Climate risks and forestry re-think

Rural News / analysis

Guy Trafford reviews the latest grim IPCC climate assessment, along with watching highlights of throwback farm management, Government minister's backflips, and the risks of maladaption

4th Mar 22, 8:51am by Guy Trafford

The latest IPCC report on the state of climate change has just been released. It provides little new that has not already been said, after all, there is a limit to how differently you can reframe things over time. However, the main message I picked up on was the increasing ‘degrees of confidence’ that scientists have on; a) that climate change is increased by human activities and b) that the temperature increase will exceed +1.5c by early 2030’s (currently up +1.09c) and unless some major reductions occur, it will continue higher and with more extreme impacts.

Closer to home, given that legislation is being enacted to reduce New Zealand’s emissions and that the end of the pandemic is in sight (I hope I’m not being unrealistic here) the focus is definitely shifting to mitigation against the effects of climate change.

The future planning of Westport is at the forefront of this. With discussions even going as far as ‘moving’ the town, although local MP Damien O’Connor believes a sea wall will be sufficient.

The record flooding being seen on the Australian eastern seaboard is another close example of future trends.

So, it was with this as a backdrop I was somewhat surprised at the content of the most recent “Country Calendar” programme screening on TV1. A must watch for many rural and urban families alike and a programme that is an institution in New Zealand as the longest running local programme. However, while it has been a show case of innovative and sustainable farms and practises in the past, last week I felt they were out of step with society.

Ten to twenty years ago, what was shown would not have raised an eyebrow but I couldn’t help but feel this week they had it wrong. It started with showing large mobs of lambs being docked, arguably necessary but not something farming’s livestock image really needs to advertise. It then followed on with the use of a spray and burn programme to rid part of the farm of wilding pines. It certainly was effective in clearing the block of exotic and native plants alike and no doubt the local council had provided them with the necessary fire permits, but the image it conveyed to many who saw it was just how removed from the realities that many in society see some farmers are.

Judging by some of the Facebook comments there some who still enjoy seeing these practices taking place but from where I stand, not a good look and it is no wonder farming comes under so much criticism. I hope these farmers are not next shown with chronic erosion problems when the next weather bomb hits as the result of the scorched earth policy was a very exposed landscape.

A current irony is that the land burnt would probably have been more profitable as a carbon sink.

But with the latest potential changes to the ETS which may exclude exotic forestry from being able to join the ETS in 2023 it will create a major rethink for land investors. While not a certainty as yet, the government via Minister of Forestry has said “We are now proposing to exclude exotic species from the permanent forest category…. We want to encourage the right tree, in the right place, for the right reason. We intend to balance the need for afforestation with wider needs of local communities, regional economies, and the environment”.

This is quite a turn around for the government and is a reflection of what many farmers has been telling them (loudly) for some time.

A discussion document has been released and further public feed back sought. The biggest issue as I see will be the potential impact upon those investors who have already set up carbon farms (regardless of what they call them) based upon radiata plantings. Perhaps making the news rule time bound to this announcement may be a fair way to proceed.

Reading the summary statement while the use of ‘good’ land may be part of the motivation to bring about this change, the downward pressure on the price of carbon has also played a major part.

Regardless of the motivations the end result, assuming it goes ahead, will help put a smile on the face of many in rural communities. I must also admit to having said that I was highly sceptical that the government could respond in a timely fashion. In this case I was absolutely wrong. However, it does create a bit of a problem for how New Zealand is going to balance its emissions in the future. Purchasing credits from overseas is as equally unsavoury as permanent pine forests.

A thought that occurred to me while re-watching the Country Calendar programme discussed earlier was, at some time in the future will those who disregard adding to the emissions profile be treated in a similar way as the anti-vax brigade have been through the pandemic. Good people who buck against societies rules, especially rules that are there to protect the majority may do so at some peril.

Bronwyn Hayward, a political scientist and New Zealand’s representative on the IPCC panel made the comment on the ‘Tonight Show’ (RNZ); that a child born today would before they turned 80 see more than 4 times the rate of adverse climate events than what we are seeing today. Makes you think. I also learnt a new word reading the report “Maladaption”, worth looking up.

