Reevaluating New Zealand’s Afforestation: A Critical Look at the Role of Forestry

[Social Media]

 

In New Zealand, the once-promising strategy of planting millions of trees as a solution to climate change is now under intense scrutiny. Government watchdogs, international agencies, industry groups, and environmental advocates are urging the country to reconsider its aggressive afforestation efforts. Initially seen as an obvious solution to combat global warming, New Zealand’s approach to linking forestry incentives with its emissions trading scheme has yielded controversial and less effective results than anticipated.

 

Since the inception of this policy in 2019, New Zealand has added approximately 175,000 hectares (432,000 acres) of forests, predominantly the fast-growing Pinus radiata pine. This move aimed to help the country progress towards its 2050 net-zero goal. However, the initiative has sparked significant debate and concerns about its long-term efficacy and impact on various sectors.

 

A recent report by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton calls for a radical overhaul of the current afforestation incentives. Upton argues that while pine production and permanent forestry are legitimate land uses, afforestation should not be incentivized as a cost-effective method to offset fossil fuel emissions. This stance challenges one of the world’s most prominent campaigns for afforestation and has sent ripples through the investment community. Major investors, such as Ingka Group, the largest global Ikea franchisee, are closely reviewing the potential impacts of Upton’s advice, although their long-term commitments remain unchanged. Other forestry investors, like Phil Taylor of Port Blakely, express concern that ongoing debates are undermining market confidence and hindering the growth of New Zealand’s forest estate.

 

 

The initial policy shift in 2019, which required companies to use domestic measures to compensate for CO2 emissions, prohibited firms from buying carbon offsets developed abroad. This rule amplified the attractiveness of domestic forestry projects by allowing companies to offset 100% of their emissions with credits generated by local forest projects. Unlike most countries that limit the use of offsets to encourage fundamental CO2 emission cuts, New Zealand’s policy made forestry a lucrative investment. Consequently, investors like Germany’s Munich Re and Japan’s Sumitomo Corp. rushed to buy land, with Ingka Group acquiring 23 separate tracts for forestry.

 

However, this land rush has had significant repercussions. The conversion of productive farmland into forest estates has driven up land prices, making it difficult for farmers to compete. The 30-year net present value of land with production forestry and carbon credits is 144% higher than that of land used for sheep and beef farming, according to Julian Ashby of Beef + Lamb New Zealand. Farmers like Murray Hellewell, who raise sheep and beef, find themselves increasingly surrounded by pine plantations, exacerbating their frustration with the policy.

 

Critics argue that while forests do absorb a substantial amount of carbon dioxide, their efficiency diminishes over time. To maintain the same environmental impact, continuous planting is required, which is not a sustainable long-term solution. John Saunders, a senior researcher at Lincoln University, points out that this approach merely shifts the problem rather than solving it.

 

The impact of aggressive afforestation extends beyond economic concerns. Increased waste from forestry, including logs, leaves, and branches known as “slash,” has exacerbated damage from natural disasters. Last year’s Cyclone Gabrielle saw the damage more than double due to forestry waste, highlighting the environmental costs associated with the current afforestation model.

 

The government’s consideration of policy changes aims to address these issues. While Climate Change Minister Simon Watts acknowledges the need to balance productive land uses, he has indicated that limiting forestry credits is not on the table. Instead, revisions to the emissions trading scheme may restrict the conversion of productive farmland to forestry.

 

One proposed solution is to use forests to offset biogenic methane emissions from livestock, rather than fossil fuel CO2. Upton suggests that for short-lived gases like methane, the goal should be to reduce emissions to an acceptable level rather than eliminate them entirely. This approach could provide a more justifiable strategy for utilizing forests, aligning with both farmers’ and environmentalists’ needs.

