Thursday, March 28, 2024

MEATY MATTERS: Ag is committed to gas targets

Avatar photo
The negative reaction to the methane target range in the Climate Change Amendment (Zero Carbon) Bill should not be taken as an indication the rural sector is at all opposed to the purpose of the Bill, nor does it suggest unwillingness to be part of the solution.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Industry bodies including Dairy New Zealand, Beef + Lamb, the Meat Industry Association and Federated Farmers are fully committed to seeing their members do all that is realistically possible to achieve the overall greenhouse gas reduction target. 

That goal is seen by science organisations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as essential if the increase in the planet’s temperature is to be restricted to 1.5C by 2050.

However, the sector bodies are taking a strongly science-based approach to the issue and have concerns, particularly about the extent of the maximum range for reducing methane emissions, which is both unachievable and, according to the science, unnecessary. 

Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman, among others, sees only farmers trying to get a free ride at the expense of the rest of the country, using agriculture’s past resistance to being included in the ETS as evidence for his argument. The sector’s new commitment to making whatever changes are necessary demonstrates Norman’s suspicion is unfounded.

Farmers, not unnaturally, are worried about what all this means for the future of their businesses, not least whether they will still have a social licence to operate and what they can do to meet the targets if they are adopted. 

Scientists, like Victoria University Climate Change Research Institute director Professor Dave Frame have welcomed the recognition of the difference between long-lived gases (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) and short-lived (methane) and caution against getting too worked up about the actual targets at this stage. Specific targets to be adopted in legislation will be subject to plenty of debate and revision during the select committee process.

Frame’s research indicates 60% of methane’s effects disappear after 12 years and 95% after 50 years compared with carbon dioxide, which lasts in the atmosphere for 1000 years. 

Therefore, while all greenhouse gas reduction is good it is far more important to focus on reducing what he terms stock pollutants like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide as distinct from flow pollutants like methane. If the Government’s goal is to reduce non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases by 35% by 2050, as recommended by the IPCC, the logic of the carbon zero target is irrefutable. 

Achieving it will require a combination of zero nitrous oxide as a result of animal management and zero carbon dioxide through tree planting but, more particularly, it demands a major change in energy use, transport and urban pollution. 

A large proportion of these measures lies outside the scope of agriculture if the targets are to be met. 

A 10% reduction in methane emissions in addition to zero nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide would achieve a 33% emissions reduction while increasing methane savings to 22% would increase the total reduction to 41%. This demonstrates the inequity of demanding a decrease in methane emissions to the higher range of 24-47%. 

Quite simply, the long-lasting nature of nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide has a far greater influence on the amount of warming in the atmosphere.

B+LNZ’s chief insight officer Jeremy Baker points to the emissions reduction of 30% since 1990 on sheep and beef farms as strong evidence of the red meat sector’s commitment to the goal, a result of greater efficiency and improved farm management, as well as reduced flock size. 

He claims the proposed targets in the Bill do not recognise the long-term carbon sink benefits of native trees that can absorb carbon for 300 years, 10 times longer than pine trees. There are already 1.4 million hectares of natives planted on sheep and beef country, which should be taken into account when setting targets and measuring performance. 

DairyNZ also advocates the recognition at the farm gate of all farmer efforts, including tree planting, to reduce emissions. DairyNZ is working with scientists on several strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

In the case of methane, options are limited by NZ’s grass-feeding regime but research shows managing use of drymatter intake is critical while brassica rape can produce a 30% emissions reduction compared with a traditional ryegrass-white clover diet. Fodder beet trials demonstrate a 20% reduction,but only when it makes up 70% of the diet. 

Nitrogen leaching can be mitigated by applying the right fertiliser in the right place at the right time, planting low-nitrogen crops and improving pasture quality as well as carefully planned paddock strategies in autumn and winter.

It is obvious the sector is totally on side with the Government’s overall goal to meet NZ’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. 

In no way is agriculture unwilling to ensure its farmers and processors are in possession of all the tools necessary to meet the target but the sector wants fair and equitable treatment and recognition of the correct science underpinning that target. 

It will also be up to the Government to devote funding to research necessary to develop some of the solutions.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading