Lindsay Wood argues that farmers - armed with passion and some valid points - should be looking to do their own climate strategy rather than having it done to them
Congratulations, Groundswell and farmers, for the scale of last week’s protest - you brought lots of passion, lots of tractors, and lots of messages. But when it came to climate, the messages we received were likely not the ones you thought you’d sent.
A common theme was that farmers knew how to run their own farms and, as Paul Lindsay, of Tasman was reported as saying, “shouldn’t be told by someone in Wellington how to do it”. But in terms of climate strategy, Lindsay and colleagues should direct their anger much closer to home, such as at Federated Farmers, supposedly a leading voice for their sector, and at the automotive companies that supply their vehicles.
I don’t know if Lindsay was at last month’s Agricultural Climate Change conference in Wellington, but if he was, he would have heard authoritative Australian Mark Howden give strong advice on agricultural climate strategy: “It’s better to be done by us than done to us”. With a massive pedigree in climate and disaster management, Howden knows what he’s talking about, and subsequent speakers reiterated his message.
And my point? That farmers are protesting having climate strategies done to them because their industry has fallen so far short in having strategies done by them. Now let’s be clear, we should distinguish between “official” voices of farming, like Federated Farmers, and the often-heroic efforts of individuals farming in sometimes incredibly testing conditions. We should also be clear that few sectors have yet felt the heat on climate strategies the way agriculture has, so it doesn’t pay for others to get smug.
But let’s return to the automotive industry, and its laggardly development of electric utility vehicles. Ford recently made noises about their electric F-150 ute, and it will be great if it lives up to the hype. But we must ask, “Why haven’t its likes been around for years?” It’s been clear for over a decade that the world desperately needs climate-friendly replacements for the massive-selling Ford Ranger, Hilux etc. Good grief, it’s 15 years since Tesla won their first vehicle award, and 11 since Nissan launched the Leaf.
So, Groundswell, why weren’t you driving in protest around the dealerships of Ford, or Toyota or GM? In fact, why weren’t you driving around them years ago, protesting the lack of climate-responsible vehicles that farmers and tradies could then have driven so much sooner (instead of now feeling wrong-footed by much-needed government strategy)?
I’d love to know how often Federated Farmers wrote to ute makers, urging them to accelerate the delivery of E-Utes. Is your guess the same very small number as mine? But isn’t such communication exactly the sort of proactive pressure we should expect from an organisation claiming leadership in a sector with huge emissions?
However, history tells us not to be surprised. Fed Farmers would likely never pen such letters, and their offices should also have been encircled by protesting tractors, because they have an extensive history of avoiding taking the lead on climate, indeed of largely resisting climate initiatives. i.e., of failing to ensure climate strategies are done by the sector, so now they must be done to the sector.
Don’t believe me? Try this. On February 15, 2007 (five years after New Zealand's ‘s 'Climate Change Response Act 2002' and 15 after the Rio Summit on climate), Fed Farmers’ spokesperson on global warming told RNZ listeners that global warming did not exist, adding “When I see the signs, I'll believe it."
And Fed Farmers doesn't seem like a quick learner. Fast forward to May 12, 2015, and then-president William Rolleston told RNZ “Federated Farmers has no opinion on whether climate change is even real.” Got that? The president? In 2015?
Changing tack, I imagine Groundswell wished their protest received global attention, and it likely did. But they should be cautious what they wish for, because New Zealand’s green reputation is not as secure as we might think, and four of Groundswell’s seven 'Howl of a Protest' targets are scrapping environmental regulations, with the Emissions Trading Scheme also under fire.
In Europe I’ve encountered acute sensitivity to some of our rural practices, and speakers at the agriculture and climate conference highlighted potentially massive reputational damage if New Zealand agriculture isn’t seen to shape up on the environment.
Climate Change Commissioner Rod Carr took a market perspective, stressing we must be seen to be in the “club of climate-responsible nations” not that of “rogue nations”. And emissions specialist Michael Lakeman, from CH4Global, challenged delegates by asking “Can we close the gate before our reputational horse bolts?”
Those knowledgeable speakers both implied our reputation might already be at risk, something we must address vigorously, not risk aggravating. In a competitive global market, there are many players that will jump at a chance to paint New Zealand agriculture in an inferior environmental light.
As if to reinforce that point, Groundswell’s demands included scrapping the National Policy Statement on Freshwater, and came in sync with David William’s in-depth Newsroom article Mike Joy wins battle over ‘dodgy’ water stats. Williams describes a veiled official backdown on flaky baseline data for freshwater, plus a smokescreen-type response by a Federated Farmers representative. Hardly the stuff to bolster our global environmental credentials.
And we could do worse than also heed James Shaw, Minister for Climate Change. At the same conference, Shaw noted the EU was moving “aggressively” on border tariffs on carbon, with big potential impacts on New Zealand. And what was announced the week of the farmers’ protest? EU border tariffs “aimed at levelling the playing field on carbon emissions”. More being done to us.
So where does that leave farmers? There’s no doubt about their passion, and they probably have some valid points, but unless they turn the likes of Federated Farmers around big time, they will keep having climate strategy done to them, when it would be so much better if done by them.
