John MacDonald: Is the government's tree talk hot air?

Not that long ago, I was talking to a guy who said it was perfectly fine for him to use some old floorboards he’d ripped up out of his kitchen for firewood, because China and India are polluting the atmosphere and so what difference can he make? 

These boards were coated in a dark, shiny varnish and they just screamed out “poison” to me. 

But, you know, until China and India lift their game and stop spewing toxic stuff into the environment, why should he bother? And, you know, it’s free firewood. That was his attitude. 

And he’s the kind of person that the Government will be getting no argument from today over its draft emissions plan which, in my view, is smoke and mirrors and a pipedream. 

It wants to do away with some of the big stick stuff that the last Labour government did to reduce emissions and it’s come up with this wishy-washy approach. 

Now I’m not saying that everything Labour did on the environment front made sense. But emissions did go down during its time in government. 

But the current government is turning its back on that progress because and not only is it saying trees and technology are the answer, it’s also saying that what it wants to do means we won’t meet our emission targets. Which are all part of the bigger global initiative agreed to under the Paris Accord. 

The Government’s also pinning its hopes on new technologies that can capture emissions but, generally, it’s all about threes. 

As the headline on nzherald.co.nz says this today, the Government is planning a “tree-planting frenzy” to do its bit on the emissions front.  

It reckons it can plant 22,500 thousand hectares in trees - 5,000 hectares of indigenous trees in 2027, 7,500 in 2028; and 10,000 hectares in exotics from 2027. 

That 22,500 hectares, by the way, is the equivalent of 222,000 quarter-acre sections. Another way of describing it, is the equivalent of 2,220,000 Olympic-size swimming pools. 

So where would they go and how would they be paid for? 

The Government is saying that it wants to get private investors planting trees on Crown land. So it provides the land but gets others to pay for the rest.  

It says this wouldn’t be land that is part of any national park. And it wouldn’t be land that is suitable for farming. 

Here’s what the draft plan document itself says about that: “Estimates of the area of Crown land that is suitable for planting are preliminary and conservative. Further analysis will be required to confirm land suitability. 

“However, it is likely that more land is available, and the potential abatement is greater than currently projected.”  

So it’s going to have half of all these trees planted within four years. It doesn’t actually know where they’re going to - but it’s got a rough idea. And it wants private investors to pay for it.  

Really? That’s a credible plan? The guy burning those poisonous old floorboards I was telling you about earlier probably thinks so. But I don’t. 

The Government says it wants to take the approach outlined in its draft plan because it doesn't want to sacrifice economic growth to save the planet. And it reckons that, by doing what it’s proposing, it can do both. Do you really believe that? 

It sounds ideal. But it’s a pipedream. Especially when you consider that what New Zealand has been doing in recent years has actually made a difference. 

Which is why I think the Government is being incredibly reckless with the approach it is proposing. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from newstalks'b.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
You know, not that long ago would have been. Was
last year. I was talking to a guy who said
it was perfectly fine for him to use some old
floorboards he'd ripped up out of his kitchen for firewood,
because China and India are a pollute in the atmosphere,
and so what difference can he make these boards? They
were coded in a dark, shiny varnish and tell you what,

(00:36):
they'd have screamed out poison to me. You know, until
China and India lift their game and stops spewing toxic
stuff into the environment, why should I bother? And you know,
free firewood. That was his attitude, and he's the kind
of person that the government will be getting no argument

(00:57):
from today over its draft emissions plan. I almost said daft.
It's daft emission plan, which, in my view of smoking
mirrors and a pipe train. It wants to do away
with some of the big stick stuff that the last
labor government did to reduce emissions, and it's come up
with this wishy washy approach. And look, I'm not saying,

(01:18):
by the way that everything Labour did on the environment
front made sense. Some of it was daft as well,
But as Chris Hopkins is bound to bang on about
when he's with us one hour from now, emissions did
go down during its time of government. But the coment
current government it's turning its back on that progress because
not only is it saying trees and technology are the answer,

(01:41):
it's also saying that what it wants to do means
we won't meet our emissions targets, which are all part
of the bigger global initiative agreed to under the Paris Accord.
The game of all that net zero emissions, which is
all about achieving an overall balance, isn't it between greenhouse
gas emissions produced in greenhouse gas emissions taken out of
the atmosphere. So in practice achieving that I'm not telling

(02:04):
you anything, you achieving that means to removing or would
mean removing the same amount of emissions as we put
into the atmosphere. Atmosphere on an annual basis, which is
where things are the emissions trading schemes come from. The
government's also penning its hopes on new technologies that can
capture emissions, but generally it's all about the trees, as

(02:25):
the headline on enzidherld dot Co not enz says this morning,
the government is planning a tree planting frenzy to do
its bit on the emissions front. Here are the numbers
it reckons it can plant twenty two and a half
thousand hectares in trees, five thousand hectares of indigenous trees,
and twenty twenty seven seven and a half and twenty

(02:46):
twenty eight and ten thousand hectares in exotics from twenty
twenty seven. I've had to play around with this that
twenty two and a half thousand hectares, by the way,
is the equivalent of two hundred and twenty thousand or
two hundred and twenty two thousand quarter acre sections. Another

(03:06):
way of describing it, twenty two and a half thousand
hectares is the equivalent of two million, two hundred and
twenty thousand Olympic sized swimming pools. So where would they go?
How would they be paid for? Will the governments sown
today that it wants to get private investors planting trees

(03:27):
on crowned land, so it provides a land, is what
it's saying it would provide the land and get others
to pay for the rest. Says, this wouldn't be land
that's part of any national park, wouldn't be land that
is suitable for farming. I mean, here's what the draft
plan itself says about that quite estimates of the area
of crowned land that is suitable for planting are preliminary
and conservative. Further analysis will be required to confirm land suitability.

(03:51):
It goes on say, however, it is likely that more
land is available and the potential abatement is greater than
currently projected. And it goes on to saying that the
forests wouldn't just be pine ideally anyway, but native forests,
tubigs of natives are good for sucking up the carbon.
So it's going to have half of all these trees
planted within four years. It doesn't actually know where they're
going to go. It's got a rough idea, though, and

(04:14):
it wants private investors to pay for it. Really, is
that what you call a credible plan? Well, the guy
burning those poisonous old floor boards as telling me about
a second ago, probably think so, but I don't. The
government's saying it wants to take the approach, this approach
because it doesn't want to sacrifice economic growth to save

(04:35):
the planet and it reckons a boy doing what it's
proposing it can do both. You believe that it sounds
ideal because as the environmental lobby has been telling us
for years, it's this endless quest for increased productivity and
economic growth that has contributed to the mess the climate's in.
And I'll share with you shortly what Green's co leader

(04:55):
Chloe Swalbrook is saying about that in an article she's
written for enziherld dot co dot enz today. But this
is a pipe dream, especially when you consider that what
New Zealand's been doing in recent years has act he
made a difference or started to make a difference. And
this is why I think the government is being incredibly
reckless with this approach it wants to take to emissions reduction.

Speaker 1 (05:18):
For more from Caterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live
to news Talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.