Future generations of New Zealanders risk having to pick up the costs of climate mitigation if the government’s Second Emissions Reduction Plan (2026-2030) goes ahead, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton says.
The low-cost approach advocated in the plan runs a high risk of passing costs to future generations, he said in his submission on the plan.
“At the same time future generations will inherit a vastly expanded forestry estate that will have to be maintained in perpetuity, effectively removing any option value the land may have.”
The plan is a key tool for implementing the government’s climate strategy. Submissions on the draft plan closed on August 25.
The proposed plan will almost certainly be insufficient to meet the third emissions budget and may miss the second budget and even the first, depending on the impact of the current dry year and forestry harvest, he said.
“In falling short, the plan will pass the bill for additional action to meet the 2050 target and ongoing maintenance to future generations.”
Upton also questioned the assumption that emissions reductions technology will inevitably be much cheaper in the future.
“There is no guarantee that the cavalry of cheap technology will come charging over the hill as is implicitly assumed by this plan.”
Upton said more needs to be made of existing options that can bring down emissions. These practices, which focus on improving the efficiency of production include reducing stocking rates while maintaining output, reducing inputs, improving animal genetics, once-a-day milking (for dairy) and raising bobby calves for beef (for sheep/beef).
More incentives are also needed for farmers to preferentially purchase low-methane sheep to drive up demand. These genetics have to be linked with productivity enhancements or it is unlikely they will be adopted.
As the first domestic target for biogenic methane emissions is a 10% reduction by 2030, there is work needed to ensure policies are in place to drive the changes needed to achieve this target, he said.
“Currently the only incentive driving reductions in agricultural emissions is the ETS [Emissions Trading Scheme], which is encouraging sheep and beef land to be converted into forestry.”
Agricultural emissions pricing needs to be carefully designed and communicated so farmers understand why they are being asked to pay.
“Whilst I believe the science on methane to be well established, the communication of this science will be an important challenge the government must carefully address to ensure buy-in for any pricing system.
“The key issue the government will need to grapple with is why it is allowing fossil fuel emitters the right to offset emissions but not agricultural emitters. In my view, using forestry to offset agricultural methane emissions would be a far more appropriate use of whatever offset capacity we have.”
Its nature as a short-lived gas made offsetting emissions using forestry a responsible mitigation option. It would not fall victim to the issues with offsetting carbon dioxide because of the commensurability between the lifetime of the cooling effect of a pine production forest and the lifetime of the warming effect of livestock methane. It meant there would be no need for ongoing planting after a forest had been established, he said.
“Furthermore, if the herd size were reduced the area forested could also be decreased, maintaining the option value of the land for future generations.
“It would therefore make sense to enable farmers to offset their methane emissions using trees.”
He recommended the government build in a much greater margin for error into its emissions budgets, saying unlimited forestry offsets cast a “long shadow” over transitioning to a low emissions economy.
“My central recommendation is therefore to decouple forestry from the ETS and use alternative incentives to drive afforestation.”
