The coming weeks are crucial in sorting out the long-term charging framework, right through to 2050, for agriculture’s greenhouse-gas emissions. Right now, things are not going well.
The cross-industry plus Maori plus government group charged with developing the framework is called He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN). Currently, there are two options out for discussion among farmers.
If no consensus is reached as to the path ahead, then the backstop is that agriculture comes into the emission trading scheme in 2025, with that legislation already in place.
The worst outcome for agriculture would be as part of the ETS with its inherent inflexibility. Among other things, it would mean that charging for short-lived methane emissions would be based on the fundamentally flawed 100-year carbon dioxide equivalence (CO2e) figure. Carbon-dioxide equivalence is a seriously confounded measure.
I first wrote about the flaws in CO2e thinking in relation to methane more than 15 years ago. But at the time no-one seemed very interested. Now it is a real big issue.
Short-lived methane emissions from New Zealand agriculture have changed very little over the last 20 years. That means that there is now minimal growth in the invisible ‘atmospheric cloud’ of methane sourced from New Zealand agriculture, with inflows and outflows approximately in balance. That in turn means that agriculturally sourced methane from New Zealand agriculture is having very little additional warming effect on climate, despite methane being a well-acknowledged greenhouse gas.
This warming situation contrasts strongly to the situation with long-lived carbon dioxide, with new emissions piling up in the atmosphere on top of prior emissions which are only leaving the atmosphere very slowly.
The alternative HWEN proposals take a split-gas approach. That is an important step forward that allows the short-lived and long-lived gases to be considered on their merits. But there are still lots of nasty fish-hooks out there. These include both the measurement metrics and the administration of the system.
There are some who say that methane should not be charged at all. However, the counter to that is that methane is indeed a powerful greenhouse gas. If New Zealand’s methane emissions were to decrease, then with all other things being unchanged, the world would cool, albeit by a tiny amount, given that the world is big and New Zealand is small.
There are also a lot of people, including it would seem Minister of Climate Change James Shaw, who remain wedded to the confounded CO2e framework.
The consequence of thought diversity is that it is very hard to have constructive conversations about these matters. Most people seem confident that their own perspective is the only correct one.
I first wrote in broad terms about the HWEN proposals back in late November 2021. I then planned to sit back on the side-lines and watch the shouting and stone throwing that I knew would occur between the protagonists. I had no particular wish to get caught in the middle.
However, I now find myself increasingly drawn into discussions by farmers and farmer groups as to whether any of the proposals are satisfactory. As things stand, the answer is that neither of the HWEN options, nor the ETS backstop, is acceptable to most of the interested parties.
Among the more rational thinkers, this then leads inevitably to questions as to what can be done to improve the proposals?
In these discussions, I consistently hold to the position that being in the ETS is the worst outcome of all. In the long term, it would do great damage to the land-based industries, with small pain initially but then increasing inexorably over time. The damage would not only be to agriculture but to the overall New Zealand economy.
I have said multiple times before, but I can see that I will have to remind some non-rural people again, that primary industries provide more than 80 percent of New Zealand’s export income. Pastoral exports alone now comprise 50 percent of exports. There is nothing on the horizon to replace the pastoral exports.
Many urban folk do not comprehend that New Zealand’s pastoral soils are in general highly unsuited to cropping. It won’t happen for the simple reason that it would be both an ecological and economic disaster.
If agriculture does enter the ETS, then levies will be collected by processors per unit of production. This would mean that all producers pay an emission charge based on the average efficiency, with no incentive to be more efficient.
Within the ETS system, and with the levy applied at the processor level but inevitably charged back to farmers, the only response behaviour that reduces the levy is by producing less product. That means less export income.
The HWEN proposals provide an alternative framework that has potential to shift the focus from reducing output to encouraging production systems that reduce the intensity of greenhouse-gas emissions per unit of output. But for that to be achieved, there has to be a major focus on research and development (R&D) programs that can unlock those improvements, with this knowledge then flowing through to extension and education programs. The levies on methane and nitrous oxide are the funding tool to make all of this happen.
When the HWEN draft proposals came out in November 2021, I was cautiously optimistic that this was indeed the key focus. However, with more details now available in the latest draft dated February 2022, which extends to 50 pages, warning bells are ringing strongly.
I note that only a very small proportion of the levies are now proposed to be used for emission-efficiency research. A large proportion of the levies will be taken up by administration. The other major use of the levies will be sequestration payments for carbon-storing activities that are currently excluded from the ETS.
Most forestry activities that sequester new carbon are already in the ETS and this is the place they belong. However, there are some components of forestry, for example related to riparian plantings, that are excluded. Also, some of the rules relating to regenerating indigenous vegetation need amendment. However, such changes should be occurring within the ETS rather than dragging these issues across into the HWEN proposals. HWEN should be for agriculture.
Minister James Shaw has indicated in recent days that he does not think the HWEN proposals go far enough in reducing agricultural emissions. That is because he is focusing on the so-called direct effects whereby farmers would reduce production. The reason that the direct effects of levies are expected at least initially to be small is that most farmers have no alternative to pastoral activities.
What the modelling shows is that pricing is not the way to solve the emissions problem and get the change that is needed. Environmental regulations plus emission- efficiency research, together with afforestation of the steep erodible soils within the carbon-based ETS, is the way to go.
Perhaps Minister Shaw and others need to be reminded that the Paris Agreement which New Zealand signed up to is very explicit that greenhouse-gas policies should not be at the expense of food production. Accordingly, there is a need to refocus on what can be done to increase the emission efficiency of pastoral production and thereby reduce emissions.
