Stop carbon farming now....

[C_T_Russell]

Until a solution is found.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/climat...te--report

I thought the govt was addressing these concerns, but we are still seeing farmland lost to invasive pines.

Any permanent plantings should be native only.
Why they wouldn't mill the pines and replant I have no idea anyway. That would even take more carbon out and keep stored in the timber.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Solution to what? Climate change?

Uh huh.

[jilledge]

I agree, it's weird that they don't permit natives to be part of the carbon sequestration equation.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

I agree, it's weird that they don't permit natives to be part of the carbon sequestration equation.

Probably because they do not hold the same quick buck potential.

Btw, nice to see you, to see you nice... 

[jilledge]

Just another example sheer incompetence by the source of truth.

I agree, it's weird that they don't permit natives to be part of the carbon sequestration equation.

Probably because they do not hold the same quick buck potential.

Btw, nice to see you, to see you nice... 

[king1]

Just another example sheer incompetence by the source of truth.

Probably because they do not hold the same quick buck potential.

Btw, nice to see you, to see you nice... 

by "source of truth" we are referring to the PM?  

The ETS has been around since 2002 and successive governments have been tinkering with it over the years, maybe you could mention which part of it was sheer incompetence on her part?

[king1]

I agree, it's weird that they don't permit natives to be part of the carbon sequestration equation.

Natives are certainly a part of the ETS, what is the equation you refer to that they aren't permitted in?

[harm_less]

I agree, it's weird that they don't permit natives to be part of the carbon sequestration equation.

Natives are certainly a part of the ETS, what is the equation you refer to that they aren't permitted in?

Explained here: https://www.motu.nz/assets/Documents/our...ummary.pdf

The "quick buck" issue has more to do with the typical landowner who prioritises ROI from their efforts, which is more aligned to NACT ideology.

[Oh_hunnihunni]

Natives are certainly a part of the ETS, what is the equation you refer to that they aren't permitted in?

Explained here: https://www.motu.nz/assets/Documents/our...ummary.pdf

The "quick buck" issue has more to do with the typical landowner who prioritises ROI from their efforts, which is more aligned to NACT ideology.

I can't help it - sounding out NA C T, lol...

[jilledge]

Just another example sheer incompetence by the source of truth.

by "source of truth" we are referring to the PM?  

Yep - you know, she stood up and said if you don't hear it from the horses mouth then it's not true.

The ETS has been around since 2002 and successive governments have been tinkering with it over the years, maybe you could mention which part of it was sheer incompetence on her part?

---

Natives are certainly a part of the ETS, what is the equation you refer to that they aren't permitted in?

Explained here: https://www.motu.nz/assets/Documents/our...ummary.pdf



The "quick buck" issue has more to do with the typical landowner who prioritises ROI from their efforts, which is more aligned to NACT ideology.

I am referring to farmers not being permitted to include natives, riparian planting, shelter belts etc. in the carbon sequestration equation - it's only pine trees, and if you've ever walked through a pine plantation it's effectively scorched earth underneath the canopy.

[king1]

by "source of truth" we are referring to the PM?  

Yep - you know, she stood up and said if you don't hear it from the horses mouth then it's not true.

The ETS has been around since 2002 and successive governments have been tinkering with it over the years, maybe you could mention which part of it was sheer incompetence on her part?

---

Explained here: https://www.motu.nz/assets/Documents/our...ummary.pdf



The "quick buck" issue has more to do with the typical landowner who prioritises ROI from their efforts, which is more aligned to NACT ideology.

I am referring to farmers not being permitted to include natives, riparian planting, shelter belts etc. in the carbon sequestration equation - it's only pine trees, and if you've ever walked through a pine plantation it's effectively scorched earth underneath the canopy.

i'm sure they had their reasons for excluding riparian planting, shelter belts etc  There has to be some limitations in the ETS otherwise you would probably end up with an exploited system that doesn't achieve the aims that it was designed to achieve.    

Natives are ok as far as I can tell, as long as they meet the requirements... post 1990 for natives by the looks of it

Edit to add: I guess because the whole point of the ETS is to encourage plantings and add costs to emitters, so if you're wanting to add your 100 year old native forest you have in the backyard then it really isn't achieving any of the aims of the ETS.  It would simply be providing a windfall for the owners of such land...  Make sense?

[jilledge]

---

I am referring to farmers not being permitted to include natives, riparian planting, shelter belts etc. in the carbon sequestration equation - it's only pine trees, and if you've ever walked through a pine plantation it's effectively scorched earth underneath the canopy.

i'm sure they had their reasons for excluding riparian planting, shelter belts etc  There has to be some limitations in the ETS otherwise you would probably end up with an exploited system that doesn't achieve the aims that it was designed to achieve.    Natives are ok as far as I can tell, as long as they meet the requirements... (post 1990 for natives by the looks of it)

There doesn't appear to be any logical reason to exclude them - they often take up hectares and hectares of land, and sequest a lot of carbon. However the Govt. appears intent on turning good food producing land into scorched earth with pinus radiata sitting on top of it.

It is simply another example of the Govt. not actually knowing what they are doing and refusing to accept that others know better - hence the one source of truth comment. They are horrendous.

