The supposed end of the 20-year standoff between environmentalists and farmers was announced last week, with the release of the Interim Climate Change Committee’s report on “Action on agricultural emissions”. It was celebrated as an “historic consensus” between farmers and environmentalists, as the agricultural sector was agreeing to pay for part of their methane emissions.

Since then, however, the “devil in the detail” suggests that the situation is much more complicated and disputed than it might have first appeared. There now seems to be a long way to go before a real agreement or consensus is found for getting farmers to pay for emissions.

There should be no doubt that this new stage of discussions is significant. For the best overall coverage of what it all means, see Thomas Coughlan’s news report, Farmers exempt from 95 percent of emissions charges under new proposed rules.

This reports that a consensus now exists for farmers to pay for emissions by the year 2025, with the likelihood that each individual farmer will be brought into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). As Coughlan explains, “The ETS works by forcing polluters to pay a price for their emissions, whilst paying a credit to owners of ‘carbon sinks’ like forests.”.

Coughlan reports that “Labour had campaigned on bringing agriculture into the ETS by 2020 with National claiming the push-back to 2025 was a ‘backdown’.” The reason for this backdown is mostly related to the technical issues. Farmers need to first be able to measure, manage and report those emissions.

According to David Prentice, the chair of the Government’s Interim Climate Change Committee (ICCC), “there is significant work involved in developing accounting and reporting systems to enable this… We estimate this to be at least five years off” – see RNZ’s Farmers propose agriculture sector-led approach to emissions plan.

With 2025 agreed upon as the earliest date to bring farmers into a permanent system of emissions payment – probably via the ETS – the main disagreement is currently about what to do in the meantime. The ICCC has put forward one proposal, involving levies to be charged on “processors” of agricultural products – such as Fonterra dairy factories. This money would be funnelled back into research on technologies to help farmers reduce emissions. This system would also involve rebates to farmers who achieve emission reductions.

The second proposal is put forward by farming groups, who want to pay for the research themselves via levies through their traditional sectoral groups. Submissions are now open for four weeks on these two proposals. But the Government has already indicated that it prefers the first option, recommended by the ICCC.

Farmers not keen on Emissions Trading Scheme

Although farmer groups have been reported as welcoming and being amenable to the new recommendations for agricultural emissions charges, the consensus doesn’t necessarily go much further. Certainly, the idea that in 2025 farmers will be part of the ETS is not accepted – see 1News’ Federated Farmers: We have not agreed to any Emissions Trading Scheme.

As this item reports, “Speaking this morning to TVNZ1’s Breakfast programme, Federated Farmers CEO Terry Copeland clarified that while his organisation has agreed to work with the Government to reduce climate change, it has not joined any ETS.”

The traditional “farmer’s friend”, the National Party, is also opposing farming being simply incorporated into the ETS. For example, today one senior National MP is clearly stating that farmers shouldn’t be in the ETS – see: Judith Collins: Government has thrown Kiwi farmers ‘under a bus’.

Richard Harman also reports: “yesterday, Leader Simon Bridges was saying National opposed farming going into the ETS or any levy system until farmers had the technological and mitigation tools that would enable them to reduce their emissions. The party’s Climate Change spokesperson, Todd Muller, said that the Government was saying they had reached a historic agreement with the sector on a five-year work programme before on-farm pricing was established” – see: Now it gets hard – making farmers pay for methane.

Also, according to Harman, “96.5 per cent of Federated Farmers Members have responded to a Feds survey saying they would oppose farming being part of the ETS without significant conditions.”

The Business NZ lobby group is also putting forward the arguments against farmers being too heavily hit by emissions pricing, with its chief executive, Kirk Hope, saying it’s too early: “The problem for farmers is that there is no way currently for them to reduce emissions other than by reducing stock numbers. Science and technology will provide solutions over time – low emission breeds, low emission feed –  but those technologies are not here yet” – see: The risks for farming from emissions charging agreement.

Hope also argues that an overly-aggressive pricing system for farmers would create overall negative outcomes: “If New Zealand’s agricultural production declined as a result of emissions policies, the gap would easily be filled by less efficient agricultural producers overseas. The overall result would be higher global emissions, higher food prices globally, and a poorer New Zealand.”