P2 Steer

Select chart tabs

Source: refer to schedule page

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

50 Comments

by PineTreez | 4th Mar 22, 9:40am 1646340032

Excellent article, thank you.

This pandering to farmers (and the perpetually myopic and idealistic Greenies) will come at an increased cost to the whole of NZ once we eventually fail to meet our carbon commitments from credits generated from within NZ... a situation that seems inevitable for NZ (even if we contiue with pines), and practically all developed countries unless we have a major development in green energy generation (and maybe storage to go with it).

Once the time comes to buy foreign sourced credits we will find ourselves bidding against many other countries, all competing for a pool of credits that is too small to meet the global need. Read that as skyrocketing prices, or otherwise high financial penalties (paid to whom though?).

Pines would at least push that date for NZ to a bit further down the timeline.

by Palmtree08 | 5th Mar 22, 9:51am 1646427079

Or, we could cut emissions, the ultimate objective of all these smoke and mirrors initiatives.

by dafarmer | 4th Mar 22, 10:23am 1646342594

I am a farmer and also have investments investment in carbon and production forestry.

in terms of carbon forestry I believe as a policy it fails.

I see people in our small town with little ability to change their consumption behaviour to not pay ETS through fuel, food.

As a investor in carbon forests I want to maximise my return.

I am not motivated to invest in smart technology to reduce C.

The forest will eventually reach maturity. Abandoned, a fire risk for future generations.

Is it not better to be more innovative than that to get to zero carbon.

I don’t believe this is a legacy we can be proud of.

We’re closing town rural communities, community which are core to our culture

with the potential food crisis coming our way with the Ukrainian situation. With Russia being the largest supplier of nitrogen fertiliser and the largest suppliers of grain.

maybe why India abstained at UN.

I think NZ should concentrate on being the most efficient producer of food in terms of GHG/kg protein

by Hans Brink | 4th Mar 22, 10:46am 1646343984

There is plenty of unsustainable hillcountry in remote areas that produce very little. To retire this type of land is the right thing to do.

As I have said before, there needs to be parameters set around what can be planted. Also those areas that can be planted and are also harvestable should be production forest. That still leaves ample room for exotic permanent forest in areas where native will eventually come thru.

by Uninterested | 4th Mar 22, 11:34am 1646346854

In my view wilding pines are a good thing on steep hillsides around Otago and Southland. They look great and absorb carbon at a huge rate. Leave them there is my view. Stop wasting money on eradicating them. And let the landowners gain financially from selling the credits of these trees.

Plant natives on other sites if you wish.

If you really really wanted carbon to be absorbed. This is what you would do.

I am well aware that I am not PC.

by Palmtree08 | 5th Mar 22, 9:56am 1646427376

Wildings look great? Wildings exterminate native ecosystems with a monoculture of explosively flammable material.

by Chris Morris | 4th Mar 22, 10:40am 1646343653

How much of the flooding is due to climate change, and how much is inept local government management of catchments. Remember when they used to clear vegetation and material out of water channels, or dredge the mouth of the Buller. They don't do that any more. Look at all the willows and gravel buildup in the Ashburton river. The last big flood in Brisbane was because the held water back in the headwaters dam until it near overtopped. This was because they were told it was droughts were the main risk. The lists go on.

Local governments use Green dictates to stop doing the work they are supposed to be there for and blame climate change for the inevitable consequences.

by solardb | 4th Mar 22, 12:37pm 1646350630

The reason they don't "straighten /clean " rivers anymore is because it was proven to make things worse , not better. i attended talks on this back in the 90's. a river naturally meanders, and the bends reduce the damage , not increase it . It is because rivers have been restricted to narrow channels that floods have been made worst .Also we like to build near rivers/ beaches, and then wonder why we have towns flooding . why on earth they rebuilt houes in Westport at the same floor level is beyond me . They should have been elevated at least .

to my mind , the logical thing to do on the west coast is to dam the headwaters , and divert it over the alps to the East. this could be tied into pumped hydro storage , and kill 3 birds with one stone.

