Ele Ludemann: Paris Accord could determine election

The government’s commitment to the Paris Accord has garnered opposition from farmers and farming organisations.

Federated Farmers is not supportive:

The Government’s announcement today of a 2035 climate target of a 51-55% emissions reduction has signed New Zealand up for a decade more of planting pine on productive land, Federated Farmers meat and wool chair Toby Williams says.

“In the past, New Zealand has signed up to Paris Agreement targets that are achievable only by either paying billions of dollars for international units or planting large areas of New Zealand in carbon forestry.

“The 2030 target of a 50% reduction in all greenhouse gas emissions in just the next five years is already completely beyond reach.

“Even by 2035, as half of New Zealand’s emissions are from agriculture, a target of 51-55% is still not feasible.

All the target does is commit us to 10 more years of planting pines, because that’s the only way for our country to achieve such a steep reduction.”

Williams says New Zealand’s options for achieving the climate targets are simple.

“We can’t reduce our emissions to the extent required without trade-offs that would see New Zealand worse off.

“Treasury has estimated that the 2030 target, if we were to meet it, would cost up to $24 billion. The Prime Minister, when interviewed on Q+A with Jack Tame late last year, couldn’t commit to hitting the target, as he said it was very challenging.

“So, our only other options are to send billions of dollars overseas to buy offshore credits, or plant pine trees, destroying our iconic and world-famous landscapes.”

Last year, the Climate Commission suggested keeping an all-gases target and at least a 50% reduction, which would mean another 850,000 hectares of land converted to forestry.

“To paint a clear picture: that’s an area five times the size of our country’s treasured Molesworth Station,” Williams says.

“That would be devastating, forever changing the face of New Zealand.

“There is a very real risk that we could become the great pine plantation of the South Pacific – hardly something to be proud of.”

Williams says the Government needs to be setting climate targets that are realistic and achievable.

“Mr Luxon is right now facing an unachievable target for 2030 left to him by the previous Government.

“Signing up to an even more ambitious target for 2035 has simply created the same headache for a future Prime Minister.”

Parliament agreed in 2019 to set ‘split-gas’ targets for greenhouse gas reductions domestically. This means short-lived methane is treated differently to long-lived carbon dioxide.

Taking this split-gas approach to our international targets would see New Zealand in a position to set more achievable targets.

“Federated Farmers wrote to Climate Change Minister Simon Watts in October last year asking for a meeting to discuss a split-gas approach to an emissions target, but we didn’t get a reply,” Williams says.

“That’s extremely disappointing. It seems he doesn’t even want to hear our concerns for rural New Zealand, let alone understand them. It’s wilful blindness.

“We really need the Government to start setting achievable targets that don’t require huge levels of forestry, and we need the Government to use the most up-to-date science on the warming impact of methane.”

Beef + Lamb NZ also calls on the government to use up to date science :

. . . B+LNZ Chair Kate Acland says the NDC’s failure to follow a split-gas approach is a significant concern.

“New Zealand is the only country that has split-gas domestic targets and an all-gas aggregated NDC target.

“This creates confusion as to what reductions New Zealand is actually trying to achieve from an emissions reduction perspective from each gas and creates uncertainty for farmers about what future policy objectives will be.

“There was a real opportunity here to address that, but the Government has chosen not to.

“Uruguay, another country with a significant agricultural sector, has adopted a split gas approach so there is a precedent globally.”

In light of the uncertainty, B+LNZ reiterates its call for the Government to amend New Zealand’s methane targets.

An independent panel on methane last year reinforced that New Zealand’s current methane targets are too high and could be revised downwards.

It found that reductions in the range of 14-24 percent by 2050 would see methane not add any additional warming from 2017 levels, depending on how quickly the rest of the world reduces its emissions.

“The panel’s findings were an improvement on the current methane targets but would still be a stretch for the sheep and beef sector,” Acland says.

“B+LNZ has long advocated for a review of the targets based on a warming approach.

“Methane should only be asked to do what is being asked of other gases, which is to achieve no additional warming. We simply can’t leave the current 47 percent target hanging there.

“Farmers are committed to the environment and absolute emissions from sheep and beef farms have reduced by 35 percent since 1990. We know there’s an expectation that further progress is made in reducing agricultural emissions from food production, but farmers need clarity and certainty.

“We need progress on this issue, soon, and we’ll continue to push this case to the Government.”

The Methane Science Accord – a grouping of FARM (Facts About Ruminant Methane) Groundswell, 50 Shades of Green and Rural Advocacy Network (RAN) – is calling for no tax on ruminant methane :

All policy on ruminant methane emissions must be based on current science. As research findings on methane’s impact on the atmosphere are still evolving it is critically important for farming, for rural communities and the New Zealand economy that recent scientific results are recognised and, unless shown to be false, are adopted locally and internationally.

We reject the GWP100 standard for measuring methane as outdated and unscientific and accept the IPCC’s AR6 Report making clear that new science states ruminant methane’s warming ability is exaggerated by 300 to 400%. More recently scientific results released by Happer and Wijngaarden and supported by Sheahen, Coe, May, Allison, Fabinski, Weigleb, Schildknecht et al show conclusively that ruminant methane is too insignificant to have any measurable impact on global temperatures.

We, therefore, reject any attempts to apply any form of taxing or restrictions on ruminant methane unless the most recent findings are proved to be erroneous.

Act and New Zealand First are both talking about making pulling out of the accord their policy in next year’s election.

Pulling out of the accord doesn’t mean abandoning efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. It would be an opportunity to base actions on science rather than politics and bureaucracy and to put the research, science and technology horses back in front of the environmental cart.

Act’s and New Zealand First’s committing to pulling out of the Accord probably wouldn’t affect the rural seats that National holds but it would have a big impact on the party vote.

Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.