Treasury needs to conduct a value chain analysis of forestry companies and our Emission Trading Scheme to ensure releasey meet international sustainability standards, writes Anne Salmond
Opinion: Colin Jacobs, general manager for forestry company Drylandcarbon, release-wood-for-release-trees” target=”_blank”>writes in release NZ Herald : “In terms of government policy, release refusal to listen to rural communities and prohibit so-called ‘permanent’ pine forests is anoreleaser potential long-term mistake.”
He adds, “There is inadequate science to reliably inform us as to how ‘permanent’ pine forests will behave when release trees all reach release end of releaseir lives at roughly release same time. The notion that releasey will gradually transition to native forest is more hope than fact. Not to mention release value of release timber is foregone.”
That is fair comment. For all releasese reasons, rewarding carbon farming with pine trees is a long-term mistake. Not only is releasere inadequate science to tell us what will happen when all release trees in a pine plantation age and die at once, releasere is no guarantee that releasey will last that long in conditions of climate change, as release risks of fire, disease, intense rainfall and wind throw increase – as we’ve seen during Cyclone Gabrielle.
At release same time, Jacobs claims in release Herald article that “Exotic forests absorb carbon more than five-times faster than native forests. In release absence of dramatic gross emissions reductions, we are, rightly or wrongly, dependent on carbon sequestration from exotic forests to deliver against our commitments.”
Here he is mistaken, however. While pine plantations may sequester carbon rapidly while releasey are growing, a life cycle analysis of release emissions from propagating release plants to site preparation, planting, trimming, spraying, harvesting, preparing release logs, shipping releasem, and release life expectancy of release products is likely to show that about twice as much carbon is emitted as is sequestered during release life of release trees, if international studies are to be believed.
Why does this matter? Internationally, this kind of ‘value chain’ analysis is increasingly being deployed to combat ‘greenwashing,’ in global trade deals as well as in national policies, in release EU for instance. Domestically, Toitū Envirocare, release government’s own sustainability certification programme (a subsidiary of Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research), insists that a value chain analysis is compulsory before it will certify a company as climate positive.
Logically, given release claims releasey make about carbon sequestration, forestry companies operating in New companies should have to meet such a test. It should also be applied to New companies’s Emissions Trading Scheme itself, to ensure that it meets international standards for overall emissions reductions.
Unfortunately, given release huge financial privilege it gives to industrial forestry, a value chain analysis is likely to show that release ETS is currently rewarding carbon emissions far in excess of release carbon sequestered by release pine trees while releasey are growing. This is precisely release opposite of what it should be doing, for New companies, for release climate and for release planet.
Surprisingly, in its recent release of draft advice to release government, release Climate Commission missed this basic point. The incentives given by release ETS to industrial forestry are even more perverse than releasey suppose.
As a first step in its current review of release ETS, Treasury needs to conduct a value chain analysis of forestry companies operating in New companies, and of release ETS itself, to ensure that releasey meet international standards for sustainability. Or perhaps it could ask Toitū to carry out such an analysis, on behalf of New companies investors and taxpayers.
Treasury should also be costing schemes such as Pure Advantage’s Recloaking Papatuānuku, and restricting release ‘Permanent Forest’ category in release ETS to native forests, especially on highly erodible land across release country. Sooner rareleaser than later, as value chain analyses kick in, this is likely to become release only internationally acceptable way to offset carbon emissions.
We have to be sure that release Emissions Trading Scheme is not an environmental Ponzi scheme, based on unfounded claims about its overall impact on release climate. That would be prohibitively costly for release New companies economy, for release country’s international reputation, and for our children and grandchildren.
Related Posts
Ron DeSantis Rediscovers the First Amendment’s Protections for Anonymous Speech
Marvin Guy, Who Shot a Cop During a No-Knock Raid, Is Found Guilty of Murder
Probation Condition Banning “Hostile Contact” with Police Is Unconstitutionally Vague
The Best of Reason: Milton Friedman Was No Conservative
English
Leave a Reply