Labour’s ETS election promise angers farmers

Email
Print

Mon, 23 May 2011 6:27p.m.

Farmers have sworn to fight the ETS

Farmers have sworn to fight the ETS

By Tova O’Brien

It is no surprise farmers are furious about Labour's election promise.

It would force them into the Emissions Trading Scheme early to fund tax credits for research and development.

Farmers say Labour leader Phil Goff is being mischievous by picking on a minority who are big earners for the economy, but pocket little themselves.

Wendy Clark has owned her small Pukekohe dairy farm for 27 years.

After four seasons of drought and poor dairy payouts, this year is expected boom could come in the nick of time.

“Every now and again we have a good year and we set money aside for the bad years so there are considerably more bad years,” says Ms Clark.

Phil Goff has chosen farmers to foot the $800 million bill to bring back research and development tax credits cut by National.

And that is an election promise.

But Mr Goff is not so sure when asked for details on who will be eligible, or, if foreign owned companies based here can get the tax breaks.

“If you want the detail you'll have to go to the policy researchers,” says Mr Goff. “I'm setting out the broad parameters.”

If Labour were to win on November 26, forcing farmers into the ETS early, Ms Clark says it would not be worth her while to continue farming.

She believes her farm would not be the only one to shut down and farmers say it would leave them with just three options.

“They can go to Australia or Argentina or Chile,” says Ms Clark. “They can milk more cows, which is counter-productive if you're trying to reduce Co2 emissions. Or they can simply give up farming.

But Mr Goff does not “accept that farmers are in such a position that they cannot meet the cost of the ETS, and must be subsidised by you and I as New Zealand taxpayers.”

Farmers have sworn to fight the ETS whether it comes in 2013 under Labour or in 2015 under National. Either way the battle lines have been drawn.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

25 May 2011 10:07a.m.

Winning Warlock wrote:

Why you need to actively support global warming:
1) Average annual sea levels do not rise in one place but not in another, that is a logic error. Think of a liquid.
2) cherry picking from the entire 1990's for the most inflammatory starting point is illegitimate
3) the margin of error on the monitoring stations is larger than the alleged increase in temp
4) those promoting fear of climate change make money from it and are terrorists for profit. They want to monetize fear

So support global warming. It will neutralise their terrorist tax efforts and you can simply continue to lol. And if disaster happens, things will get even more lolworthy when the NWO gets apocalypsed. Rock on, brothers and sisters!

25 May 2011 09:58a.m.

Winning Warlock wrote:

Why you need to actively support global warming:
1) Average annual sea levels do not sink in one place but not in another, that is a logic error. Think of a liquid.
2) cherry picking from the entire 1990's for the most inflammatory starting point is illegitimate
3) the margin of error on the monitoring stations is larger than the alleged increase in temp
4) those promoting fear of climate change make money from it and are terrorists for profit. They want to monetize fear

So support global warming. It will neutralise their terrorist tax efforts and you can simply continue to lol. And if disaster happens, things will get even more lolworthy when the NWO gets apocalypsed. Rock on, brothers and sisters!

24 May 2011 10:55p.m.

@haddy wrote:

@haddy, well the facts are that corporate pollution and the oil industry and fluorocarbons have screwed the atmosphere. What about the ozone hole?
1. That is covered in the Kyoto agreement, which is similar to any debt / credit facility put forward by bankers and central and commercial banks. Credits and debits.
2. No I don't. The amount of chemicals in the stratosphere and ionosphere has been shown by tests to be changed and responsible for a 'greenhouse' effect, meaning the heat that comes in doesn't bounce back into space any more, and collects, building the atmospheric heat. it has a huge effect and corporate industry is trying to 'debunk' these facts because trying to fix the damage they caused will cost them money.
3. Volcanoes are not of man and they do add to the problem, whereas reforestation acting as a carbon sink is do-able by man and to everyone's benefit (even yours) so should be credited.
Your arguments depend on ignorance to work.

24 May 2011 06:49p.m.

Haddy wrote:

All you who believe in this ETS con , I have a few question for you
1 - Where does this money they are collecting going and to what advantage ?
2 - Don't you think that warming / cooling is just a natural cycle ? Wasn't there a ice age how ever long ago ?
3 - Do you know that when a volano explodes ( natural event )it puts more cardon into the atmosphere then humans do in donkey's years , should a country be penalised for this when they get credits for natural forests ?

I hope someone might like to answer for me
Haddy

24 May 2011 09:33a.m.

doug wrote:

Labour will bring agricultural emissions into the ETS "early to fund tax credits for research and development".

"Mr Goff does not “accept that farmers are in such a position that they cannot meet the cost of the ETS, and must be subsidised by you and I as New Zealand taxpayers.”"

But Mr Goff thinks farmers should subsidise research and development in unrelated industries?

The claim that not including agricultural gases in the ETS is a subsidy requires a flexible mind. Because the government does not tax emissions they are subsidising farmers. In that case this post is subsidised because the government didn't tax me for it.

Don't forget that farmers already pay ETS charges for fuel and electricity. This averages $3600 per year per dairy farm and will increase to $7200 in 2013 under National Party policy. Ag gases will cost another $4,200. Altogether enough to have a series impact on the dairy sector.

24 May 2011 09:31a.m.

jeremy wrote:

The tax being proposed by Labour smacks of desperation.
It's all about votes.Most farmers don't vote Labour and as a group they are not large.The tax proposal is designed to appeal to a large group of urban dwellers.
In reality NZ as a whole will suffer through a policy designed to penalise our largest exporters.
Rather silly when you consider NZ is almost totally reliant on agriculture.
Even sillier given no other country is going down this path.

24 May 2011 07:56a.m.

Sam wrote:

Clampett's need to their pay way and expect the tax payers bail them out

24 May 2011 07:45a.m.

atrout wrote:

@Chris... someday you might visit a farm and find out just how hard working farmers actually are. It might be a great shock to you to learn what long hours, hard slog and being out in all weathers means. And you might just be right that they are not among the lazy supporters of Labour. If Goff feels that it is fair game to attack a productive group like the farming community because they don't trust him and his colleagues then maybe it might be smarter for Labour to actually try to win a few farmers over to their side by doing something intelligent for a change. By the way, it is sheep (like Labour voters) that "bleat" - not the Feds!!!!

24 May 2011 06:42a.m.

Brent wrote:

Phil is retarded if he thinks this will not effect meat and dairy prices,

24 May 2011 04:57a.m.

Maximus wrote:

Farmers opposing the ETS will suffer the devastating effects of global warming within their own lifetimes. What will they say to their grandchildren when their grandchildren learn their intellectually-challenged grandparents lobbied against it?