Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: One report good, one not so much

Avatar photo
We’ve had two reports regarding global warming over the last 10 days.  One I viewed with some credibility the other with little.
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The report from Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton about the impact of global warming from New Zealand’s livestock methane emissions did, in my view, come from a pre-ordained position.

It said we need to reduce methane emissions by somewhere between 10% and 20% from 2016 levels, which is arguable.

It also presumes nothing can be done to stop cows burping.

We know the Dutch have developed a treatment to reduce the methane from cows but it has to be ingested daily, making it impractical here.

Our scientists are working on other treatments including types of grass and the genetic make-up of the cow.

The issue is that if you do reduce the methane emissions from a cow that reduction is translated into greater productivity so spending money on methane mitigation is a no-brainer.

I would have thought DairyNZ would have been a lot more connected than its website suggests. It needs the input of a good agricultural scientist, preferably at board level.

A problem with methane is compounded by the measurement system used. 

For example, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) takes a 100-year view. It is harsher on methane than the alternative Global Temperature Change Potential (GTP).

The GTP gives a considerably lower weight to methane than the GWP.

I’m also critical of Upton’s approach, which is probably what you get when you appoint an ex politician with qualifications in English literature, music, law and political philosophy to a specialist scientific position.

I’d also question why the report wasn’t developed by an organisation like NIWA. 

I was surprised there is no reference about how CO2 emissions lead to warming.

That means the report fails to present the rest of the context for our climate policy.

In addition, the framing of the report and Upton’s foreword suggest some enthusiasm for justifying stringent methane emissions reductions. His approach was described as combative.

In July Oxford University published a paper called Climate Metrics for Ruminant Livestock. It is well worth the read and totally ignored by Upton

It says the conventional GWP can be misleading when applied to methane emissions, particularly when they are being reduced.

Other points included the fact constant methane emissions cause little extra warming while every tonne of CO2 emitted causes about the same amount of warming whenever it occurs.

By comparison I thought the Productivity Commission’s report into a low-emissions economy released early last week was considerably more reasoned and more soundly argued than Upton’s.

As you’d expect there were points I agreed with and those I didn’t.

It wants long-term gases such as CO2 and nitrous oxide to be included in the ETS. Methane will have a separate emissions pricing scheme to incentivise reduction.

It is an approach I support along with the extra funding into methane mitigation the report recommends.

It wants a lot more land in trees, a fifth of all the land now in agriculture, plus a reform of the Emissions Trading Scheme and strong encouragement for electric vehicles.

It also wants land diversified to horticulture and cropping.

My concerns are that if you curb food production it will be transferred to another country with a higher carbon footprint, thus exacerbating global warming. 

We’d be effectively exporting our global warming.

Electric vehicles are fine but if lots of people buy them we’ll need to increase electricity generation considerably. How will we do that?

The technology of electric vehicles makes them unsuitable for isolated rural areas and they don’t pay fuel tax or road user charges. If everyone drives electric cars who’ll pay for roads?

Will we ever see electric heavy haul trucks and tractors?

Having more horticulture and cropping is great but they’ll need water. Will the Government change its policy to encourage irrigation?

Planting millions of hectares of forests is great for carbon mitigation but will those trees be harvested? If they are then the fix is short term.

In addition, turning all that land into forestry will devastate rural communities and employment.

The issue is that every part of our economy has an effect of global warming and it is important to consider the entirety of the problem, as the commission largely does.

Farmers are responsible citizens and guardians of the land both now and for the future. We will react to any credible evidence we’re given.

Finally, I’m impressed with the reasoned and rational approach of Green Party co-leader James Shaw. I’ll be watching from here with interest.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading