By TeKāhu

As the government continues to introduce legislation that are increasingly opposed by the New Zealand farming community, media generally viewed as government-friendly have been releasing articles that encourage extra taxation and regulation of our farmers.

One such voice is American-born Marc Daalder, a well-known Left/Far-Left journalist for the strongly Left-leaning Newsroom media outlet.

Mr Daalder, viewed by many to be very supportive of the Labour party and Jacinda Ardern, released the following tweet recently:

Farmers make up:

– 1.16% of the population ??‍♀️

– 5.5% of GDP ???

– 48% of greenhouse gas emissions ??

– 70% of NZ's contribution to global warming ??

A price on livestock emissions is reasonable and rooted in science.#nzpolhttps://t.co/G1az6k8VzU

— Marc Daalder ? Wear a Mask (@marcdaalder) October 20, 2022

In his assertion that farmers should pay more money, that such was “reasonable and rooted in science”, Mr Daalder blocked most comments from the post but did engage with a few commentators, including Conservative speaker Elliot Ikilei who wrote:

@marcdaalder silly number dump.

Just 1.16% are 'guilty' of most NZ emissions and should therefore pay?

What about those linked to our farms?

Banks, vets, trucks, gas stations, trades, schools, restaurants, ports, insurance, import/export, media, value adds, etc

NZ is Farming. https://t.co/HFmCUiR7A9

— Elliot Page (@ElliotIkilei) October 20, 2022

Daalder’s response:

Everyone else already pays for our emissions through the Emissions Trading Scheme. And generally without the 95% discount that farmers will enjoy under the Govt’s plan. And fully without the 10x incentive payments they’ll get for adopting mitigation tech.”

The Daily Examiner then decided to ask several of our farming community what they thought of Mr Daalder’s comments towards our farmers and if there was any response to his calling for the extra tax.

Their responses are as follows:

The government doesn’t understand agricultural emissions, farmers methane is not adding to additional warming so there should be a 100% rebate on that.

The government wants to tax N2O (which is long lived) but ignore the vast majority of sequestration happening on farms. Farmers are not the problem.

The government’s misleading and incomplete emissions accounting is the problem.

Why should farmers be forced to produce cooling to offset other emitters?” – Matt King

I basically just refute the whole thing as it only uses half of a lifecycle when it comes to farming eg they count every emission we produce. They completely forget about the hundreds of hectares of pasture that suck up the emissions and that how they create the grass. eg a cycle. Then they also forgot about the amount of trees and riparian area that most farms have. New Zealand is already the only carbon neutral food produce in the world if they use actual science” – Farmer James

Methane emissions from NZ agriculture are now stabilised, that means they are not producing any additional warming of the climate. Most critics of agriculture’s emissions do not realise that stabilised methane and net zero CO2 have exactly the same affect on climate, they maintain the existing level of warming. Unfortunately farmers still get vilified for stabilised methane yet businesses that achieve net zero CO2 are celebrated. That’s climate politics.” – Steve Cranston

We also spoke to a Northland farmer who did not want to be named but wanted to express an opinion on the journalist’s assertion:

His [Marc Daalder’s] argument is fallacious because we produce enough food for 40 million people. If New Zealand reduces its food production then someone else is going to have to produce that food and you can bet it won’t be the carbon neutral farming that we do.

He conveniently ignores the recent academic analysis that the estimations of emissions for cattle is hugely overstated.

He conveniently ignores the fact that the Paris Accord specifically excludes food production, for very good reason!

And New Zealand farmers should be the last ones to be targeted, since we already farm regeneratively!”

The farmer also discussed increasing anxiety within the farming community and that suicidality has gotten worse with each new regulation, and expressed sorrow over what appears to be a concerted effort by government and media to turn New Zealanders against New Zealand farmers.

For another frontline explanation of the ramifications of the government-forced policy, Operation People created this mini documentary:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?extid=NS-UNK-UNK-UNK-AN_GK0T-GK1C&v=501668338264513

Newsroom’s Marc Daalder appears to actively support Far Left/Left-wing government policies, judging from his articles in New Zealand and the United States, especially those focusing on current climate narratives and socialism-based economics.

It has also been observed by some that, while advocating for more financial penalties against kiwi farmers for farming, he belongs to the Left-wing media outlet that is currently collecting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars through the guilefully titled “Public Interest Journalism Fund”.

This is notable as more than one of those The Daily Examiner spoke to expressed strong emotions about the role that non-farming media has played in the current narrative.

There is a strong belief that mainstream media is vilifying the once-honoured community of New Zealand who provides food for over 40 million people worldwide, as well as countless jobs throughout our economic layers and are the backbone of New Zealand society.

As earlier stated in this article:

The farmer also discussed increasing anxiety within the farming community and that suicidality has gotten worse and worse with each new regulation.

The farmer also expressed sorrow over what appears to be an effective effort between government and mainstream media to turn New Zealanders against New Zealand farmers.”

The Daily Examiner encourages journalists to engage with grassroots farmers and would be willing to facilitate a discussion between the parties, to allow all sides of the debate to be heard.