Allan Barber notes the pressure is on from the Climate Change Commission to plant more trees, cut livestock numbers, and buy more carbon credits. But the rural sector is persisting with its own pressure to 'be more realistic' and more nuanced

The latest Climate Change Commission (CCC) advice to the government on New Zealand’s emissions budget for 2036-2040 and its ability to meet targets consistent with the Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement is reasonably optimistic about progress.

But at the same time it casts serious doubt over agriculture’s capacity to reach budgeted methane reduction targets without major cuts to sheep and beef farming and dairy production.

The CCC’s job is clearly to provide objective advice which successive governments can choose to pursue, amend or ignore. It is not employed to take sides or be sentimental about the potentially deleterious effect on particular sectors or indeed on the capacity of the economy to pay the country’s way in the world. However I wonder exactly how much value it contributes to the economy, when its advice is so theoretical and seemingly lacking in common sense.

The present coalition has chosen to conduct a separate review of the actual contribution of warming gases by the ruminant animal sector. According to Mark Cameron, chair of the primary production select committee, the review will adhere to certain clear principles which are to follow the most up-to-date science, to adopt a genuine split gas approach to the measurement of methane emissions, taking into account the actual warming effect produced by falling stock numbers, and to acknowledge on farm sequestration in all forms.

The review picks up on research conducted on behalf of DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb NZ and Federated Farmers which claimed new scientific knowledge showed emissions targets should be viewed from a ‘no additional warming’ perspective. Simon Upton, Climate Change Commissioner for the Environment, reacted to this by saying this finding was merely a rehash of a modelling exercise he had commissioned in 2018. Rod Carr, CCC chairman, maintains there has been no change in scientific understanding of methane’s impact and the standard measurement of global warming remains GWP100, in spite of evidence methane is a shorter lived gas for which the sector claims GWP* would be more appropriate.

All this means the primary sector is unlikely to convince the commission to change its advice to the government, but it has a better chance of getting the coalition government to look favourably at a change in the targets, especially if the review shows more positive results connected with the actual warming effects of ruminant farming. This suggests the imprecise nature of scientific findings allows politicians to choose which ones they want to base their decisions on. The huge gap in the agreed methane target between 24% and 47% indicates the answer is far from absolute, so perhaps it could come down a few per cent without destroying either our international reputation or agricultural production.

The sector will be hoping the review provides a stay of execution because Carr stated on RNZ last week there are only three ways to reduce emissions by enough to meet the targets – plant trees (500,000 hectares), cut livestock numbers (27% for dairy and 12% for sheep and beef), and buy credits. The first option would automatically help to achieve the second, so hopefully he hasn’t double counted. The commission did refer to other areas of the economy which are also expected to make contributions like waste reduction which would cut methane emissions and industrial decarbonisation measures, citing specific programmes at NZ Steel and Fonterra supported by subsidies introduced by the previous government.

Carr also said New Zealand is making more progress than expected towards its goals, with a faster uptake of EVs and a spike in pine tree planting, although he conceded the report does not take the new government’s policies into account. Nor is transport as a whole yet able to transition further from fossil fuels. He is firm in his opinion ambitious action on climate change will offer net social and economic benefits, although the short term cost will be higher. He may be right, although it sounds very much like a fingers crossed expression of hope which he cannot be held to, at least for another 10 years.

Another factor in meeting emissions targets is the role of the ETS which covers less than half our emissions, agriculture being excluded from the scheme. The CCC has recommended to the government a reduction in the number of ETS units available as the scheme no longer appears to be fulfilling its task of aligning with emissions reduction goals. The failure to sell any units at auction during 2023 indicates an oversupply which will hinder the achievement of emissions reduction targets.

A recent report by researchers at the University of Auckland finds the ETS is not performing its dual function of stimulating the economy and reducing GHG emissions. It recommends the government should instead focus on five key sectors – agriculture, transport, energy, petroleum and diesel, and waste – which it says are underperforming in lowering emissions, by investing in innovation technologies and energy alternatives like hydrogen to encourage growth and lower emissions.

The authors say the present focus on emissions reduction targets runs the risk of slowing economic performance of those industries. “There’s an assumption that market participants will comply with their emission reduction commitments, but that’s a hard task when no substantial initiatives are available,” says senior research fellow Dr Selena Sheng.

This brings me back to where I started. The CCC has been tasked with providing objective advice to the government and an inspection of its website shows it produces a huge number of different reports, reviews and updates, all on slightly different aspects of the climate change issue. But its role does not include any recognition, apart from the major issue of climate change, that it exists in an imperfect world in which ordinary people, especially farmers, have to survive and hopefully prosper in the face of significant challenges, whether economic, regulatory or climatic.

The sector will continue to hope for a large dose of common sense.

Current schedule and saleyard prices are available in the right-hand menu of the Rural section of this website.