Consumers are also like to face higher costs as a result, according to Gerard Hutching’s article, Farmers’ greenhouse gas emissions bill will lead to higher food prices. He also points out that the current prices being considered by the Government could rise quite significantly. Examining the prices, Hutching says that based on the current price of carbon ($25/tonne) the average dairy farmer would pay about $2000 a year, and the average beef and sheep farmer about $1000. But many think the price of carbon will rise as high as about $200, leading to about a $20,000 annual payment for the average dairy farm.

And although this is all based on the notion of farmers paying only five per cent of the costs of emissions, Mike Hosking suggests that this rate is likely to rise: “It’s like tax or tolls, once you get the sign off, they do nothing but increase or go up. And so it will be with farmers. Now that they have a sweetheart deal at 95 per cent, that number will only ever go down. Getting them to sign isn’t the end goal, making them pay like everyone else is” – see: Climate change – how can five per cent be a pass rate for farmers emissions deal?.

Criticisms from environmentalists

Although there’s been plenty of celebrations about the consensus, a number of environmentalists are unimpressed by what is being proposed by the Government, and even less impressed with the reaction of farming leaders.

In his article above, Thomas Coughlan reports that the pricing level for emissions by farmers is a “sweetheart deal” because Labour has agreed with New Zealand First to cap that pricing at only five per cent of the cost of those emissions – essentially providing farmers with a 95 per cent subsidy on those pollutants. In practice, “That would equate to a charge of just $0.01c per kilogram of milk solids and $0.01 cent per kg of beef at the current ETS price of $25 a tonne of carbon.”

Is that enough to push farmers to find ways to reduce emissions? Not according to Greenpeace’s Russel Norman: “It’s truly astounding that the strongest option put forward by the Government to deal with our biggest emitter is to delay action for another two years, after which agribusiness will pay a paltry 5 percent of their emissions” – see Zane Small’s Jacinda Ardern defends ‘laughable’ 5 percent tax proposed on farming emissions.

Norman also labels the proposed emission price as “laughable” and says Agriculture must be immediately brought fully into the ETS so that New Zealand’s biggest polluters are finally forced to start paying for their massive climate bill.

The same article quotes Victoria University of Wellington Professor of Climate Change, Dave Frame, agreeing with Norman, calling the level of pricing a “poor idea” and saying “The price implied by the ICCC’s recommended approach is too small a disincentive against further expansion of the dairy herd, because the price is simply too small to change behaviour.”

Similarly, blogger No Right Turn says that the Government’s pricing proposals allow for a continued free pass for fertiliser use, which is a big part of the problem, and should be discouraged through environmental pricing: “rather than subsidising farmers to produce this gas, we should instead be making them pay the full price of the emissions it causes – and removing the artificial cap on ETS prices so that the price can increase to its natural level. Farmers will no doubt complain that if they have to pay the full cost, they’ll have to stop using it” – see: We should not subsidise fertiliser emissions.

A proper market signal about the environmental costs of fertiliser would help ensure it is used wisely: “If there are high-value uses which justify the emissions cost, then they’ll be able to afford to keep using it (or they’ll make out like bandits by switching to alternatives). But for low-value uses, like fertilising marginal grass to grow cows and pollute rivers, we are all better off if people stop doing that.”

Farmers have therefore managed to win some big concessions in their negotiations with the Government, and economist Rod Oram is extremely unhappy, saying “The red meat and dairy sectors are holding New Zealand’s economy, climate, natural environment and international reputation hostage to the political power of the lowest common denominator in their ranks” – see: ‘Let true farming leaders lead’.

Oram argues that although farmers have expressed basic support for paying for emissions, they want only tiny reductions, plus lots of money from the government to pay for this. Therefore, he concludes: “If these are the only climate commitments dairy and meat leaders can come up with the Government and country can’t afford to leave farming’s future and ours in the hands of those leaders.”

Finally, for satire on climate change, see my blog post, Recent cartoons about the environment in New Zealand.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is winning praise for her campaign to clean up the internet, and in particular for her announcement of the “Christchurch Call” Summit to be held with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris next month. And if they can come up with some meaningful and effective ways to make the internet less available to terrorists and violent extremists then this will be a major accomplishment.

