The association supports the 2050 zero carbon goal but laws aimed at achieving it must be carefully considered and withstand scrutiny.
“It is critical for the meat processing and export sector that targets and budgets for achieving zero carbon are transparent and based on science,” it said.
“In other countries the targets for emissions reductions have been arrived at through an independent, open process.
“In contrast, the specific targets in the Zero Carbon Bill were set without public or independent input.”
The gross methane target is unprincipled, inconsistent with the treatment of other gases and, given that the Government supports a single point of emissions reporting for farms, impractical.
Methane targets of a 10% cut by 2030 and 24% to 47% by 2050 are not supported by science and are not credible, it said, adding there is no coherent or consistent underpinning rationale for the targets, which are not based on science and have instead been cherry-picked from an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that specifically said its scenarios are not suitable for national strategies and do not indicate requirements.
“While it is possible to derive a global pathway consistent with the 1.5C temperature goal and to take into account all long-lived gases going to zero, translating that to the New Zealand-specific target pathway is fraught with risk and uncertainty.”
Without new technologies the only way to make real reductions in livestock methane emissions is to reduce the feed consumed by livestock, which translates into livestock numbers.
A reduction in livestock numbers will have a direct impact on meat processing and on jobs and meat processors are in many cases the major employer in a rural community. Reduced processing capacity, including the closure of chains or of entire plants, will have a significant impact on those communities, the association said.
It gave the example of a processing plant at Moerewa in Northland, a town of about 1400 people, almost 90% Maori.
A 15% cut in stock available for processing would result in the sheep operation becoming unprofitable and beef production operating on reduced throughput, which would cut equivalent full-time jobs from 243 to 148, removing about $5 million from the local community.
That outcome is likely to be repeated in many small communities around the country.
The meat industry believes any climate policy must be credible in the eyes of an international audience. Other western countries, including Britain and the European Union, are already moving to zero carbon with transparent, science-based emissions targets for their agricultural industries.
“Our members are increasingly conscious of being able to prove the environmental credentials of their products. That is undermined if the NZ targets and decision-making processes about climate change are not credible.”
NZ is the first country seeking to do anything serious about agricultural greenhouse gases and other countries, as they begin to look at their own emissions, will look to the NZ system.
If the targets of the Bill are based on ad hoc fixes and compromises – such as the methane targets – then it will not be taken seriously.
“On the other hand, a system that is transparent, science-based and goes directly to addressing the temperature impact will be credible and influential.
“It will mean NZ becomes an international rules writer for agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. As an exporting country it is crucial that NZ choose the latter path.”
