Paris Agreement: What Are the Costs and Returns to NZ?
OPINION: We are only weeks from the election, and my vote is looking for a home.
In a joint letter to four parties, National, Labour, ACT and New Zealand First, the groups are seeking clarification on rural, environmental, and agricultural issues.
The three groups – Groundswell NZ, NZ Farming and the Methane Science Accord – claim to represent 424,000 members and followers.
They are asking the four parties to clarify their positions on maintaining NZ’s current Paris Agreement and net zero commitments.
They say “very large” areas of previously productive, grazable farmland have been converted into carbon forestry.
“Current figures report over 300,000 hectares since 2017 have moved into permanent or long-term carbon farming.”
They also list the Freshwater Farm Plan proposal as a major concern for farmers and want to know if the parties support farm plans as government-prescribed legislation and that it be mandatory.
The proposed gene technology bill is also of concern to the groups.
“Our groups are not opposed to innovation or science. However, we believe any change of this magnitude must be approached cautiously, with full consideration of trade implications, farmer consent, and long-term impacts on New Zealand’s agricultural identity,” they say.
The three groups also claim that rural New Zealand is carrying “a disproportionate share of inflationary cost increases”.
“Escalating rates driven by expanding bureaucracy, sharply rising electricity prices linked to climate and renewable energy policy, and increasing compliance costs have combined to place severe pressure on farm businesses.”
They want to know what specific changes the parties will make to energy and climate policy to prevent Paris Agreement-driven renewable mandates from continuing to increase electricity costs for farmers and rural businesses.
A spokeswoman for the three groups, Helen Mandeno, told Rural News that all grassroots farmers in NZ would like to know the answers to the questions in the letter.
“We also tried to phrase the questions so that we can hopefully get direct answers.
“Politicians are notorious for not answering questions directly or answering them in a very wishy-washy way.”
Asked if the groups would be guiding their supporters on how to vote on the back of the responses from the four parties, Mandeno says their role isn’t to tell supporters how to vote.
“What we can do – and what matters – is ensure they have clear, honest answers from all parties. Grassroots farmers deserve transparency so they can make their own informed decisions.”
Mandeno says the three groups aren’t opposed to environmental stewardship and farmers are, and always have been, environmental managers. “However, they believe current policy settings are undermining productive land use, food security and rural communities.
“We would welcome clear, public positions from the parties on these matters and look forward to constructive engagement as the election approaches.”
