Dear Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment,

Please en-devour to answer the follow questions to help inform the discussion on potential ETS policy. I am currently working on a concept for NZ agriculture which could see products be marketed as 'warming neutral'. A prompt response would be highly beneficial to this work.

1. Does the PCE have any research or scientific evidence available that would undermine the validity of NZ agriculture as a whole marketing their products as ‘warming neutral’ when all scientifically accepted GHG sources and sinks are accounted for?

2. The opening paragraph on page 301, heading 11.1 A Low Emissions Economy Requires Land Use Change, seems to imply agricultural emissions drive the need for land use change.

New Zealand’s agricultural Methane emissions in 2015 and 2016 equate to a combined 2.9% reduction over the two years according to MfE data. This is already 29% of the total (minimum) -10% by 2050 target described in the Report. This could be defined as ahead of target using the new GWP* metric. No major land use change has occurred over the two years in question.

MfE GHG inventory data would also suggest that NZ agriculture’s approximately 8,500 ktCO2 -e of N2O is a sum small enough to potentially be offset by Carbon sequestration from on farm trees.

Given the total amount of Carbon sequestered by on farm trees has not yet been quantified by any Government agencies and the government has not yet decided on the most appropriate metric to account for Methane emissions.

Can the PCE please provide any documents, emails or information stored on computer or data bases that would support PCE’s conclusion major land use change is required?

3. Is there document, email or other communication that instructed the PCE not to include the option of including pre-1990 trees in the scope of the PCE Low Emissions Economy Report?

4. Does the PCE have any documents, emails or information held on computer that would suggest New Zealand as a country could not be considered ‘warming neutral’ when all scientifically accepted GHG sources and sinks are accounted for?

For Reference, this question refers to findings in Simon Upton’s recent ‘A note on New Zealand’s Methane emissions from livestock’ which concluded that only a very minor annual reduction in methane emissions is required for all New Zealand’s Methane emissions to be considered warming neutral.

This question also refers to known quantities of native and exotic forest recorded by Landcare Research and standard carbon sequestrated rates used by government agencies.

Yours faithfully,
Steven Cranston