Alexander told the recent Dunedin meeting of the Ministry for the Environment’s Action and Agricultural Emissions public consultation he realised he needed to learn more about climate change.
From that research he concluded it is a real and looming threat, there is no silver bullet and farmers need to start reducing their emissions now.
“You need to do little things well and it is about starting now,” he says.
Alexander is a DairyNZ climate change ambassador whose views are driven by several underlying principles.
The first is to not jeopardise food security, a view stressed by signatories to the Paris Accord on climate change, and that efforts to address climate change are driven by science not emotion, something he fears is not the case.
“I am fearful that emotion is dictating things, not science.”
It also requires strong leadership and businesses such as farming must remain profitable to ensure solutions can be funded.
Farmers will have to make some sacrifices and Alexander accepts regulation is required to set bottom-line expectations but it shouldn’t stifle innovation.
Though he considers himself an efficient farmer, steps he has taken to reduce farm emissions have also reduced costs.
They include applying more effluent instead of urea on newly grazed paddocks, which has cut his urea use by 15% to 20% without affecting grass growth.
He has already reduced soil cultivation but now uses non-tillage techniques even more while still replacing about 10% of his pasture each year.
Alexander says the biggest gains have been from improving herd efficiency through artificial insemination to lift performance, putting beef breeds over poorer cows and reducing the number of empties.
The focus on efficiency does not mean running fewer animals.
He assessed the merits of covering his effluent pond but it would have tripled the cost for minimal gain.
The Government’s proposed target of reducing methane emissions 10% below 2017 levels by 2030 is achievable through many small steps but the longer-term target of a 24% to 47% reduction by 2050 is more challenging.
“I am comfortable with a 10% reduction by 2030 and most of us can achieve that with 2% to 4% savings through many small steps but I have real concerns with the 2050 target range of 24% to 47%.”
He questioned why the Government has included the higher target range when science says it is not needed to achieve environmental gains.
Alexander describes as a major concession the Government splitting targeted reductions for methane from nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide.
“We would be buggered without it.”
The Government’s other concession, to cover 95% of the cost of agricultural emissions, is also a stick.
“If we don’t front up as a farming community my belief is that the 95% will be ratcheted down pretty quickly.”
It will be farmers who lead change and Alexander supports the Primary Sector Climate Change Commitment in which the primary sector has offered to work on a five-year plan to reduce agricultural emissions.
Though rejected by the Government it would have required farmers and growers to calculate their emissions and offsets at the farmgate, assess options to reduce or mitigate those emissions while supporting research.
It would also enable the sector to prepare for farm-based pricing by 2025 rather than paying a five-year interim processor levy from 2020.
Alexander is confident farmers will have new mitigation tools in the next 10 to 20 years but believes they could be costly.
