This reduction in outputs/exports will not in itself have much of a direct effect in reducing the impacts on climate
change. Yes it will have some beneficial effects on the total.
What will actually happen, is that as NZ exports decrease, then the market place will find other suppliers around the
globe to replace that decrease in NZ export production. Those other suppliers will, in nearly all cases, be producing a
similar product with much higher levels of impact on the environment than the NZ producers were.
So the net environmental impact on a global scale is that by cutting back production NZ is actually contributing to
worsening the effects of climate change rather than improving it.
Maybe if viewed on a global scale we should take a slower path to reduction in impact and maintain our current levels of
production which will have the effect of preventing an increase in environmental effects outside our borders whilst
still implementing a reduction in impact.