28 minute read
Opinion � � � � � � � � �
From the Editor The customer is always right
Bryan Gibson Managing editor
MANY farmers have understandably not taken well to the government telling them to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so it will be interesting to see what the reaction is when the message comes from one of the big co-operatives that pays the bills.
At its recent annual meeting, Fonterra signalled an emissions target was coming for farmer-suppliers.
Now the world’s back open, Fonterra’s leaders have been visiting markets abroad and report that the subject dominating the conversation is sustainability.
Chief executive Miles Hurrell says many high-value customers have emissions reductions targets of their own and they expect suppliers to help achieve them.
It’s a message we’ve been hearing from the likes of Tesco and Nestlé for a while, but this is the fi rst concrete sign that New Zealand farms will be expected to play their part.
Hurrell says Fonterra’s banks and fi nanciers are also inquiring about the coop’s plans to decarbonise.
None of this should be news to those who’ve been watching global food production trends in recent years.
And as for the government, it will probably be quietly pleased the market appears to be synchronising with its legislative agenda.
Many commentators have pointed to China’s dominance as our biggest trading partner as a reason to be sceptical about any value that might be gained from pricing emissions.
But that might be beginning to change, for a couple of reasons.
China’s recent economic challenges have been well reported and exporters here say they’re having an effect on the value and volume of trade with our biggest partner.
But importantly, those exporters affi rm China will continue to be the key to our export success.
The World Bank reports that for the fi rst time in 30 years, China’s economic growth could be surpassed by that of other Asian countries.
A declining productive population, ongoing covid-19 lockdowns and a housing crisis have all dampened the fast pace of growth there.
The slowdown will probably be shortlived, but is a reminder that the free-trade deals recently agreed with the United Kingdom and the European Union may do more heavy lifting for our economy than previously thought.
Alliance Group says China is becoming more self-suffi cient in protein.
It also has large stocks of red meat from South America and Australia to work through.
So, our exporters are signalling that while it will remain our biggest market, China’s hunger for our food is beginning to lessen a little.
That means those other markets – the ones where Nestlé and Tesco dominate – are gaining in importance.
China’s also just announced a plan to reduce its own methane emissions and that plan includes agriculture. It’s early days, but if its growing protein industry is expected to reduce emissions, will China then expect more from those it imports from?
Back home, Fonterra says suppliers will be hearing more about the emissions target in the coming months.
Alliance, in announcing its annual results, highlighted its high-value handpicked programmes, saying all its suppliers could now “be rewarded for producing quality animals aligned to the needs of our customers across the globe”.
The signals have been coming from abroad for some time now, and exporters here are getting the message.
Now, that message has to be put into action in a way that gives farmers confi dence and assurance.
Letters of the week Is it sizzle or sausage?
Jason Barrier
Waerenga
MARVELLOUS. After three years of emissions “negotiations” and two failed plans (the industry He Waka Eke Noa 1 disaster followed by the government HWEN2 catastrophe), Federated Farmers, Beef + Lamb NZ and Dairy NZ leaders got together recently and duly announced a set of nine “agreed positions” in order to “move forward together and advocate strongly on behalf of farmers”. This is indeed welcome progress but two questions come to my mind (apart from a third obvious one, being why these “agreed positions” were not agreed to at the outset of this shambolic HWEN process, instead of being cobbled together as the fi nal whistle is about to blow).
Their agreed position number 1 states “The current methane targets are wrong and need to be reviewed”. I wholeheartedly agree. So my fi rst question is, does this mean these leaders will refuse to sign up New Zealand farmers to any agreement that uses such fl awed methane targets? Their agreed position number 9 states “We will not accept emissions leakage”, and nor should we. So my second question is: given the now widely accepted fi gure of 133% emissions leakage for NZ sheep meat (because it will be replaced by higher-carbon sheep meat from foreign competitors) will our industry leaders now also refuse to sign up to any agreement that models any likely reduction in sheep and beef farming?
It remains to be seen whether this lastminute epiphany of principles is a genuine attempt from our industry leadership to go back to the drawing board and rewrite HWEN so that it becomes more palatable or whether it is yet another disingenuous PR exercise, an attempt to defuse farmer anger, which is becoming more palpable.
I look forward to seeing submissions from these three organisations which demonstrate they are unwilling to agree to any proposal that cuts across these principles. Full stop. This will expose whether the latest show of “unity” from Messrs Andrew Morrison, Andrew Hoggard and Jim van der Poel is “sizzle or sausage”. Let’s hope for the sausage.