Regulating the internet is notoriously difficult, however. It might be one of the big issues of our time, but no one seems to have the answers for how to do it in a way that will be both effective and satisfactory. There’s a good chance the whole episode will amount to yet another talkfest of platitudes and politicking. This is certainly the view of Newstalk ZB’s Barry Soper, who forecasts an outcome of “full, frank and meaningless words” – see: Irony to New Zealand and France’s terrorism summit next month.

Not only this, Soper suggests that the motivations for the summit are opportunistic: “The idea no doubt came from the French President Emmanuel Macron who’s been haemorrhaging in the opinion polls at home… The international voice of reason and compassion Jacinda Ardern would have immediately come to mind and the pledge she’s now calling the Christchurch Call was born.”

The Herald’s political editor takes umbrage at such scepticism, declaring this type of view out of place: “They are the sort of critic who would never start anything unless success were guaranteed. The suggestion that Ardern do nothing after the murders of 50 people in New Zealand were live-streamed and shared on social media is to deny human nature and New Zealand’s own instincts” – see: Jacinda Ardern is knee-deep in planning joint initiative with France.

Audrey Young predicts real change will emerge from a difficult area of reform: “It won’t eliminate the evils that lurk within social media. But it won’t be nothing either.” She sees it as a positive sign that Ardern and Macron are being so inclusive in their approach: “Ardern’s natural instincts are to collaborate as broadly as possible… That factor alone makes it important to get co-operation from social media themselves, rather than using heavy-handed regulation or attempting to bully the corporates into participation.”

However, as with other international agreements, the more people you bring to the table, the greater the likelihood of a watered-down outcome. And this is the point made in Tom Pullar-Strecker’s article, The devil will be in the detail of the ‘Christchurch Call’. This reports Colin Gavaghan, director of the Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies at Otago University, as cautioning against going too broadly: “The risk, he argues, is you can end up with texts that are pitched at such a level that ‘no-one could disagree with them’ but which don’t tend to mean anything in practice.”

Pullar-Strecker’s article emphasises the uniqueness of this summit, as normally the outcomes are relatively pre-determined, with a text negotiated in advance for participants to sign up to. This won’t necessarily happen in this instance.

The success or otherwise of the initiative will be determined, it seems, by how ambitious the internet regulation campaign ends up being. Ardern, herself, is very keen to see a narrow focus for the regulations, which deal specifically with the online sharing of terrorist acts. Ardern says: “This is not about freedom of expression. This is about preventing violence and extremism and terrorism online”.

This approach is easier than going down the route of attempting to take on “hate speech” and extremist politics in general. And that is also the advice of Paul Brislen: “There are a number of things they should be looking at. The trick will be narrowing it down to something that is achievable because there are so many things that are getting out of control with the world of social media that need a regulator to step in… Trying to stay focused is going to be critical” – see Thomas Coughlan’s Speculation rife on value of ‘Christchurch Call’.

But even a focus just on violence and terrorism could be incredibly difficult. The same article makes this point: “Victoria University of Wellington media studies lecturer Peter Thompson said just defining what terrorism was presented difficulties. ‘It’s not a straightforward thing to decide what is and isn’t terrorism: live-streaming mass murder, well yes, but how do you decide which groups are considered terrorists or not?’ he said.”

Rick Shera from Netsafe and Internet NZ is also pleased that the Government is focused on dealing to the narrower and less contentious issue of terrorism: “I’m glad we are sticking to violent extremism and terrorism. Once you go into fake news, damage to democracy and other forms of online harm it becomes very difficult. Freedom of speech and the US position on that make it hard to make gains, so if the target is narrow it may be easier” – see Colin Peacock’s Does social media reform have the law on its side?

In this article by Peacock, the major issue of the United States is brought into the debate. After all, the US tech companies are based there, and benefit from that country’s very strong ethos and constitutional protections of political freedoms. This is lamented by some participants in the debate. For example, Internet NZ’s chief executive Jordan Carter is quoted, saying “The nature of their black and white constitutional protections on free speech in the US – and the current state of their politics – don’t leave me with any confidence that they will be able to drive change in this area”.