 

As New Zealand navigates the complexities of climate change mitigation, it is crucial to adopt a balanced and sustainable approach. The current afforestation strategy, while well-intentioned, has revealed significant flaws and unintended consequences. Re-evaluating the role of forestry in the emissions trading scheme and considering alternative strategies for reducing greenhouse gases is essential for achieving long-term environmental and economic sustainability.

 

 

Credit: Bloomberg 2024-06-04

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[thaibeachlovers]

Something brought in under the last government. Need I say more?

Pack of nutters that IMO damaged NZ in a way not seen since Muldoon's disastrous Think Big fiasco.

Everything that woman touched turned to dross.

[Purdey]

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

The conversion of productive farmland into forest estates has driven up land prices, making it difficult for farmers to compete.

Firstly, farmers don't compete with forests. If a land shortage constrains the production of food, it should mean that food prices go up. This same argument is being used in Brazil to decimate rain-forests for farmland. Population growth should be a better area to look at.

Offsetting cows' farts is important because methane is something like (if memory serves) 25 times stronger that CO₂ in terms of both being greenhouse gases, thus well worth looking into.

[Deerculler]

3 hours ago, Purdey said:

Firstly, farmers don't compete with forests. If a land shortage constrains the production of food, it should mean that food prices go up. This same argument is being used in Brazil to decimate rain-forests for farmland. Population growth should be a better area to look at.

Offsetting cows' farts is important because methane is something like (if memory serves) 25 times stronger that CO₂ in terms of both being greenhouse gases, thus well worth looking into.

Forestry and animal farming can work together hand in hand.

[Deerculler]

Planting millions of Pinus Radiata and leaving unattended is a crime against the land and the people.

Another Labour Government horrendous mistake.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Purdey said:

Offsetting cows' farts is important because methane is something like (if memory serves) 25 times stronger that CO₂ in terms of both being greenhouse gases, thus well worth looking into.

FYI the methane comes out of the other end. Belching is the problem.

 

 

https://time.com/6251162/cow-burps-climate-impact-methane-emissions/

Agriculture contributes about 40% of total global methane emissions—the bulk of which is belched from grazing livestock due to digestion of dietary carbohydrates. This methane from livestock is part of a natural carbon cycle, but reducing livestock methane using feed additives is key to lowering global methane emissions, as well as enhancing the conversion of dietary energy to meat or milk production without compromising the animal’s health.

 

reducing livestock methane using feed additives is key to lowering global methane emissions,

LOL. Not going to happen in NZ as cows eat grass, not feed.

Supposedly there is development of a vaccine that may do something, or not.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Deerculler said:

Planting millions of Pinus Radiata and leaving unattended is a crime against the land and the people.

Another Labour Government horrendous mistake.

 

Correct. As the plantations are apparently not managed they will burn, and so much for sequestering CO2.

 

Did Labour get anything right? I doubt it.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, Deerculler said:

Forestry and animal farming can work together hand in hand.

Not on the same paddock, but I see no reason not to grow trees along the fence lines.

I wonder if anyone has thought to make money out of all the Kiwifruit shelter belts?

[Gsxrnz]

Only a matter of time until Reichsmarschall Ardern assumes another global position of power to force her version of dystopia on the populace. 

 

She'll (and I use the pronoun "she" somewhat generously) probably end up as Chief WHO Commissar and have us all living in a gulag while she sticks us like pigs.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - and Ardern has a lot to answer for. I can tolerate negligence, but that cow was downright malevolent.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/5/2024 at 1:51 PM, Gsxrnz said:

Only a matter of time until Reichsmarschall Ardern assumes another global position of power to force her version of dystopia on the populace. 

 

She'll (and I use the pronoun "she" somewhat generously) probably end up as Chief WHO Commissar and have us all living in a gulag while she sticks us like pigs.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - and Ardern has a lot to answer for. I can tolerate negligence, but that cow was downright malevolent.

My opinion of that woman can not be printed on here, but IMO the only road she should be taking is the road to hell.

What amazes me is that she fooled so many people in other countries. One can only hope she follows Helen into obscurity.