Of all the solutions for a warming world, “plant more trees” seems pretty obvious.
However, in New Zealand, which tested that premise by linking incentives for forestry development with its emissions trading scheme, the results have been more controversial and less effective than climate advocates hoped.
Now, after four years of frenetic planting, a prominent government watchdog has joined international agencies, industry groups and environmental advocates in calling for a radical overhaul, one that threatens a reversal of fortunes for investors in the recent forestry boom.
Illustration: Mountain People
“Pine production and permanent forestry are legitimate land uses,” New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton wrote in a report on land-use change, published on Wednesday last week in Wellington.
“But afforestation should not be incentivised by treating it as a cheap way to offset fossil fuel emissions,” Upton said.
It is an aggressive challenge to one of the world’s most prominent campaigns for afforestation.
Ingka Group, the largest global IKEA franchisee and a major investor in New Zealand forestry, said in an e-mail that Upton’s advice is “significant, and we are closely reviewing the potential impacts,” adding that its long-term commitments in the country are unchanged.
Other forestry investors say the ongoing debates are sapping confidence in the market.
“While uncertainty remains, New Zealand is missing a significant opportunity to grow its forest estate,” said Phil Taylor, managing director of New Zealand forestry at Port Blakely, which owns 35,000 hectares of mixed species plantations.
“It needs to be sorted out,” Taylor added.
Since 2019, the country has added about 175,000 hectares of forests, almost all the fast-growing, carbon-sucking Pinus radiata, helping New Zealand make progress toward its 2050 net zero goal.
However, the new growth has subsumed the nation’s farmland, undermining the meat-and-dairy industry, the beef-and-sheep lobby said.
Increased waste from forestry — the logs, leaves and branches known as “slash” — more than doubled the damage of the flooding caused by last year’s Cyclone Gabrielle.
While those might be worthwhile trade-offs for significant long-term reductions in climate-warming carbon dioxide, the system does not really achieve that either, experts say.
Forests do absorb a lot of carbon dioxide, but their efficiency wanes over time. To achieve the same environmental effect over decades, “you’re going to have to keep planting more and more forests,” said John Saunders, a senior researcher at Lincoln University’s agribusiness and economics research unit.
“That isn’t actually solving the problem,” Saunders added.
The seeds of New Zealand’s forestry boom were planted in 2019, when the country’s emissions trading scheme required companies to use only domestic measures to compensate for carbon dioxide. In practice, it prohibited firms from buying carbon offsets developed abroad to shrink their carbon footprint.
At the same time, the new rule amplified an existing, and unusual, feature of the policy. Companies doing business in New Zealand are allowed to offset 100 percent of their emissions with credits generated by domestic forest projects. Most countries limit the use of offsets to push more fundamental cuts to carbon dioxide emissions.
The combination made forestry more lucrative almost overnight — not only could trees be harvested for timber, they could also generate the carbon credits that are valuable to local firms. Investors, including Germany’s Munich Re and Japan’s Sumitomo Corp, bought land. Ingka Group has purchased 23 separate tracts for forestry, although it said that it does not generate or sell carbon credits.
The land grab created opportunities for New Zealand farmers as well, driving up the price of land. The 30-year net present value of land with production forestry and carbon credits is NZ$21,300 (US$13,074) per hectare, 144 percent more than the expected returns from sheep and beef, said Julian Ashby, chief insight officer at the industry group Beef + Lamb New Zealand.
“The enormous additional returns from carbon means that foresters have been able to offer significantly more for land,” Ashby said.
Since early 2021, the nation’s foreign investment regulator has approved about 150 applications to buy more than 102,000 hectares of land for forestry, roughly two-thirds of which used to be farmland. The farm lobby has long been a vocal critic of the aggressive afforestation policy, calling it a threat to the beef, dairy, wool and mutton that make up about 46 percent of the nation’s annual exports.
“The government wanted more trees. The price of land went up so much and farmers couldn’t compete,” said Murray Hellewell, who raises sheep and beef on a 640 hectare farm on the South Island.
One by one, his neighbors have sold to forestry companies, nearly surrounding Hellewell’s farm with pines.
Forest owners, for their part, said the farmers’ criticisms are short-sighted and that adverse policy changes could affect the NZ$5 billion in annual forestry exports, also a key contributor to the country’s GDP.
Investors need confidence in the emissions trading scheme, said Elizabeth Heeg, head of the New Zealand Forest Owners Association, adding that diminishing the role of forestry offsets would not be good for the country’s climate targets.
“It makes no sense for the report to suggest that reducing production forestry is a positive way forward,” she said in a statement.
The new government has said it is looking at revisions to the emissions trading scheme to restrict productive farmland being converted to forestry, although New Zealand Minister for Climate Change Simon Watts in an e-mail said that limiting forestry credits is not on the table.
“We do recognize the concerns over the scale and pace of rural land use change, and the need to balance productive land uses,” he said.
Upton’s report offered one solution that could meet the needs of at least some farmers and environmentalists alike. One problem with the current forestry credits is that they are used to offset carbon dioxide emissions, typically from fossil fuels, which linger in the atmosphere in perpetuity — which means the forest also has to live forever, against the odds of disease, fire, storm or human behavior.
However, biogenic methane, the greenhouse gas emitted by livestock, has a greater warming effect, but for a shorter period of time. Starting in 2030, farmers would have to pay for those emissions or find a way to offset them.
Forestry could be a solution, Upton said.
“For short-lived gases like methane, the goal is to reduce emissions to an acceptable flow rather than eliminate them altogether,” he wrote.
Using forests to offset methane emissions “is a more justifiable strategy than using it to offset fossil carbon dioxide,” he added.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Life as we know it will probably not come to an end in Japan this weekend, but what if it does? That is the question consuming a disaster-prone country ahead of a widely spread prediction of disaster that one comic book suggests would occur tomorrow. The Future I Saw, a manga by Ryo Tatsuki about her purported ability to see the future in dreams, was first published in 1999. It would have faded into obscurity, but for the mention of a tsunami and the cover that read “Major disaster in March 2011.” Years later, when the most powerful earthquake ever
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS