Tasmanian farming groups respond to decision to scrap net-zero target
Tasmania’s peak farming body has maintained Australia should continue striving for net-zero emissions by 2050 amid tense debate over the Nationals’ decision to scrap the target.
Tasmania’s peak farming body has maintained Australia should continue striving for net-zero emissions by 2050 amid tense debate over the Nationals’ decision to scrap the target.
“I know other farming organisations are saying ‘2050 net-zero emissions’ and that’s perhaps where we should be. It’s where we should be aiming for,” TasFarmers President Ian Sauer told the Mercury.
The federal Nationals voted unanimously to formally abandon their net-zero emissions target last week, resolving years of internal debate but deepening a rift with their Coalition partners.
The move was endorsed by various farming bodies, including in Western Australia and New South Wales.
Describing the net-zero conversation as “nothing new to us”, Mr Sauer said Tasmanian farmers were already pulling their weight when it came to meeting environmental responsibilities — including by using drought-resistant crop varieties, breeding deep-rooted grasses, implementing seaweed feed for cattle to cut methane, and practising selective forestry and bush management.
“The absolute majority of farmers out there believe in climate change. They believe in the science, and they understand quite clearly that greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced,” he said.
“Farmers and foresters have been dealing with climate change for the last 40 years … and there’s this perception that the rural sector are the naughty boys on the block.
“(Farmers) are doing many things to reduce greenhouse gasses already, and they’re doing a whole heap of other mitigation processes to adapt to the changing and variable climate.”
Tasmanian dairy and beef farmer and Farmers for Climate Action spokesman Iain Field said many farmers were “quite jaded” by claims that abandoning the target served their best interests – including Nationals Leader David Littleproud’s recent claim that regional Australia was being “torn apart” by net zero.
“I heard an expression once that said, don’t let the shoes on the carpet tell the boots on the ground what to do … that applies here,” Mr Field said.
“We know climate change is happening, we’ve seen the increased costs of insurance, our input costs are all going up and in terms of what makes a good year, it used to be one in three, now it’s one in five.
“Farmers can see these changes happening all the time around them, and they’re wearing the costs of it. And then so when people play political games, it’s really frustrating.”
Recent polling by the lobby group found that among a sample of 2,000 people across renewable energy zones in NSW, Victoria and Queensland, 62 per cent expressed support for renewable energy while opposition to clean energy projects in these areas remained steady at 17 per cent.
Mr Sauer said any emissions reduction targets must be science-based, not single out the agricultural sector, and developed in consultation with farmers.
“Farmers and foresters … bear the biggest brunt of any out there when it comes to climate change, and there’s not a lot of consultation … in terms of what the impacts will be upon them in the long run is we keep pushing unrealistic targets,” he said.
“Most farmers say ‘let’s get on with these targets’. But at the same time, you’ve got to realise what the farming community are doing to help.
“We can’t single out different sectors. Everyone has to work together.”
The debate over net-zero has been highly polarised among the farming and agricultural sectors.
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP Carlo Di Falco said he was focused on “practical outcomes” to address emmissions reduction.
“I accept the science that our climate is changing and that it presents real challenges. Where I differ is on the best way to respond without hurting families, regional jobs, or the energy security that Tasmanians depend on,” he said.
“I support cleaner energy where it makes sense for our environment and our economy. I also support reforms that reduce emissions while protecting property rights and the industries that keep regional communities strong. That is a balanced and responsible position, not the extreme one some try to claim.
“We should be prioritising Hydro power as it is the most reliable and sustainable source,
serving us well since 1915 rather than expensive intermittent sources such as Wind
Turbines and Solar farms.”
The Mercury previously reported he was sceptical of climate change and was critical of the “net zero movement”.
Kirsha’s ‘psychodrama’: Unlikely group therapy session held on Parliament Lawns
