Leadership lacking on our climate challenges
THERE have been several interesting takes on the Emissions Trading Scheme, Government policy (or lack of it) and our commitment to the Paris Accord published in the ODT recently.
C. A. Craig’s letter (May 29) taking issue with Prof CampbellHunt’s analysis in a previous Weekend Mix, and the professor’s response fitted neatly with Anna Campbell’s recent Fence Lines piece ‘‘Staying ahead of the compliance curve.’’
Farming in New Zealand has never been afraid of innovation. Massive productivity gains have been made in the last two generations, post subsidies, and continue to be made. The farmer eating his hot buttered toast, watching the live streaming footage on his 50inch TV while the drone flies the lambing beat on a cold spring morning is proof of that. So is recording all the genetic data on every breeding animal on the farm, and systems that deliver exact cowspecific weightbased amounts of feed to the milking bail as the cow steps on to the platform. Technology has made all this possible and we’ve hardly started.
A serious flaw in C. A. Craig’s argument arises when he uses the words ‘‘emissions tax’’. The ETS is not a tax: emitters acquire units to surrender to meet their emissions obligations.
Farmers, of all industries, have the means to offset the cost: forest planting. We are going to have to get real about facing the climate challenge. My guess is New Zealand is going to be severely short of emissions credits once the flush of 1980s forest planting is harvested, because not much was planted through the 1990s. When the real costs hit home in the towns, there will be colossal pressure to include the country.
Our future may look very different to our present: foresters may earn a handsome premium for keeping the trees in the ground, the whole of the high country public tussock estate may have to be planted in pines, the highest and best use for some existing farm land may be forest, not livestock farming. Whatever, the solution will not be found by this donothing government sitting on its hands, burying its head in the sand, and not showing some leadership to confront this and a host of other problems head on. As a naturally conservative voter, it pains me to have to say it. Christopher Worth
Mornington
Increased costs
I READ that the improved performance by Aurora is resulting in increased costs to be paid for by the ratepayers of Dunedin. This must surely be an error. The ratepayers have already paid for this.
Previously the management of Aurora, in order to make themselves look good, ignored even a basic maintenance schedule and could then report huge profits back to the council. This probably meant big bonuses and explains some of the outrageous salaries paid. The dividend that was paid to the council in error should be returned to Aurora to offset the increased cost of actually doing the job it was formed to do.
The ratepayers should not have to pay twice to maintain the power system. The management should find another way to finance it.
Kevin O’Hara
Dunedin [Abridged]
[This letter was referred to Aurora for comment, but it declined to respond.]