by Hamish | 4th Mar 22, 2:15pm 1646356501

Wouldn't the energy returned on the Eastern side just match the energy required to push the water over from the Western side?

by solardb | 4th Mar 22, 2:24pm 1646357053

Some of it , but that is with any pumped storage. But i am meaning to so it up in the Alps , so you have the fall down the Alps to the plains on the Eastern side . Ideally pump to the existing hydro dam lakes on the eastern side.

by Chris Morris | 4th Mar 22, 7:27pm 1646375245

I never wrote straighten and your definition of clean is not mine. There is a big difference between the normal river channels and the flood plain. There shouldn't be development on the flood plain (unlike Brisbane) and vegetation should be managed.

On the Buller, there was no flooding at Murchison or even Lyell. Westport flooded because the bar was too shallow.

As to your suggestion of pumping water, physics and energy efficiency isn't your strong point is it.

by solardb | 4th Mar 22, 8:47pm 1646380052

My customers with successful hydro systems over the last 22 years might beg to differ. I suspect you are aware of the efficiency and physics of pumped hydro storage, but choose to ignore it for the sake of an argument. Or the govt is wasting a lot of money studying it.

by Chris Morris | 4th Mar 22, 9:17pm 1646381850

I read what you wrote. pumping from water collection points on the west coast to existing hydro lakes on the east. The highest lake is Tekapo about 800m elevation. The lowest pass through the mountains at the head of it are over 2000m. To get a sensible water collection point, you would need to bulldoze a road up probably the Whataroa that is probably 100m elevation and extend your grid from Greymouth down to your collection point. Then you need to build the pipelines over the hills, probably 4-5m diameter. How are you going to get the pipework in place and anchor it to meet earthquake codes? Or are you going to tunnel under glaciers through shattered greywacke? Then your pumping using about 100 bar pumps so well above Francis turbine capability with generation at discharge point only gets back 80% of the power you put in.

Or are you going to go through the Haast Pass to get it to Hawea where there is a lot less potential in GWh/CMDs?

by solardb | 4th Mar 22, 10:50pm 1646387413

Thanks for considering what i wrote.

First i would explain my proposal. in general terms , without getting`into specific locations. generally pumped hydro storage uses off peak power (often nuclear ) to pump water to a storage area , to then generate power at peak times. There is a net loss., probably around 30 %. The govt is proposing to pump water up to Lake Onslow , and only release it in dry years , also at a net loss , but saving carbon units in a dry year , assuming the alternative is to burn fossil fuels.

Most of the West coast rivers have been deemed not suitable for hydro production , and there is a low demand for extra electricity on the West Coast. most West Coast rivers are fairly short , rise rapidly due to steep catchment areas in a high rainfall area. They can generally handle the extra flow , except in high rainfall events.I am assuming that taking 10 -20 % of the flow in the headwaters , would make a difference when there is a extra high flow , reducing damage.The premise is to take water at say 500 metres, pump it over a pass of say 1000 metres, to a dam at 500 metres , at the top of a river with hydro generation. Assuming this is 50 % efficient , you end up with a net head of 250 metres. But plus 50% is better than minus 30% of normal pumped storage. Plus the possible benefits of some flood mitigation , and irrigation water for the East coast.

by Chris Morris | 5th Mar 22, 7:29am 1646418592

I know how pumped storage works, almost certainly more than you do. I actually went to Dinorwic to see the station just after it was commissioned. I also know the capital and operating costs of hydros. They are a lot more expensive than people think. Power Divn of MWD actually looked at the issue when we were looking at building nukes at Kaipara South Head. Their judgement still holds.

When you can provide an actually costed out scheme giving location and flows, then you might be seen as credible. Talking in general terms about the principles is not. Onslow is not viable as a going concern - it is a dog and the government is just wasting money trying to hide this while the incompetent Minister can pretend she is doing something.

by solardb | 5th Mar 22, 8:10am 1646421053

I know you have a history in electrical engineering from your previous in posts. I was describing it for other readers.

I have a day job and a young family, otherwise I would love to spend time giving the govt some guidance on these matters,:-) .

by Uninterested | 5th Mar 22, 12:23pm 1646436185

I agreed that Onslow would be a huge loss making project. NZ needs a surplus of "must run" electricity for it to make sense. It does not have a surplus of such renewables and will have even less when electric cars/ buses etc start selling in numbers.

by Chris Morris | 5th Mar 22, 5:19pm 1646453956

For the forseeable future, electric cars are coal powered because that is the marginal supplier for the extra demand. And it is expensive generation, both because the price of coal has doubled (from the non-supply of Russian gas and increased demand in China) and the carbon charges are on top of that.

Right now, coal is producing twice as much power as wind, with wind's load factor only 6%

by keithwoodford | 14th Mar 22, 10:21am 1647206479

Chris,

Tekapo is approximately 720 metres. That 80 metres difference is significant. But still lots of lift required tog et the water into Lake Tekapo from the West Coast

However, the real opportunity of large scale would be putting a modest dam in the Landsborough for offtake and tunneling through to just above Lake Ohau.

Norman Hardie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Hardie) was both a hydro engineer and an early explorer of the Landsborough mountains in the 1940s and on occasions I talked to him about it. Norman died in 2017 aged 92. The Landsborough runs parallel to the Southern Alps and carries a very large quantity of water. The offtake on the West Coast side would need to be about 550 metres altitude. Lake Ohau is 520 metres. Although it would be a massive task, the barriers are political rather than engineering. It would have minimal effect on the Landsborough itself.

KeithW

by nigelh | 4th Mar 22, 10:42am 1646343757

Don't get suckered in by the UN's IPCC. The UN is a poltical organisation with its attendent risks to scientists. IPCC AR6 WG2 Release. I'll quote someone who has reviewed the document.

"...... WG2 report is that it is an exceedingly poor assessment. The first observation is that the report is more heavily weighted to implausible scenarios than any previous IPCC assessment report

In particular, RCP8.5 represents ~57% of scenario mentions

This alone accounts for the apocalyptic tone and conclusions throughout the report.

Remarkably, RCP8.5 is characterized in the report as a "business as usual" future, and RCP4.5 is a "low emissions future"

In actual reality, RCP4.5 is currently thought of as an upper bound trajectory under current or stated policies & RCP8.5 is implausible.

WG2 is not ignorant of the debate over implausible scenarios, but they chose to ignore almost all of the relevant literature

Instead they quote the widely discredited & COIed Schwalm paper to justify emphasizing RCP8.5 & some hand-waving about C cycle feedbacks

Embarrassing."

by linklater01 | 4th Mar 22, 12:05pm 1646348722

nigelh,

"The UN is a poltical organisation with its attendent risks to scientists". I would be interested to know what that means.

Does it mean that-in your opinion-the UN has distorted what the scientists have said? Does it mean that-in your opinion- the scientists have distorted the 'true' picture?

If the latter, what is the true picture of climate change?

by nigelh | 4th Mar 22, 12:27pm 1646350038

Some scientists have come up with what they believe to be the true picture but it is distorted and this has been fed into the ICC report. In any event there is no true picture of climate change yet. The science is not done and dusted.

by linklater01 | 6th Mar 22, 2:35pm 1646530501

nigelh,

Some scientists have come up with what they believe to be the true picture but it is distorted. What does that mean. Is this 'distortion' deliberate and if so by whom? With what agenda?

You say that the science is not done and dusted. if by that you mean that not all aspects of the global climate are well understood- fine. No serious scientist would disgree. However, if you are implying that a great deal is not well understood, then you are incorrect. The way the greenhouse gases operate in the atmosphere has been known for a long time; as far back the findings of the Irish scientist Tyndall in the mid 19th century. Then came the Stefan-Boltzman and Wein radiation laws and the work of the Swedish chemist and Nobel prize winner, Svante Arhennius.

