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

Canterbury Mornings with John MacDonald

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.