The government’s decision to form an independent panel of experts to review New Zealand’s methane targets is an interesting one.
For a start, the Climate Change Commission is a group of independent experts that has been advising the government since being formed in 2019 with multi-party support.
The key phrase in the government’s announcement last weekend is that targets will be reviewed so there is “no additional warming”.
This essentially puts a line in the sand forgiving farming for historical emissions, and approves of that level of warming into the future.
In the global picture of farm emissions, New Zealanders are among the most efficient producers in the world, so that strategy holds some currency.
But the commission, which released its latest advice to the government last week, believes that currency might be running out.
“The majority of mitigations which are theoretically possible to reduce GHGs have been developed for systems which are designed for high levels of supplementary feeding of livestock or systems where animals are farmed in close contact in housed systems. These are either not relevant to, or require significant changes to them to make them suitable for the New Zealand farming system, which is predominantly pasture based in the open,” that advice reads.
That means our competitors have a wind in their sails that we do not –yet.
There’s fantastic research being undertaken on our unique farming systems and it was great to see more of our biggest players sign up to AgriZero last week.
We’re going to need all of the investment we can muster to overcome the challenge.
But, science aside, as many have said over the past week or so the big decision on methane targets is a political and social one, not a scientific one.
Our government is tasked with meeting its global obligations in a way that’s fair to every New Zealander trying to make a living.
If methane targets are reduced, some other Kiwi industry needs to pick up the tab.
The question is – what is the fairest way to decarbonise while still keeping the lights on?
And, with market forces driving change in our farming world already, one might wonder why this piece of work is necessary when processors and customers are setting the bar for our food producers.
Fonterra, for example, proposes reducing the emissions intensity of its products by 30% by 2030 and reckons just 7% of that will rely on new technology.
It’s in the business of making money for its shareholders, not of winning elections, so one would imagine the numbers stack up.
Emissions are a human problem and it will take all of us to meet the moment.
Surely it’s time to move on from “not us, them” to “how can we all help?”.
In Focus Podcast: Making sense of methane
Methane is all over the news right now with the government setting up an independent panel to review agricultural methane targets.
Meanwhile, the Climate Change Commission has just released its latest advice to the government, which is pretty clear on how much methane should be reduced in our food production industry. Senior reporter Richard Rennie tries to make sense of this.