Clearly, the strong US resistance to censorship and over-regulation of speech means that Ardern’s “Christchurch Call” could run into problems. And it’s not just the US Constitution that might stymie reform, as explained by tech expert and journalist Bill Bennett, in Peacock’s article: “The problem with the US is they have two things that stop them from acting. One is the First Amendment which is all about free speech and not censoring people. The second thing is something called Section 230 that gives social media companies an out. They are not responsible for things posted on their site”.

There are, however, some major debates going on in the US about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. And the above article reports internet law academic Eric Goldman suggesting that any subsequent changes from that debate might be crucial: “He thinks cutbacks of Section 230’s scope do pose serious risks to free speech online. So is it the outcome of this behind-the-scenes legal argument playing out in the US right now – and not a headline-making political summit in France – which will really determine whether internet giants take responsibility for extreme content on their platforms?”

For the best discussion of these political freedom issues, see Gordon Campbell’s column, On Ardern and Macron’s campaign against violent social media content. In this, Campbell explains what might be coming after two decades of self-regulation of the internet, given the strong political appetite for serious regulation.

He worries that Ardern and co will end up going beyond just the clampdown on terrorist and extremist violence, and might produce something that impacts on general political activity: “Once you get beyond those low hanging fruit….it becomes difficult to censor online content without doing real damage to freedom of expression, and to genuine political dissent. It would be unfortunate if the best friends of the Ardern/Macron initiatives turn out to be the tyrants in countries that would (a) dearly love to see tech companies forced to hand over the keys to encryption, and (b) would readily embrace further restrictions being put on the online content their dissidents are allowed to post.”

He also believes regulation could ultimately prove unpopular, which is why Facebook and the like want it to be carried out by governments, “presumably, so that the politicians then get to wear the backlash once people realise the full implications of allowing the state to define and police the content deemed acceptable on the Net.”

Mostly likely, there will be simple progress made in Paris, such as tightening up of Facebook Live. The big question will be whether online providers end up having to do more vetting of content before it’s published, which would be of huge consequence, and what Campbell calls a “disastrous outcome”.

And he gives the example of his own media platform, Scoop: “Every year, Scoop also publishes close on a million New Zealand press releases issued by all and sundry. In that respect, Scoop functions as a national community noticeboard. It rejects press releases that contain libels and/or socially inflammatory hate speech. Imagine though, if Scoop was required to pre-check every one of those press releases for accuracy, balance and for whether or not they might hurt the feelings of people in public office. It would not be remotely practical or affordable for Scoop to do so – and its efforts would be gamed by those with malice in mind against the organisations issuing the press releases in question.”

Similarly, Internet NZ’s Jordan Carter suggests that relying on artificial intelligence to vet and remove content could be a problem: “Applying overly tight automated filtering would lead to very widespread overblocking. What if posting a Radio New Zealand story about the Sri Lanka attacks over the weekend on Facebook was automatically blocked? Imagine if a link to a donations site for the victims of the Christchurch attacks led to the same outcome? How about sharing a video of TV news reports on either story?”.

Carter has his own list of “six thoughts” about how to make the regulation of the internet work, including keeping the scope of the exercise narrow, and striking the right balance between “preventing the spread of such abhorrent material on the one hand, and maintaining free expression on the other” – see: How to stop the ‘Christchurch Call’ on social media and terrorism falling flat.

There really will be difficulties, no matter what approach is chosen. Claire Trevett points out: “As with climate change, making the right noises and getting the desired results are two very different things. It will be something akin to Hercules wrestling the Hydra. As soon as one head is chopped off, another two will appear” – see: PM Jacinda Ardern gathers allies to wrestle the social-media Hydra.

And it’s the politicians themselves who might have the most to lose, given their increasing preference to use Facebook and the like “to bypass the filter of the traditional media and speak directly to supporters and voters. This has some pluses for those politicians – but not necessarily for democracy. Over-reliance on social media over journalistic media allows them to escape questioning on issues they may not want to face. Macron has also come in for criticism for trying to stifle the ‘Yellow Vest’ protest use of social media. Ardern herself has been known to vote with her fingers when it comes to expressing her disapproval with certain social media platforms.”

