Initially, the point of obligation will be with milk and meat processors but Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor says that is for ease of administration and he has made research on shifting the liability to individual farms a priority.
“I want to see us reward good on-farm behaviour and practice as quickly as we can.”
The Government has announced details of the Zero Carbon Bill that proposes by net zero emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide by 2050 but a 10% reduction in gross methane by 2030 and 24% to 47% reduction by 2050.
Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emitters will be able to offset their emissions with trees but methane emitters will not.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw says final decisions on how methane emissions will be charged and whether agriculture is added to the ETS are still to be made.
The Government is considering a report from the Interim Climate Change Committee and Shaw acknowledges that has led to uncertainty but says the Government needs to get the decision and process right.
The gross methane reduction targets acknowledge the scientific view methane does not need to reach net zero to positively affect global temperatures and that trees do not absorb methane so the gas cannot be offset.
O’Connor says pricing is effective at changing behaviour.
“Clearly price signals help drive behavioural change and reward good operators and penalise poor operators.”
Farming leaders claim the Government’s Zero Carbon Bill puts an unfair burden on agriculture to cut methane while other polluters can offset their emissions by planting trees.
Shaw says a target of net zero target for all greenhouse gases would have required the planting of up two million hectares of trees.
Splitting that target went against public opinion but means a million hectares will potentially be planted, less than the available area of unproductive or low productive land suitable for forestry.
Evidence from Landcorp, Synlait and Fonterra is that the 2030 target of a 10% reduction in methane is achievable with best practice and Shaw says they have shown profitability can be increased.
“You can also make the argument it will not cost a farmer anything and in fact profit may go up.”
The Biological Emissions Reference Group has medium to high confidence methane can be lowered by 22% to 48% by 2050.
Contributions from emissions reduction technology and research is still under development and unproven.
The disproportionately high agricultural emissions mean the sector must act but Shaw says the onus is on the wider economy to help by funding research and extension services.
Asked if that means more money in this month’s Budget for research Shaw said “The Government understands the imperative strongly.”
O’Connor acknowledged concern at the upper methane target range of 47% and that it is a gross not net figure but he says with efficiency gains the goal of a 10% cut by 2030 can be achieved.
“Farmers are spooked by the 47% figure and I have reminded them it is a provisional range and the ICCC will be considering it further down the track.”
Farmers are in an enviable position of being able to offset their emissions by changing land use and trading units through the ETS, which is not available to other emitters, he said.
