A carbon lifecycle study on New Zealand red meat has been welcomed as a good start, with provisos, by climate change (āhuarangi panoni) researcher Professor David Frame.
Released by Beef + Lamb NZ, the lifecycle assessment (LCA) study has determined NZ’s red meat is among the most efficiently produced in the world.
Per kilogram, sheepmeat produces 15kg of carbon dioxide, while beef produces 22kg per kilo of meat.
The report determined the outcome is largely driven by farm-level efficiencies, representing 95% of the products’ carbon footprint.
Frame said he welcomed the study as a good first step in determining the numbers around red meat’s emissions, but he did have an issue with the GWP100 measurement approach for converting methane to carbon dioxide equivalents used to enable international comparisons.
The GWP100 method has been found to overstate methane’s impact on warming when the source of it, namely livestock (kararehe pāmu), is not increasing as is the case in NZ.
The study had also used the emerging GWP* approach, which determines a carbon footprint based on warming contribution over time, compared to total emissions.
This approach recognises the “pulse” of methane release that diminishes rapidly over time.
This is compared to a CO2 equivalent approach that equates methane to CO2 and does not take account that methane has a half life of only 10 years, compared to hundreds of years for CO2.
Equating methane to CO2 risks requiring it too be pushed to zero, when it is short-lived and NZ’s static livestock population dictates this is not necessary.
When researchers ran the GWP* measurement in the study they found for the 20 years to 2018, when also allowing for vegetative sequestration, NZ’s sheep meat was effectively “climate neutral” contributing no additional increase to average global temperature.
Frame said the work highlighted the need for more discussion around the application of GWP* in methane assessment, particularly as the He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) consultation process simmers away.
“There is a difference between long term and short-term gases and their legacy. This is a work in progress but saying we do not need to do something with methane at all, that’s not the case.”
Frame said there was currently some incoherence in how government was pricing methane under its version of HWEN, with it being equated back to a carbon value in ETS based on a GWP100 approach.
“But I think this is just confusing, not fatal (to HWEN).
“On the LCA side of things, what we do know is that the warming associated with red meat production is not really getting any worse, but it doesn’t mean it is a free pass for the sector. Quite how deeply you need to cut is what we should talk about.”
With HWEN consultation well advanced, Frame argues there is a strong case for government to revisit the limited sequestration allowances in its proposal.
“It is so you can create a more rounded land use policy, so you do not get some perverse outcomes from siloed policy making.”
He likened HWEN’s proposal as a finely balanced Jenga tower, with a jumpy government pulling some key blocks out that threatened to bring the entire affair tumbling down.
“But I think the worst response farmers could have to this is to walk away entirely.”
BLNZ chief executive Sam McIvor said the report has helped build an understanding about GWP* and the value of reporting annually on warming and emissions.
Dr Steward Ledgard, lead scientist on the project, said the UN’s Food and Agriculture organisation is looking at GWP* and its application in measuring carbon footprints.
“Although the FAO has noted the GWP* method is useful, it also has limitations in that is just compares a point in time for whether new warming has been added, and ongoing warming is also relevant.”
McIvor said the LCA project helped demonstrate how GWP* highlighted the difference between gases.
