Methane emissions targets may be lowered after panel scientists delivered a report looking at an alternative approach

A report commissioned by the Coalition Government has devised a new methane emissions target which would be easier for the agriculture sector to achieve but would contribute less to tackling global warming.

Five scientists were tasked with designing a methane emissions target that wouldn't exceed 2017's global warming levels, unlike current targets aimed at reducing methane and cooling the planet.

The panel—comprising Nicola M Shadbolt, David Frame, William Collins, Laura Revell and Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher—did not recommend adopting this target but merely described it.

The review's terms of reference prevented the scientists from assessing its impact on the overall climate strategy.

It found a 14% to 15% reduction in methane emissions would be enough to prevent additional warming beyond 2017 levels. The existing target is for a 24% to 47% reduction, which would likely result in a net cooling effect.

The rationale behind the alternative target is that carbon emitters are only required to reach net zero, while methane emitters must achieve a net reduction. 

You could argue it is unfair to ask the agriculture sector to cut its emissions more than the transport sector. The panel was also prevented from considering the fairness of targets.

However, carbon remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, meaning it would take centuries for a net reduction to have a cooling effect. Whereas methane dissipates within just 12 years, so reductions would have an impact within a human lifetime.

Agriculture Minister Todd McClay has previously committed to implementing the findings of the review, although he didn’t repeat that promise in a joint press release on Wednesday. 

It quoted Climate Minister Simon Watts saying the review would be considered alongside advice from the Climate Change Commission, which opposes changing the target, next year. 

McClay said he was “committed to meeting New Zealand’s climate obligations without shutting down Kiwi farms. Our methane targets must be scientifically based and practical.”

Each of the coalition partners also has an Associate Agriculture Minister quoted in the press release, but the work has been led by McClay — who is the most senior of the four ministers. 

Chlöe Swarbrick, co-leader of the Green Party, said the review deliberately bypassed the Climate Change Commission and blocked the panel from considering what the softer target would mean for other sectors. 

“The Climate Change Commission and Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment have explained time and again that a ‘no additional warming’ approach would mean every other part of our society and economy will carry a far higher burden, or mean reducing our necessary contribution to the global fight for climate action,” she said in a statement. 

Trading favours

Last weekend, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told attendees at a political rally in Hamilton that taxing farmers was not the answer to reducing emissions. This contradicts his Government’s official policy, which promises to put a price on agriculture emission by 2030. 

Farmers were supposed to be dropped into the Emission Trading Scheme next year after negotiations for a separate and more affordable pricing system broke down under Labour. 

The Coalition Government shifted that deadline back five years but remains committed, at least on paper, to taxing farmers’ emissions the way other sectors have been since 2008.

Land use change

Agricultural ministers also announced a change to land-use rules which will prevent sheep and beef farms from being converted into pine forest carbon offsets. 

New rules impose a temporary ban on converting land classified as most suitable for farming into forest, and will only allow 15,000 hectares per year of marginal farmland to enter the ETS.

In a statement, Federated Farmers said this would stop “the relentless march of pine trees across our productive farmland”. However, farmers will still be able to plant forests on up to 25% of their land, if they choose to. 

Paul Harrison, a fund manager at Salt Funds which invests in carbon credits, said this change had been well signalled. It wouldn’t affect prices in the short term as trees planted today wouldn’t produce credits for another decade. 

Susan Kilsby, an agricultural economist at ANZ, said the majority of forestry in the scheme was planted on class 6 land and the changes would have a meaningful impact on the future.

An ETS auction held today partially cleared, selling 4 million units at the floor price of $64 per unit. Another 3.7 million units will be cancelled, as that was the last auction of the year.