The Climate Change Commission’s final advice on farming emissions is about the probable, rather than possible. David Williams reports
Methane, the powerful, short-lived greenhouse gas, has experienced something of a pile-on of late.
Last month, the United Nations Environment Programme, with the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, showed human-caused methane emissions, including agricultural methane, could be reduced by 45 percent this decade.
That would avoid nearly 0.3°C of global warming by 2045, the report said, and would be consistent with the Paris Agreement’s target of keeping global average temperature rises, compared with pre-industrial times, of 1.5°C.
“Cutting methane is the strongest lever we have to slow climate change over the next 25 years, and complements necessary efforts to reduce carbon dioxide,” UNEP executive director Inger Andersen said. She noted the benefits “to society, economies, and the environment” far outweighed the costs.
The UNEP report adds to the European Commission’s strategy, released last October, which called for increased ambition on methane reductions, which would, on current policies, see a cut of 29 percent by 2030, on 2005 levels.
Global methane emissions, meanwhile, are surging. The United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration noted that during Covid-affected 2020, methane emissions had their largest annual increase since consistent measurements began in 1983, reaching 1892.3 parts per billion last December, an increase of 14.7ppb in a year.
Yet New Zealand’s Climate Change Commission has not radically changed its biogenic methane reduction targets, suggesting a gap with international thinking.
The Climate Change Response Act requires at least a 10 percent reduction below 2017 levels by 2030, and 24-47 percent by 2050. The commission’s final advice to the Government, released yesterday, recommends a smidgeon more – 11 percent below 2017 levels by 2030. (About 10 percent of biogenic methane comes from waste. The commission recommends its emissions are cut 29 percent by 2030.)
“Aiming for slightly more than a 10 percent reduction in biogenic methane by 2030 gives some flexibility to deal with unexpected events, and sets Aotearoa on course to achieve the 2050 targets.”
Looking for a magic pill
The commission acknowledged the recent UNEP report, saying it reiterated the benefit of early reductions in methane emissions up to 2030. But it was little-moved, despite some of the more than 15,000 submissions calling for increased cuts to agricultural emissions. (To be fair, many wanted a lower burden on farmers.)
The commission’s suggestion for achieving those reductions hasn’t changed, either. Essentially, it’s through better management. That might mean selective breeding, low-emissions feed, and the more efficient use of nitrogen “inputs” – fertiliser, and livestock urine and dung. (As Marc Daalder reported yesterday, farm management changes are now estimated to result in a 13 percent reduction in herd sizes, and a drop in milk solids production of 4 percent.)
But behind that – farmers will be hoping far, far behind that – is the most obvious way to reduce emissions: fewer animals, and a switch to less intensive farming, like horticulture. Or as the final advice puts it: “Significantly reduced agricultural production from livestock and land-use change”.
Meeting the lower range of the biogenic methane reduction targets is achievable using current practices and technology, the commission says. The upper range might take a magic pill.
“The development of new technologies such as a methane inhibitor would provide greater flexibility and unlock the upper range of reductions.” (A methane inhibitor “could be on the market in the next few years”, while work to develop an emissions-suppressing vaccine “is ongoing”.)
Greenpeace’s Amanda Larsson pans the commission, calling its final advice a free pass for dairying, relying on “voluntary measures and future techno-fixes, like the fabled methane vaccine”.
DairyNZ chief executive Tim Mackle, meanwhile, remains concerned agriculture might be asked to do the “heavy lifting” if carbon dioxide emissions aren’t cut urgently. Farmers are committed to do their “fair share”, he says, but even the low end of biogenic methane cuts will be incredibly challenging.
Scientists are also at odds.
Professor Euan Mason, of the University of Canterbury’s School of Forestry, criticises the commission for splitting gases into long-lived and biogenic methane. This, he says, is unlikely to be accepted by the international community. (The commission’s report agrees. It says developed countries’ promises of emissions reductions under the Paris Agreement – known as nationally determined contributions – should be expressed in a way that includes all sectors and all gases.)
