News this week that the government has dismantled He Waka Eke Noa and removed the threat of agriculture entering the Emissions Trading Scheme is welcomed but also confirms the complexity of the challenge to reduce biogenic methane.
At its most simplistic, the easiest way is to reduce the number of farmed animals, which is what Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick implied should happen in an RNZ interview this week.
But in the real world, that has economically ruinous implications for New Zealand and was why farmers rejected He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) with estimates that its proposed methane tax would price 20% of sheep and beef farms and 5% of dairy farmers out of existence.
This inequality created obvious tension within HWEN as sectors sought the best deal for their members, so there will be immense pressure on the newly formed Pastoral Sector Group as it seeks an equitable and viable solution to the same problem.
Methane is responsible for about 60% of NZ’s total contribution to atmospheric warming, prompting the previous government to adopt target reductions of 10% by 2030 and a 24-47% percent reduction by 2050.
Ironically, the estimated loss of 1 million stock units due to afforestation between 2017-22 means the livestock sector is likely to exceed the 2030 target.
This begs the broader question of whether a tax is an appropriate tool.
A tax is designed to change or moderate behaviour but, given the absence of practical and economically viable solutions to reduce methane emissions, pricing those emissions could provoke change counter to what is desired.
It would divert cash that could otherwise be more effectively invested, reduce livestock numbers by encouraging land use change and lower NZ production, which would be picked up by less efficient producers offshore.
Many in the “agriculture is not doing enough” camp have been quick to criticise removing the threat of agriculture joining the ETS, but have not provided a single viable solution of how to reduce emissions.
Equally, commentary from scientists and others claims NZ is ignoring its international responsibilities and that international consumers will react negatively.
Both those positions assume nothing is being done.
It could be argued that drystock and dairy farmers are more aware of their obligations than those in most other sectors.
Fonterra, Silver Fern Farms and Alliance, for example, have announced or are about to announce greenhouse gas emission targets for their suppliers.
The reality is that with an industry as large and as important as agriculture, change as significant as dealing with methane has to be surgically planned, so it is right that research challenging the current narrative be investigated.
That includes a 2021 finding from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, supported by climate scientists Myles Allen and Michelle Cain, that globally methane only needs to reduce by about 0.3% annually for it to not be adding any more warming.
NZ farmers need to address their GHG emissions, but research is constantly evolving and for a sector as economically and socially crucial as agriculture, we need to tread carefully.