Best letter WINS a quality hiking knife
Send your letter to the Editor at Farmers Weekly P.0. Box 529, Feilding or email us at
farmers.weekly@agrihq.co.nz
Follow us
Be a part of NZ’s biggest agricultural community and help create a better future
In my view ...
United stance vital on farm gas pricing
Jim van der Poel
Chair of DairyNZ
WHEN the primary sector took on the challenge of an emissions pricing alternative, there was a clear goal – to secure the best possible system for farmers and the climate.
In 2019 the government legislated to put agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). We believed that was a poor option for the primary sector and for New Zealand.
We approached the government to have the option to come up with a better proposal that was fairer, more practicable for farmers and would deliver better outcomes.
What followed was significant discussion between sector partners to secure that alternative, which would keep the primary sector out of the costly ETS. That sector proposal, He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN), remains the best option in our view, and DairyNZ puts its weight behind it.
In our view the government, in response to our proposal, has made significant changes to HWEN that have undermined farmer confidence and potentially put the finely balanced crosssector consensus at risk.
We do not accept that these significant changes by the government are necessary, and believe they cut to the core of the HWEN partnership.
I’ve heard from many farmers in recent weeks who are frustrated and seeking clarity on what the government’s proposal might mean for them. They’re worried this will have significant implications for their families, their businesses and their communities.
They’re also worried about the future of farming in NZ.
As a farmer, I share these concerns. The last thing anyone wants to do is lock in a system that we aren’t prepared to live with.
So, with our original goal in mind – to secure the best solution for farmers – we continue to work alongside our partners to secure the right outcomes.
DairyNZ will never accept a system that threatens the viability of farming businesses and rural communities in NZ. There are some key differences to address before we can land that acceptable system.
The government’s changes significantly tipped the balance of what we view as an effective emissions pricing solution.
The government’s proposal differs from the HWEN recommendations in seven ways.
Governance
It removes sector influence over price-setting and governance. The agriculture sector and farmers should be more than just consulted on price-setting and the re-investment of the levy back into the agriculture sector. We believe that by the sector being involved in that process we will get better and fairer outcomes.
Sequestration
The government’s proposal slashed the sequestration categories, reducing the recognition and reward farmers will get for on-farm planting. Sequestration benefits deliver greater resilience to price. Like many farmers, I’ve got wetlands, shelter belts and other planting, and believe they should be counted if possible. The principle we believe is that if farmers are paying for their emissions, they should also be recognised for their plantings.
Pricing
Under the government’s proposal, ministers will set the methane price, based on advice from the Climate Change Commission. That price will be solely determined by legislated targets – failing to account for socio-economic impacts, technology availability and emissions leakage.
Potential yearly pricing for methane and nitrous oxide (linked to the ETS) will create added uncertainty for farmers.
Levy revenue
The emissions pricing system the government has proposed creates surplus levy money. Farmers should not have to pay more than is necessary to make change and fund incentives. Farmers have little say in what the levy re-investment will look like.
FRUSTRATED: DairyNZ chair Jim van der Poel says the significant changes the government has proposed undermine farmer confidence in He Waka Eke Noa.
The government, in response to our proposal, has made significant changes to He Waka Eke Noa that have undermined farmer confidence.
Government delivery
A processor level levy is a backup plan should the government fail to deliver a farm-level levy in time. This creates more uncertainty for farmers and removes accountability from the government to deliver the farmerfacing levy. The agriculture sector has no say over whether the backup option is used.
Nitrogen fertiliser
The government has proposed two methods for pricing emissions from nitrogen fertiliser – through the ETS with a price factored into the cost of product, or as part of the farm levy. The price would be the same in both options. Money raised from pricing synthetic nitrogen through the ETS would not be re-invested into the agriculture sector, and that’s a missed opportunity.
Collectives
The government’s proposal also means farm collectives will initially only be available for Māori agribusinesses. Other collective reporting will be explored in the future. This reduces the ability to streamline farm businesses in relation to emissions reductions and pricing.
Primary sector partners have signaled a united determination to advocate strongly for farmers on emissions pricing.
Recently, the leaders of DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb New Zealand (BLNZ) and Federated Farmers met to discuss emissions pricing and re-affirm common positions between the three organisations, to enable them to move forward together and advocate strongly on behalf of farmers.
