Hodgson Pete: Estimates Debate —  
Hodgson Pete: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7253] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The issue of climate change is one that has been driven by science more than any other international public policy issue in human history and I shall tell members about that. The first decision of the United Nations in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to proceed with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was informed by science that was released the previous year—1991. It was the result of 3500 scientists around the world putting together their various learnings and trying to sort out in their minds what might be going on with our climate. They said that they thought there was a problem. The following year in Rio de Janeiro at the largest gathering of world leaders in human history the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was born. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not remember chipping the Hon Ken Shirley when his colleague was speaking. The member asked me to explain why we could not put Kyoto on hold and I am doing that. 
Five years later in 1996 those 3500 scientists reported that they were now a little more certain that the climate change effects were coming and that they were going to be of a certain size and description. On that occasion the people including the Hon Simon Upton were to meet in Japan the following year in a town called Kyoto which gave us the Kyoto Protocol. Then in 2001 the scientists reported again. The 2001 report stated that they were more certain that there would be an effect and that they could tell us a bit more about it than they used to be able to. They now knew that the world’s temperature had risen in the past 100 years on average by 0.6 degrees Celsius and they predicted that the world’s temperature would rise in the next 100 years by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius. 
Already two important pieces of information had emerged. The first was that global warming was accelerating. The second was that the range by which it was accelerating was still quite large and still relatively uncertain. However there was no suggestion of global cooling no suggestion of plateauing and no suggestion that there was no problem. The response to that was called the Marrakesh rules and the following year the Marrakesh rules settled and determined the Kyoto Protocol. All of the rules are now in place although the protocol might not come into force. Frankly that depends on Russia. Russia will I am sure ratify but it is not clear when it will. 
The member also made some remarkably good points about the history of New Zealand’s increased farm production. He pointed out that lambs are now larger at slaughter and he is right. He pointed out that the wool clip has gone up—or at least if he did not he might have. It has not gone up a lot but it has gone up a little. He might have pointed out that lambing percentages are up hugely over the past 20 years. He might have pointed out that the carrying capacity of our pastures has improved. Roughly speaking over the last 20 years our lamb production has more or less doubled—that is the number of animals has halved but production has stayed the same if one wants to look at it that way. There have been a remarkable set of increases and there is no indication that they will not continue into the future. Moreover they are driven by research. 
The member pointed out a number of products that he is using on the farm. He talked about the product he got from a mercantile outfit and the one he got from a vet club or wherever it was. The point about those products is that they are gaining popularity. They probably do reduce methane emissions and increase productivity but we do not understand why. This economy is based on—at least awkwardly—ruminant physiology which is a difficult thing to explain to people. If we do not understand ruminant physiology very well now—and we do not—we ought to improve that understanding. We need to understand why some grasses produce less methane. Why has AgResearch carried out research with grasses that produce a 16 percent reduction in methane lower levels of parasite burden higher food conversion efficiency and they think general improvement in animal health? Why is it that deer as opposed to sheep or cattle produce proportionately less methane? What is different? We think they do but we are not sure. Why are there differences between animals? So the Government has said it wants to discover why. 
But before it said it wanted to discover why it took another decision. It looked at our agricultural emissions. It found that they were 54 percent of our total emissions—more than half of all our emissions coming from sheep and cattle—and said to farmers: “There will be no emissions tax. We will completely cover it using taxpayer funds.” And we will; in return for which farmers will pay for a research levy. Then we decided that we had better work out the size of that levy; and the way to do that was to work out how much science we wanted and in what areas. We got together with the farming fraternity. We got together with the leaders of the agricultural community. We got together with Federated Farmers—for goodness’ sake! We got the best scientists from around the world and we had a 2-day workshop. We preceded that with a search of the world literature and on it went. We costed what were likely to be cost-effective avenues of inquiry. The cost is $8.4 million and the reason that farmers are paying for it is that it will go to their bottom line. I repeat it will go to their bottom line. The other reason they are paying for it is that it is a fair-suck-of-the-sav argument because had an emissions tax been put on all agricultural emissions it would not be $8.4 million but about $1 billion. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: That would ruin this country. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Would the member please sort out some of the facts? He has a lot of interest in the issue; I admire him for his interest but he has got a lot wrong. Let us deal with the issue of methane emissions from other sources. He raises questions about methane from waste. He is right: methane from a landfill is human induced and that issue is covered by the Kyoto Protocol. To give an idea of the size agriculture emissions are 54 percent emissions from landfill waste are 4 percent. As opposed to methane emissions—which are rising—methane emissions from our waste are falling rapidly. The reason is that this Government has a very good Minister for the Environment and she has developed a thing called a waste strategy. She has worked hard quietly and well with the local governments of this country and improvements in the way we manage our waste stream are causing that reduction. What is more these days a number of people who own landfills are taking the methane off them and burning it for electricity. Therefore it is not emitted into the atmosphere. 
On the other hand because he has an allergy to the Department of Conservation the member decides that it should be vulnerable too because it has trees. Not all of those trees are alive—some of them are dead some of them are rotting and some of them produce methane. That is not human induced; that is part of the natural methane cycle and I invite the member to draw a distinction between the two. So those I hope are some of the points that he has raised that are now satisfactorily answered. 
The member says we did not consult. Was he not around during 2002? We held 49 consultation meetings 11 of which were farmer-owner meetings. He did not show up; he was not aware that they were going on yet he comes back to the House a year later and asks why did we not consult. We consulted on a preferred policy outline which said that this is what we wanted to do and we took it around the country endlessly. We made a few tweaks and in October 2002 we announced our final policy. One of its final ingredients is that no farmer in this country will be charged for agricultural emissions by way of an emissions tax. There will be none. The 54 percent of emissions will be covered in their totality right through the first commitment period. It was a core part of our policy in return for which research will be done to see if we can reduce those emissions. The benefits of that research flow to both the Government and the farmer. The Government is putting up $4.8 million and the farmers $8.4 million—not a bad price compared with $1 billion! That seems to me where the matter rests and where the  
Straight Furrow 
 editor of today thinks the matter should rest too.