[king1]

i'm sure they had their reasons for excluding riparian planting, shelter belts etc  There has to be some limitations in the ETS otherwise you would probably end up with an exploited system that doesn't achieve the aims that it was designed to achieve.    Natives are ok as far as I can tell, as long as they meet the requirements... (post 1990 for natives by the looks of it)

There doesn't appear to be any logical reason to exclude them - they often take up hectares and hectares of land, and sequest a lot of carbon. However the Govt. appears intent on turning good food producing land into scorched earth with pinus radiata sitting on top of it.

It is simply another example of the Govt. not actually knowing what they are doing and refusing to accept that others know better - hence the one source of truth comment. They are horrendous.

I might accept that if it had solely been a decision of this government, but the ETS has been around since well before the present government.   Many governments including National led, have guided it and presumably many millions were spent on consultants over the years to get to where we are now...  just kind of feel it's a bit disingenuous to blame a single person for it...  

You do sound like you have a pre 1990 native forest in the backyard...

[jilledge]

There doesn't appear to be any logical reason to exclude them - they often take up hectares and hectares of land, and sequest a lot of carbon. However the Govt. appears intent on turning good food producing land into scorched earth with pinus radiata sitting on top of it.

It is simply another example of the Govt. not actually knowing what they are doing and refusing to accept that others know better - hence the one source of truth comment. They are horrendous.

I might accept that if it had solely been a decision of this government, but the ETS has been around since well before the present government.   Many governments including National led, have guided it and presumably many millions were spent on consultants over the years to get to where we are now...  just kind of feel it's a bit disingenuous to blame a single person for it...  

You do sound like you have a pre 1990 native forest in the backyard...

The most recent aspect pertains specifically to
farmers and the aspects above are not included. This was put in place by this Government. They only want pine trees it appears.

[king1]

I might accept that if it had solely been a decision of this government, but the ETS has been around since well before the present government.   Many governments including National led, have guided it and presumably many millions were spent on consultants over the years to get to where we are now...  just kind of feel it's a bit disingenuous to blame a single person for it...  

You do sound like you have a pre 1990 native forest in the backyard...

The most recent aspect pertains specifically to
farmers and the aspects above are not included. This was put in place by this Government. They only want pine trees it appears.

 i wonder why...

[harm_less]

i'm sure they had their reasons for excluding riparian planting, shelter belts etc  There has to be some limitations in the ETS otherwise you would probably end up with an exploited system that doesn't achieve the aims that it was designed to achieve.    Natives are ok as far as I can tell, as long as they meet the requirements... (post 1990 for natives by the looks of it)

There doesn't appear to be any logical reason to exclude them - they often take up hectares and hectares of land, and sequest a lot of carbon. However the Govt. appears intent on turning good food producing land into scorched earth with pinus radiata sitting on top of it.

It is simply another example of the Govt. not actually knowing what they are doing and refusing to accept that others know better - hence the one source of truth comment. They are horrendous.

Native NZ tree species aren't "excluded" as this confirms: https://www.carboncrop.nz/post/which-tre...on-credits The preference for Pinus Radiata will have to do with their faster rate of growth which will sequester more carbon quicker than most native species and the better marketability (and earlier harvest maturity) of pines. As usual the issue is explained by 'following the money', as it's about the quickest buck.

[king1]

Would be nice to know where jilledge is coming from, i guess one can speculate based on the comments maybe a farmer affected by the rules

[jilledge]

There doesn't appear to be any logical reason to exclude them - they often take up hectares and hectares of land, and sequest a lot of carbon. However the Govt. appears intent on turning good food producing land into scorched earth with pinus radiata sitting on top of it.

It is simply another example of the Govt. not actually knowing what they are doing and refusing to accept that others know better - hence the one source of truth comment. They are horrendous.

Native NZ tree species aren't "excluded" as this confirms: https://www.carboncrop.nz/post/which-tre...on-credits The preference for Pinus Radiata will have to do with their faster rate of growth which will sequester more carbon quicker than most native species and the better marketability (and earlier harvest maturity) of pines. As usual the issue is explained by 'following the money', as it's about the quickest buck.

We are talking about different things, I am talking about the farming emissions and the carbon sequestration equation that the Govt. have put in place

[harm_less]

Native NZ tree species aren't "excluded" as this confirms: https://www.carboncrop.nz/post/which-tre...on-credits The preference for Pinus Radiata will have to do with their faster rate of growth which will sequester more carbon quicker than most native species and the better marketability (and earlier harvest maturity) of pines. As usual the issue is explained by 'following the money', as it's about the quickest buck.

We are talking about different things, I am talking about the farming emissions and the carbon sequestration equation that the Govt. have put in place

Perhaps it would be helpful if you provided links to your alternative ETS information. If your gripe is with the inclusion of agriculture into the taxing of GH emissions that's a whole different argument than the topic of this thread.

[king1]

We are talking about different things, I am talking about the farming emissions and the carbon sequestration equation that the Govt. have put in place

Perhaps it would be helpful if you provided links to your alternative ETS information. If your gripe is with the inclusion of agriculture into the taxing of GH emissions that's a whole different argument than the topic of this thread.

Sounds like that is the case - would have been helpful if it was mentioned a bit earlier in the thread.  But who doesn't love a guessing game?