All three organisations have reaffirmed nine core principles that we will all be raising directly in our submissions and through the HWEN partnership on farmers’ behalf.
The nine principles include addressing the current methane targets, the methane price being set at the minimum required level and to give farmers certainty, levy relief options, incentivising farmers to update technology and adopt practices that will reduce emissions, and counting all sequestration that can be measured and is additive.
A united voice on emissions pricing is the best way to ensure positive policy outcomes for farmers.
Got a view on some aspect of farming you would like to get across? We offer readers the chance to have their say. Contact us and have yours.
farmers.weekly@agrihq.co.nz Phone 06 323 1519
Letters of the week
Continued from page 20
Let’s not ignore the detail
Julian Price
Oamaru
every sheep, cow and deer, they can damn well count every tree.
Trish’s assertion that the government’s proposed methane reduction targets are “hardly unfair” is baseless.
Perhaps 80% of New Zealanders really do want “stronger measures introduced ... to address the worsening climate crisis”.
I wonder if these same individuals have stopped buying cheap throwaway crap, stopped flying and are reducing their fossil fuel use? Yeah, thought not.
New Zealand agriculture has for years been looking for ways to reduce ruminant methane output, albeit with limited success.
The government proposal 20 years ago, being a blunt “per kg of product” tax, would have penalised the most efficient producers quite unreasonably. Trish says “agriculture’s ... 20-year refusal ... has not benefited the sector”. Well clearly it has. We have kept a lot more of our hard-earned money, thanks.
As for our contribution to the climate crisis, NZ’s total emissions amount to 0.0017 of world emissions.
We do not, and cannot, significantly change the climate with our NZ emissions.
If NZ can devise and promulgate ways to reduce GHG emissions without knackering our economy, that would be significant, however.
Trish is also wrong on the purpose of our BLNZ representatives.
They are elected to represent the best interests of their farmer levy payers.
I look forward in hope to a time when they do just that.
Farmers unite and speak out
Grant Andrews
in farmer magazines of people and organisations trying to appease the government on the emissions debacle, the Farmers Weekly of November 7 has more of a united, desperate attack against this tax than I have seen before.
These politicians need to remember who they work for and who actually earns the funds that they abuse. Every single day we hear of expenditure that is unbelievable.
Wait till we get closer to the election and you will see the lid come off the cookie jar. Farmers unite and tell your employees what you propose about methane reduction.
Pulling together over emissions proposals
Alternative view
Alan Emerson
Semi-retired Wairarapa farmer and businessman: dath.emerson@gmail.com
IWAS pleased to receive two emails recently. One was from Federated Farmers, the other from Beef + Lamb NZ (BLNZ).
The emails contained a joint statement from Federated Farmers, BLNZ and Dairy NZ on the government’s emissions pricing proposals.
I was pleased because, as I’ve often said, we all need to pull together. In the past that hasn’t happened. I’m rapt it is happening now.
The email started by telling me that “a united voice on emissions pricing is the best way to ensure positive policy outcomes for farmers”.
I totally agree.
There are nine points that the presidents or chairs have agreed on. They are well thought out, thoroughly researched and succinct.
The first, leading from the front, is that “the current methane targets are wrong and need to be reviewed. Any target should be science based, not political, and look to prevent additional warming”.
That says it all for me. The current methane targets are wrong and the amount of confusion and ignorance from the various Wellington brains trusts is astounding.
Having methane reduction targets that are science based is an absolute no-brainer for me. Putting politics ahead of science is incredibly stupid when it comes to our major export earner.
That the target looks to prevent additional warming is, in my view, a complete no-brainer and a further indictment of the ecowarriors in Wellington.
It’s important to acknowledge that the journey to this point has been fraught.
It started with Climate Change Minister James Shaw telling farmers they needed to produce a workable solution to emissions or they would be included in the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Whether he would have or not, who knows? It could still happen, but if it did I believe it would make New Zealand a laughing stock internationally.
He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) was then formed and after much consultation delivered a report to Shaw. The government responded, not acceptably according to the industry.
The entire issue was complicated by those farmers who didn’t accept that agricultural emissions should be taxed at all. That was the view of Groundswell, which had one highly successful protest nationally, and one less so.
The reality is that if any government decides to do something they can if they have the numbers whether people like it or not. Take Three Waters as an example.
Going forward from here we have the united position as expressed in the nine points.
On the vexed question of sequestration, the group’s position is that “all sequestration that can be measured and is additive should be counted”. They stand by the initiatives put forward in the HWEN submission.
It’s a position I feel strongly about. We have the technology now to register small plots and shelter belts. The requirements of the ETS regarding woodlots is, I’d suggest, largely irrelevant when it comes to on-farm sequestration.
There’s much discussion on the pricing system and again I support the position that the group has taken.
They believe that the methane price should be set for a fiveyear term at the minimum level needed. That the revenue must be ring-fenced and only be used for the administration of the system, R&D, or go back to farmers as incentives. Administration costs should be minimised.
The price should be set by the minister on the advice of an independent board appointed by the HWEN partners.
That “the system must incentivise farmers to uptake technology and adopt good farming practices that will reduce global emissions”.
Those points are difficult to argue with. They are well thought out and rational. As important when dealing with politicians is that they are non-confrontational.
The other issues include farmers being able to form collectives to measure, manage and report emissions which makes good sense and reduces some of the bureaucratic excesses that are increasingly making farming difficult.
All sane and sensible stuff.
What will be interesting is to see what the government does from here. Will it stick with its current plan with an annual loss in export earnings estimated at $5 billion or talk with the farming representatives?
The government will be well aware of the research showing the public doesn’t believe farm emissions should be taxed. Feds’ research predictably shows the majority of farmers don’t want that either, so what is the government going to achieve by maintaining its current position?
As Keith Woodford pointed out in a recent Farmers Weekly, the rumen has taken thousands of years to develop to its current state. It can’t be modified.
We can breed for lower-emitting animals but that won’t happen tomorrow. We can import GE grass that lowers emissions and that could happen now.
It’s going to be interesting, but congratulations to the heads of Feds, BLNZ and Dairy NZ for getting together to produce a united and credible document.
Long may that continue.
NEW BREED: New Zealand can breed animals that emit less, but that will take some time.
Baby No 8 billion is in the crowded house
From the ridge
Steve Wyn-Harris
Central Hawke’s Bay sheep and beef farmer: swyn@xtra.co.nz
DID you have a baby last week?
You did? Congratulations, he or she may well have been the eightbillionth human on the planet.
I’m writing this on the evening when that eight-billionth person is expected to arrive.
Another two souls are being added to the count every second.
Though how the United Nation’s statisticians and census takers can be so sure has me suspicious, given our own shambles of a census a few years ago.
There’s a lot of us, all the same, and that is the cause of so many of the planet’s problems.
Global warming, climate change, environmental destruction, species extinction, wars for territory and resources, widening gulfs between rich and poor and an ironic shortage of CO2 for beer production are all symptoms of our sheer numbers.
The biggest problem, outweighing all others, is that we are consuming more resources than this small planet can sustain.
I was born in 1959, so towards the end of the baby boomer generation.
That year, the three-billionth person turned up. It might even have been me.
So, another staggering five billion have arrived just within my lifetime of 63 years.
Thirty-two years before my birth, 1927 was the two-billion mark and you must go back a further 123 years to 1804 when there were finally one billion humans wandering around.
Modern humans or Homo sapiens evolved in Africa 300,000 years ago, so it took all that time to get to that first billion.
However, as a species we nearly became extinct some 72,000 years ago when a super massive volcano on Sumatra, called Toba, ejected so much material into the atmosphere that a planet already in the grip of an ice age cooled further for a number of years.
Those distant ancestors froze and starved to death and genetic studies of mitochondrial DNA show that less than 1000 reproductive adults struggled pitifully to survive in small groups and just hung on until things improved. There wouldn’t have been much joy or celebration during those grim years.
It took thousands of years for the human population to recover to get into the Stone Age.
The exponential growth over the past 100 years has been because of rapid advances in science and technology.
Vaccination and antibiotics have seen a massive drop in infant mortality, and knowledge about how to control diseases to prevent death has had a substantial impact. And of course, improved nutrition because of modern farming being able to produce copious amounts of quality food.
Our life expectancy has doubled, which has added four billion souls to the current count alone.
If you are worried about how we can all fit onto this small planet, I’d like to reassure you with this fact: Stewart Island is nearly two billion square metres, so we could all fit down there if you didn’t mind sharing your square metre with three others.
The good news is that the human population growth rate is slowing.
We have already hit peak child. There will never be more children alive in the future than there are now.
Fertility rates are dropping, resources are becoming scarcer and farmland is being gobbled up by cities, pine trees and the like so food supply will become limiting.