We now have the iconic Keeling Curve. We know with certainty how solar radiation reaches us and how much is reradiated back towards space. I could go on at length.

by King of the whiners | 4th Mar 22, 12:07pm 1646348852

I note this website's editors were all for culling some of the strident anti-vax rubbish that started to dominate the chat below the line on the basis that it was anti-science nonsense. Is it too much to ask that they apply the same standards to climate change denialism? The scientific consensus on man made climate change is at the same level as that for the efficacy of vaccines - so deal with the denialists the same way........

by Hamish | 4th Mar 22, 12:31pm 1646350266

What is scientific consensus anyway?

Any scientist who claims that 'the science is settled' isn't a scientist.

by solardb | 4th Mar 22, 3:50pm 1646362231

No scientist would ever utter 100%. But the overwhelming majority are in consensus of the changes ahead.

The scary part is the unknown , just how nature reacts to an extra .5 degrees or whatever. NZ , with its slowly evolved isolated specialist species is at risk here.

by SimonP | 4th Mar 22, 12:22pm 1646349776

RCP8.5 is the 'what would happen if greenhouse gas emissions continue increasing at the same rate' scenario. It's unlikely to happen because countries have taken note of earlier IPCC reports and are actively attempting to scale back emissions.

by profile | 4th Mar 22, 2:48pm 1646358536

Nonsense RCP8.5 is not emission increasing at the same rate. I struggle to believe you don't know that. RCP8.5 relies on a vast 6.5x per capita increase in coal consumption, no mitigation and no technical innovation between now and 2100. It is the scenario used by climate shysters when they want to generate headlines/advertising or more research funding.

"RCP8.5 consistent with high CO₂ forcing from vast future coal combustion are exceptionally unlikely. Therefore, SSP5-RCP8.5 should not be a priority for future scientific research or a benchmark for policy studies."

by Jonny.Foe | 4th Mar 22, 12:34pm 1646350491

No scientist thinks that RCP8.5 is realistic - it was just the 'do nothing' baseline from years ago, and things have been done since that have made it implausible as you say.

I no longer see any scientific papers that harp on about RCP8.5 as a realistic option - but it has become the focus of the 'we're all doomed, take drugs and buy bitcoin' idiots on youtube. Hence, I think you are misrepresenting the IPCC report - it is very balanced in tone and the consequences of RCP4.5 and the other mid-threat scenarios are scary enough on their own. The mentions of RCP8.5 are frequent because it was the 'do nothing' scenario which others are compared to.

by profile | 4th Mar 22, 4:35pm 1646364956

No scientist?! Yeah, nah. "A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances.

This is particularly problematic when the worst-case scenario is contrasted with the most optimistic one, especially in high-profile scholarly work. This includes studies by the IPCC, such as AR5 and last year’s special report on the impact of climate change on the ocean and cryosphere⁴. The focus becomes the extremes, rather than the multitude of more likely pathways in between."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

by Jonny.Foe | 4th Mar 22, 11:08pm 1646388518

You are wilfully misunderstanding.

by profile | 5th Mar 22, 7:55am 1646420154

Jfoe - "No scientist thinks that RCP8.5 is realistic". The Nature acticle is pretty clear "A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation. ...This is particularly problematic when the worst-case scenario is contrasted with the most optimistic one, especially in high-profile scholarly work. This includes studies by the IPCC, such as AR5 and last year’s special report on the impact of climate change on the ocean and cryosphere⁴."

Perhaps you don't understand RCP8.5 as well as you think you do? No need to flail about accusing people of wilful misunderstanding.

by Chris Morris | 4th Mar 22, 7:30pm 1646375436

Read Roger Pielke Jr. He documented all the reports that used RCP8.5 or ones that used RCP8.5 as the basis of their further extrapolation.

by Chris Morris | 4th Mar 22, 7:35pm 1646375700

Here is one of the articles

How Climate Scenarios Lost Touch With Reality - Issues in Science and Technology

by Jonny.Foe | 4th Mar 22, 11:10pm 1646388615

There are science commentators and there are idiots on social media. Maybe logout for a bit.

by Chris Morris | 5th Mar 22, 7:31am 1646418679

I think you are doing what is called projection.

by The Person | 4th Mar 22, 1:45pm 1646354720

Like the carbon sequestered in a pine tree is not as good as the carbon sequestered from an native? We actually had a policy that looked like it was going to be effective and they killed it because they were scared it was actually going to work as intended to increase our forest cover.

by solardb | 4th Mar 22, 3:46pm 1646361998

Lets see what they come up with . There is a middle ground. But by all means , we need to be realistic that not everyone is going to be happy.

