Although the Climate Commission's latest report broadens the responsibility for meeting New Zealand's climate targets to every sector of the economy (and especially the transport sector), there is no escaping the need for the agricultural sector to adapt significantly further, to ensure these national targets are achieved.
For farmers, they need to realise that our customers are demanding change. And our customers are international. This is a powerful market signal that must be responded to if we are to have markets for our products.
Sinead Leahy is a senior science adviser at the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Center in Palmerston North.
She points out that by the end of this century, if we don't meet our climate targets, we will almost certainly have more than 100 days a year where the average temperature is over 25oC. This is important for farming because ryegrass only grows properly between 5oC and 19oC. If we end up with a subtropical climate, the type of pasture farming New Zealand has a competitive advantage with will disappear.
New Zealand agriculture needs to focus on solutions for the excessive production of gasses from ruminant animals (like cattle) for both methane and nitrous oxide, as well as the impact nitrogen fertilisers have.
It turns out that sequestering carbon in our soils is not going to be a significant source of new benefit. That is because our young soils naturally have already-high levels of carbon stored, and the main risk is losing some of that; that is, protecting our soils won't bring added benefit, but neglecting them will make the task much harder to achieve our climate commitments.
The main international commitment is the Paris Agreement where New Zealand committed to reduce its emissions -30% below 2005 levels by 2030.
In addition, we have a domestic commitment to be 'net zero' for long-lived gasses by 2050, and to reduce short-lived gasses -10% below 2017 levels by 2030, -47% by 2050.
Part of the overall problem is that we are already very efficient in these areas by international standards; if every farm rose to current best practice, that would only reduce emissions by -10%. New land use changes are going to be required.
And new science will also be required; there are opportunities in rumen microbiology for example, that could have a global impact.
Support us. Go ad-free. Find out more.
Listen to the podcast to get the full story and full perspectives from a key scientist involved in this work.
Angus Kebbell is the Producer at Tailwind Media. You can contact him here.
13 Comments
Going to be interesting to see how this plays out. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/126247858/ardern-refuses-to-release-in…
I suspect more resistance and louder voices are likely to go nowhere, particularly on freshwater matters. With Stats/MFE getting their act together on environmental reporting, and with central government now looking to put their own capital in on the infrastructure upgrades in areas where local councils are fraught with poor wastewater treatment, spills and overflows - the direction toward improvement of our freshwater resources will persist, I suspect. No way will the NPS-FM go backwards.
As the National government found to its peril - NZers want swimmable, not wadeable, rivers.
National probably has more to worry about than Labour with the Groundswell movement. They probably will lose the more radical( radically conservative?) to Act or NZF. They need to thread a fine line to keep the more progressive / blue green farmers , without losing the groundswell leaning moderates. Probably by offerinbg sympathy to the farmers ( hence Collins gettin it in the arse slogan) , while avoiding saying what they would do if they were elected . .
Yes, I'd agree about National. If you want to be a broad church - broad enough to become a government, they'd be foolish to suggest they would undo the NPS-FM - and it will be strengthened again, I suspect before the end of this term from Labour.
But where NZ First are concerned, hard to say - WP wasn't impressed with the farming lobby during the Zero Carbon Bill period. He made a classic WP quote that;
"Sometimes the stuff at the end of cows can get into your ears and contaminate your thinking"
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/126258179/division-in-the-rank…
This quote by groundswell organiser Bryce McKenzie, makes me think he is more interested in protesting than effecting change .
“At least if lobby groups had walked away from the table over freshwater reforms and left it in the Government’s hands, it would have looked better than them trying to be part of it.”
Pretty hard to work with that attitude. Sounds like he is more interested in using a spoon in that stuff coming out of cows rear ends.
Jack that is rubbish. On the ground knowledge of your local "ecosystem" trumps the science/scientists sitting upon high and regulating. Groundswell is about making regulators listen. There is massive buy in for these reforms by Farmers nationally. Farmers are not averse to change , farmers are very adept at change BUT regulated change that doesn't work is plain stupid. Collaboration can lead to great outcomes and that's all we want. You watch the buy-in too around farm/carbon forestry now as well. Price signals work better than regulation. You will be in 7th heaven with more pinus radiata on the hill country !!!
“At least if lobby groups had walked away from the table over freshwater reforms and left it in the Government’s hands, it would have looked better than them trying to be part of it.”
If farmers want to "buy in to these reforms ", Then they need to get rid of this guy.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.