This means during the decades ahead the population is going to become increasingly older with fewer young people to do the work and pay the taxes.
The Millennials really do have a case to complain about.
Look at China’s current demographics and difficulties brought on by the one child policy to curb population and that is like what we are heading towards eventually.
It’s my guess that this pandemic is a portent of more to come and they could likely be more deadly. Large mobile populations as we have now are perfect for viral transmission.
However, modelling suggests that despite the rate of increase declining, the human population could still get to 10 billion by later this century and then begin declining.
This is going to continue to put a great deal of pressure on this small planet that is our only home.
Communications failure on emissions
Meaty matters
Allan Barber
Meat industry commentator: allan@barberstrategic.co.nz, http:// allanbarber.wordpress.com
THE government’s response to the agricultural sector’s He Waka Eke Noa proposals and the sector’s shocked reaction to that response suggest two parties with completely different expectations of each other. Despite both sides apparently pursuing similar objectives, they seem to have a diametrically opposed agenda. The government is driven by an ideological desire to be seen to be meeting its ethical obligation to achieve maximum reduction of greenhouse gases whatever the cost, whereas the primary sector has a more pragmatic wish to ensure its survival while striving to operate more sustainably.
The insensitive tone of the government’s reply which ignored the importance of key elements of the proposals – notably sequestration, pricing and oversight – has angered many farmers to the point where it has lost much of its dwindling support from the sector.
Agriculture minister Damien O’Connor admits there has been a ‘communication miscue’ on both sides. He persists in his belief there is not much difference between the respective positions and is optimistic a mutually acceptable solution can still be reached. He maintains the tight time-frame has been driven by the legislative requirement to respond to the sector’s feedback by December 31, having allowed HWEN additional time for consultation.
He also considers the government has shown confidence in the sector by not interfering in the HWEN decision making process. He concedes it will be necessary to continue into the New Year with more work needed on sequestration and emissions price setting.
National Party spokesperson Todd Muller finds it remarkable the government did not accept the HWEN recommendations as a starting point before working together to achieve enhancements to more problematic aspects of the scheme, such as accounting for sequestration and emissions pricing.
According to Muller, the government’s approach to on-farm sequestration is ‘bizarre’; National would agree to the HWEN proposal on sequestration while remaining agnostic on the technologies used for the purpose. He is also adamant the government is too risk averse in adopting new technology, as change has to strike the right balance between risk and reward.
Leaders of DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb NZ and Federated Farmers last week issued a joint sector statement on Agricultural Emissions Pricing which established a common position between the three organisations from which they can move forward together and advocate strongly on behalf of farmers. The statement contains nine core principles which are consistent with the sector’s position from the start to be raised with the government. This should make it clear it is not just a ‘communication miscue’, but a dramatic failure to recognise the importance of actually listening to and understanding the people who will suffer directly from the impact of misguided, ‘we know best’ ideological and top down thinking.
These core principles state: the methane targets are wrong and should be science-based, the methane price should be set at the minimum level needed and fixed for five years, levy revenue must only be applied to R&D and system administration or returned to farmers, price to be set by the minister on advice from an oversight board appointed by HWEN partners, the system must incentivise farmers to adopt technology and farming practices that reduce emissions, all sequestration that can be measured should be offset against emissions, and farmers should be allowed to form collectives to measure, manage and report their emissions efficiently; finally emissions leakage is not acceptable and farmers without access to sequestration or mitigations should be allowed to apply for temporary levy relief if their business viability is threatened.
It may be idealistic to expect ministers to accede to every one of these principles, but at the very least it ought to be possible to agree on the logical need for the methane price to be set using the correct science and the levies to be applied only to the original intended purpose, while failing to account for sequestration offsets on the grounds of complexity is a very lame excuse for avoiding a moral obligation.
Rob Hewett, chairman of Silver Fern Farm Cooperative, has sent a note to its members advising them to breathe through their noses, recognising the inevitability of change and working with not against it.
He cites the obligation to take action to reduce emissions, acknowledgement the consumer has the last word and the opportunity to embrace technology to bring about change, including developing the IP to solve biogenic emissions. He even suggests developments over the next 25 years may make it unnecessary to reduce stock numbers, although this begs the question what happens before then. In the meantime he emphasises the importance of continuing to have a seat at the table in discussions with government and to be part of the agreed solution.