Facebook and Instagram have been key parts of Ardern’s campaigning, and Trevett points out that “in the last election, Labour spent $475,000 on advertising on Facebook – four times as much as National – as it tried to appeal to younger voters.”

Finally, for the lighter side of the debate and some apparent irregularities in social media regulation, see Hamish McNeilly’s Gone in 20 minutes: Facebook strips student nude mag cover and Andrew Gunn’s We’re taking urgent steps to address this.

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Greenpeace’s flagship Rainbow Warrior 3 was welcomed in Matauri Bay at the start of a month-long tour of New Zealand yesterday to celebrate a victory in the fight against fossil fuels and to launch filming on a documentary drawing on the links between the nuclear-free and climate change struggles.

The tour began following the laying of a wreath at sea to honour the memory of Dutch photographer Fernando Pereira who was killed by French secret service saboteurs who bombed the original Rainbow Warrior in Auckland on 10 July 1985.

Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman gave an emotive speech about Pereira’s legacy being the ultimate success of the antinuclear struggle with the end of French nuclear testing in the Pacific in 1996 and the ongoing climate change campaign.

READ MORE: Rainbow Warrior tour begins tour at site of bombed predecessor

Rainbow Warrior crew, Greenpeace stalwarts and local hapu members were treated to a seafood lunch at Matauri marae.

Also launched yesterday was a new interactive documentary, Nuclear Dissent, a cautionary tale about haunting nuclear destruction, told through the lens of some of the world’s bravest activists and experts – the successful leaders of disarmament efforts from French Polynesia and New Zealand to Canada, the United States, and Greenpeace, who influenced outcomes and fought for change.

In five short video chapters available on desktop, mobile and webVR, the true story of the battle to end French nuclear weapons testing between 1966 and 1996 is told through dynamic 360º panoramas on land, afloat in the fallout zone, amid riots, and underwater, Greenpeace says in a statement.

The story is capped off with a raw assessment of where the world is today – the greatest global nuclear threats, risks and effects unpacked.

Extreme health and environmental damage to French Polynesia was caused by test nuclear explosions in the South Pacific, spreading cancerous plutonium across continents and into the food chain.

Activist persistence
Due to the persistence of activists braving the fallout zone and widespread protests and a growing nuclear free movement, the French government eventually shut down its testing programme.

More than a decade later, those affected have yet to receive justice for the intergenerational trauma inflicted on their land, their health and their resources by the French government, the Greenpeace statement said.

With historical accounts from protesters Anna Horne and Greenpeace’s David McTaggart who sailed into the test zone, expert opinions from nuclear policy analyst and Harvard professor Matthew Bunn, Dr Ira Hefland and climatologist Alan Robcock, viewers are guided through an eye-opening journey.

Alongside each chapter’s video content, 360 x-ray environments and journals filled with evidence and artifacts bring otherwise invisible details and deadly damages to light.

An interactive fallout map enabled with address entry visualises what the scope of destruction, death and injury would look like in any city, from a selection of current nuclear weapons that exist in the arsenals of the world’s most dangerous superpowers.

‘Making oil history’
Anna Horne joined Rainbow Warrior 3 yesterday as the ship prepared to sail from Matauri Bay to Auckland where Greenpeace will launch its “Making Oil History” tour of New Zealand”.

Earlier, the Rainbow Warrior had been joined by David Robie, author of Eyes of Fire about the Rongelap voyage and the bombing of the original Rainbow Warrior, and currently director of the Pacific Media Centre.

In 2015, Professor Robie and a group of student journalists combined with Little Island Press and Greenpeace to create a microsite dedicated to Rainbow Warrior and environmental activist stories and videos, Eyes of Fire: 30 Years On, as a public good resource.

Both Horne and Dr Robie are among at least 10 activists, writers and changemakers being interviewed for the new Greenpeace documentary being directed by journalist Phil Vine.

The wreath laying ceremony in memory of Fernando Pereira on board the Rainbow Warrior yesterday. Image: David Robie/Cafe Pacific

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz