Despite a week of delays, criticism and a big methane target set by major trading partners, a top climate researcher believes New Zealand’s approach to pastoral greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction remains robust and world-leading.
NZ Climate Change Research Institute director Professor David Frame says he was sceptical about the United States-European Union Global Methane Pledge that aims to cut 2020 methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
This contrasts to NZ’s goal of a 10% reduction by 2030.
The pledge, along with the recent deferral of NZ’s final emissions reduction plan, has raised fears NZ may be “climate shamed” at the Glasgow climate change conference in November.
It has also come as Climate Action Tracker rated NZ’s response to the climate crisis as being “highly insufficient”, while the country’s emissions reduction plan has also been delayed by five months.
But Frame is calling for cool heads, in light of the underlying reasons he believes the EU-US have for formulating the pledge.
The pledge aims to reduce human-caused methane, primarily released in those countries by leaky gas field pipes and sites, old coal mines and landfills.
The US and EU intend to get other named countries, including NZ, to join the pledge.
“Really this is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is aimed at protecting gas and oil interests by seeking an ‘easy’ reduction, by removing those losses through leaks. Really it is quite disingenuous and the benefits are being oversold,” Frame said.
The prospects of NZ’s core pastoral exports being “climate shamed” have become more of a concern with such moves. But Frame says this country remains the most advanced with its biogenic (livestock) methane reduction programme.
With the absence of any global methane reduction agreement that includes livestock, he doubted NZ could be dragged through the WTO on grounds this country had not met targets like those proposed in the US-EU pledge.
While the prospect of even steeper methane cuts may hold appeal with the Green Party, Frame doubted other parties would see it as a good idea, particularly when no other country had a comprehensive methane reduction framework in place.
He maintained there is a strong view in the EU that methane reduction represents an easier win as other carbon reduction options are exhausted.
Methane’s life in the atmosphere was far shorter than carbon dioxide’s. Its reduction appealed to policymakers on grounds it gave more wriggle room around carbon dioxide emission level reductions, usually tied to transportation.
“This strong preference towards methane is actually biased against developing countries in particular. They typically have a higher ratio of methane to carbon dioxide due to their agricultural economic base. You are asking those poorer countries to yield their methane, in order for carbon dioxide emitters to continue,” he said.
He acknowledged there was a risk NZ may feel strong-armed into accepting tougher methane reductions by the pledge-makers wanting us on board.
“But I do not see any other country suppressing their major export earners at this point to reduce methane emissions,” he said.
He suspected Climate Change Minister James Shaw would have a torrid time at Glasgow and be the recipient of some climate shaming, just as Australia and Canada have also been over time.
“But they have not been expelled from any trade agreements,” he said.
He argued NZ’s distinction of biogenic (livestock) methane and the reduction targets around it was a well-founded and well-reasoned one.
But NZ had to do a better job explaining it to countries where human-generated methane dominated views.