Hewett’s more measured advice reminds farmers they have been through watershed moments before, including droughts, floods and the abolition of subsidies, and in 30 years’ time this will be no different. But whereas the sudden removal of subsidies was an immediate economic imperative which was difficult to disprove, this debate is more nuanced. There is general acceptance of climate change and the harmful effect of GHGs, but many of the arguments hinge on the accuracy of the science, data modelling, and opinions and conclusions of politicians and experts who may or may not have considered all the facts.
That is what makes it essential for the HWEN partners to present a united front to the government to argue for an outcome which will satisfy social, economic and environmental goals without destroying the primary sector’s ability to contribute to New Zealand’s prosperity and way of life.
No benefits in a divided New Zealand
Straight talking
Cameron Bagrie
Managing director of Bagrie Economics and a shareholder and director of Chaperon
ADIVIDED country is an unhealthy country, both economically and socially. We have record low unemployment but huge demand for school lunches and food parcels, and families struggling to make ends meet. Crime/law and order is a major problem.
Both the economic and social ledger are unbalanced and pushing boundaries.
Measures of unsustainability such as inflation and the current account deficit are flashing red.
We need real leadership, not populism driven leadership out of this mess. There should be some things we can agree on across the political divide.
The first is the importance of containing inflation, the thief that is literally throttling households and businesses. Inflation is an imbalance between supply and demand, or too much money chasing too few goods. We either get supply up (our economic capacity) or demand takes a bigger bludgeoning.
Policies aimed at stimulating supply (immigration settings, childcare support, boosting competition, lowering compliance costs) need turbocharged. The alternative is a bigger bludgeoning of demand and the economy.
The second is the importance of education. Education today defines the economy in 30 years. The school kids of today are the business owners and leaders of tomorrow. We are in trouble if you look at attendance and achievement. So, when it comes to prospects of a tax cut or ploughing money into education, I’ll take the latter.
The third is putting people back to the epicentre of what we do.
When I first joined the National Bank of New Zealand in 1999, Sir John Anderson told us to look after the staff because they looked after the customer and if the customer is looked after, the bank will make money. It did. Customer satisfaction scores were looked at before financial results.
The pecking order was people, customer, and shareholder. That order got flipped with the shareholder placed at the top of the pile and shareholder capitalism ruled.
Stakeholder capitalism now rules. That is a fancy name for being community connected, thinking more about sustainability et al. What it really personifies is just getting back to the basics of looking after people.
The fourth is stamping out short-termism. Short-termism is a plague that needs eliminated. New Zealand embraces some longterm challenges (climate change) but ignore others such as the fiscal cost of an aging population. Election cycles drive decisions.
The fifth is the importance of time. Time is incredibly valuable. But without your health, time is worthless. So, we need to fix the health system.
The sixth is economics 101 - well-being needs an economic base.
New Zealand’s economic base is being eroded. Export of goods volumes are below 2019 levels. New Zealand’s pastoral base is being eroded.
Trees are taking out productive land. We need to be aggressively unlocking growth opportunities to fill growth voids. That is not occurring.
Productivity sits at the epicentre of the economic base and within that is the quality of infrastructure. Potholes around the country on our roads are not just a problem, they are becoming a national disgrace.
The seventh is collective responsibility. The environment is one issue of our age. The question is increasingly what are YOU going to do about it.
New Zealand cannot turn the dial on global emissions, but we are prepared to do our part as global citizens.
Farmers are under the spotlight, but the townie conversations are light. Imagine if households had the equivalent of a farm environment plan? Urban issues go beyond transport.
Urban issues include effluent disposal (those things we flush that we shouldn’t), rubbish disposal including fatbergs (drips of fat down the drain), urban water use rates, and heavy metals in waterways via copper brake-pads, spouting and zinc roofing.
Other household environmental issues include the use of water, use of household chemicals and cleaners, pesticides (spraying for garden bugs, spiders and flies), fertilisers and not washing your car on the driveway or hosing it off into the gutter (think of the gutter as the farmers’ stream).
The eight is execution and delivering results. You need the right people using data to make informed decisions so outcomes have a better probability of being successful. The era of sugar candy economics and just throwing money around is over. Now we need substance. The former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom learnt that in a savage fashion.
The ninth is the playing field. It is not level. Everyone in life does not get the same start. Proactive policies are needed to address it.
There are lots of other issues we need to address.
The above list are just some things we should be able to get some sort of a consensus on. Then the challenge is to write a policy prescription around them.
The views expressed in this article do not represent financial advice.