Meanwhile, Victoria University of Wellington’s Professor of Climate Change, Dave Frame – on the record as favouring gentle cuts to methane until carbon dioxide emissions are under control – criticises the commission for not consulting with climate experts, saying it seems “much more comfortable in the company of activists”. This played out in “confused thinking” on how gases are compared, Frame says.
Biogenic methane is burped by ruminant animals, such as cows and sheep, because of fermentation in their stomachs. About 90 percent of these emissions in New Zealand are from agriculture – almost half from dairying – with the rest from waste. (Methane also comes from other sources, such as fossil fuel extraction.)
In this country there’s long been a tussle over how to treat carbon dioxide and methane. Methane’s warming effect is far greater than carbon dioxide – 84 times over 20 years, or 25 times over 100 years. But methane breaks down after 12 years, while carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for centuries.
Another consideration for New Zealand – acknowledged in the Climate Change Commission’s advice – is agriculture’s oversized weight on our land and economy. About 40 percent of the country, or 10 million hectares, is farmed, mainly dairy, sheep and beef farms. By comparison, horticulture and arable copping is only 270,000 hectares, or 1 percent.
Dairying alone accounts for about a third of exports, worth $20 billion, according to the industry, which says this country is a world leader in producing food – with some of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per unit.
On TVNZ’s Q+A programme a fortnight ago, Dairy NZ chief executive Tim Mackle said agricultural emissions went up 17 percent between 1990 and 2020, while transport emissions almost doubled.
Over the same period, inflation-adjusted exports went up 400 percent. “Actually, we’re generating a lot more value for the country.”
This line might find favour, post-Covid, with tourism being suffocated. However, on Q+A Iwi Chairs Forum climate spokesman Mike Smith had no time for it, arguing farmers wanted special treatment. “There is no scientific solution to selfishness and greed.”
Green groups, meanwhile, point out New Zealand has the world’s highest methane emissions per person, and one of the world’s highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions.
“Pricing can reward farmers who do more.” – Climate Change Commission final advice
The Climate Change Commission’s final advice says the farming sector “needs to start acting now to reduce emissions”, adding that pricing farm emissions is “critical”. “Pricing can reward farmers who do more, as every tonne of emissions reduce is a tonne that they do not have to pay for.”
By itself, however, it won’t do the job. “We expect that further policies will be needed.”
Of course, the Government will help farmers. Beyond direct subsidies, the commission says effective farm advisory services should be funded, investments made in rural broadband to ensure farmers can use the latest technology, and some public investment might be needed to help with the transition to horticulture or arable farming.
However, the commission’s consultation revealed some farmers are delaying action because they think they’ll be “benchmarked” against future emissions. Why reduce emissions now, the argument goes, when you won’t get credit for it?
Ministers need to set a pricing mechanism by the end of next year, including how much assistance will be given, the commission urged. That would “give farmers confidence that they will not be penalised for taking action now to reduce emissions”.
The commission hasn’t embraced Greenpeace’s suggestion of banning fertiliser use, or calls for a transition to regenerative farming – as “there is not yet a robust evidence base”. However, the door is ajar for politicians. “There do not appear to be any technical or feasibility barriers to pricing nitrogen fertiliser emissions at the manufacturer and importer level in the NZ ETS as soon as practicable,” the commission’s final advice says.
Right now, the Climate Change Response Act mandates the implementation of farm-level accounting and reporting of emissions, as well as management plans, by 2025. He Waka Eke Noa, a primary sector “climate change commitment” between industry, Iwi and government, aims to provide ministers advice on a farm-level emissions pricing by early next year.
The commission, meanwhile, is required to report to ministers next June on He Waka Eke Noa’s progress, and the industry’s “readiness” for pricing. (If insufficient progress has been made, the Government can bring agriculture into the ETS at the “processor level”.)
By the end of next year, the Ministers of Climate Change and Agriculture must report on emissions pricing.
After decades of foot-dragging and inaction, skepticism abounds. Will a Labour Government – in the name of this generation’s nuclear-free moment – take bold action to reduce agricultural emissions a year before an election?
We’ll soon know.