I am hoping there will be a mixture of pine, exotic , permament with farm forestry allowed , and other variants. the problem is writing legislation that minimises the chances of investors exploiting loopholes.

by Jack Lumber | 4th Mar 22, 3:12pm 1646359956

The biggest losers here are farmers (most don't realize) and Iwi (they realize).

This could define the future of farming and emissions in ways most cant even imagine. Buckle up for the ride and unforeseen consequences.

by Omnologo | 5th Mar 22, 7:35am 1646418954

How so Jack?

Lost incentive to better utilise land? Decrease in asset value?

by Jack Lumber | 5th Mar 22, 1:52pm 1646441548

Nothing operates in isolation - things are interconnected.

A lot of things that farming groups want are not what a lot of Iwi want - they understand the opportunity, along with a growing number of famers.

If you isolate, ignore and insult a major group this can impact other things you want - they listen and read and you don't have to go to far to work out what Im saying. This other group will decide whether other things occur or or not.

I think farmers could be in for a very rude shock and will rue the day. Just note Guys comment - great to stop but what are we going to do?

Think very carefully before making your wish.

by Omnologo | 5th Mar 22, 3:30pm 1646447434

I think I understand. Farmers could contribute to climate change mitigation through land use diversification but seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

by ngakonui gold | 4th Mar 22, 3:21pm 1646360483

Don't worry about climate change,Ukraines largest nuclear power station is on fire.

by solardb | 4th Mar 22, 3:41pm 1646361697

Mak e that Europe's biggest nuclear power plant.

But still , its no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

by Jonny.Foe | 4th Mar 22, 3:56pm 1646362590

Radical idea - but why don't we just stop emitting as much carbon so that we don't have to absorb as much or pay other countries to do it for us?

by profile | 4th Mar 22, 4:09pm 1646363387

We could be carbon zero tomorrow for $600 million per annum. The fact that the powers at be won't fork out $600 million shows it is not about CO2 emissions. This is about implementing social policies and enriching the big end of town, and associated hangers on - not CO2 emissions.

"A recent paper in the American Economic Review reported that a forest conservation project in Uganda managed to sequester carbon for a cost of $US1 per tonne. At that rate, the electric vehicle fund mentioned above could have removed 19 million tonnes of carbon – equivalent to about a third of New Zealand’s net emissions each year.

But even at a conservatively-high $10 a tonne, New Zealand could offset all its net emissions for an annual cost of under $600 million."

Policy-Essay-Effective-and-affordable-ETS-v2 (1).pdf

by profile | 4th Mar 22, 4:30pm 1646364648

"The record flooding being seen on the Australian eastern seaboard is another close example of future trends."

If only the climate doomsters could make their minds up. A decade ago it was all about permanent drought.

"Climate change is working against Sydney. "There's only two years' water supply in Warragamba Dam," says Flannery, … If the computer models are right then drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia."

https://www.smh.com.au/national/running-out-of-water-and-time-20050425-…

by Chris Morris | 4th Mar 22, 9:21pm 1646382101

Guy

you may be interested to this analysis of flood in Britain and how farming and rural practices can be changed to minimise its occurance.

The Reason Why Floods Are So Bad–And It’s Not Climate Change! | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

by solardb | 5th Mar 22, 8:04am 1646420677

Pretty much encompassing the principles of regenerative farming. The removal of hedgerows in great Britain should be reversed.

by Pa1nter | 5th Mar 22, 8:15am 1646421303

It started with showing large mobs of lambs being docked, arguably necessary but not something farming’s livestock image really needs to advertise.

If people weren't so divorced from how their protein gets from a cuddly animal to a Sausage and Egg McMuffin maybe they'd eat less of it, and that'd lower emissions?