Research into technologies and systems to reduce the emissions intensity of agricultural production is an issue very close to my heart. I am astounded that HWEN could now be proposing an indicative R&D allocation for emissions efficiency of only $10 million per annum for the pastoral industry that earns $30 billion of export earnings. This level of proposed R&D is indeed trivial. And that means that HWEN, linked at least in part to internal tensions within its members, has lost the plot.
The message back to HWEN needs to be that there is strong support for a split-gas approach. However, a reset of thinking is now required to focus on the amount of money that is needed and can be spent productively on R&D. All parties to HWEN and also Minister Shaw need to be reminded that the aim is to reduce emissions, not production. A fundamental principle is that the levies, both on methane and nitrous oxide, need to be no more than is required to achieve those reductions.
Getting the HWEN proposals back on track is not going to be easy. Given the multiplicity of parties involved, together with the diversity of thinking both within HWEN itself, and also between HWEN and Minister Shaw, there is no easy way forward.
Increasingly I am of the perspective that this is not going to get sorted out before the next election. All of the key political parties therefore have some work to do.
*Keith Woodford was Professor of Farm Management and Agribusiness at Lincoln University for 15 years through to 2015. He is now Principal Consultant at AgriFood Systems Ltd. You can contact him directly here.
97 Comments
Sad to hear your tone darken Keith. I had great hopes that HWEN would work out an alternative to going into the ETS.
Ironically, He Waka Eke Noa is te reo Māori for 'we are all in this canoe together', which is demonstrably false, at least for the actual members. The waka seems to be capsizing.
Always look forward to your articles Keith, thank you.
I do wonder whether the split gas approach has a sting in its tail. Whilst the measurements used in climate targets (GWP100 etc) are clearly flawed, climate models do recognise the short-lived nature of methane and it's actual impact on warming over the short- to long-term.
As these models are updated and refined ahead of COP27, I think methane will come under increasing focus. Why? Because those models will show that our best chance of slowing warming quickly is to dramatically cut methane (and nitrous oxide) emissions. The short-lived nature of methane and its undoubted potency make it the ideal short-term target - the thing you cut hard whilst you get your CO2 reductions on stream.
NZ could have perhaps evaded attention on methane if it was actually doing anything to reduce carbon emissions. As I have said before, kicking the can down the road by bribing poorer countries to destroy their ecosystems with forests won't cut it for much longer.
Good comment. Methane has come under more intense scrutiny over the past few years. I'm pretty sure at least some of that attention is due to our friends in the fossil industry giving a little "look over there" nudge. Of course the FF industry has it's own little fugitive emissions issue going on in the background, although the rising militant vegan culture seems to be less interested in that. Perhaps if we'd been more serious about the issue a few years back, rather than driving Fergy tractors up parlaments stairs and waving FART tax placards, we could have headed off this situation? Anyhow CO2 emissions aren't going anywhere but up, so expect the pressure on methane to increase. I'm looking forward to the time when politicians realise the human economy is a heat engine that functions in the biggest part, by burning geologically stored carbon. Taxing the very lifeblood of an economy, won't end well if expecting growth.
Jfoe
Yes, but in relation to reducing livestock emissions we are already ahead of the field. I cannot identify any other country in the world that is bringing agricultural methane into an emission charging scheme.
More broadly, everyone else in the world is trying to reduce their GHG emissions by means that do not actually shoot their own economy through the foot, let alone through even more vital organs.
Note that I do not argue against NZ further reducing its methane emissions. But I prefer to do it through R&D to further reduce emission intensity.
This morning I received an email from a North Island sheep and beef farmer who had just calculated his emissions from the B+L calculator. He had correctly figured that with either the ETS or an ETS aligned system, the short-term pain could be modest but the long term consequence was his business would be totally destroyed. I could not argue with that assessment.
KeithW
Out of interest Keith, how much success have we had to date in research/technologies that will lower emissions of livestock themselves? I have seen various articles on seaweed supplements, but haven't heard of any widespread adoption.
I'd be all for any new technology that could help here, but there is a general level of skepticism around that blue sky claims, like "clean coal", that just may never be viable and are used to sidestep making meaningful change.
Not disagreeing with your overall argument, just interest what sort of chance we have of making an impact with research into this area.
Miguel
The one that gets talked about is a methane inhibitor vaccine. But one of the challenges there is that the methane-producing bacteria live in the rumen, and it is not easy to get antibodies from the blood system to the rumen.
More promising is the compound 3-NOP which can be added to feed. It is now proven for adding to feed rations and will become widely used overseas but it doesn't yet work well in a pastoral situation. That issue is being worked on
Lincoln scientists Hong Di and Keith Cameron accidentally discovered a technique for greatly reducing methane emissions from effluent ponds. This has the potential to reduce overall methane emissions from the dairy system by about 5% and the technology is now 'ready to go'.
Breeding low emission animals is another promising possibility.
There is a whole range of modifications to farming systems that individually will only have a small effect but collectively can be significant. This is also what has been happening over the last 20 years, such that each unit of meat and milk is now associated with considerably lower emissions than was previously the case. Anything that leads to feed being used more efficiently by animals will reduce the emission intensity of the meat and milk.
I was part of groups that last year sought funding for two projects, one for methane and one for nitrous oxide. Neither was funded. The nitrous oxide project related to testing known technologies and I have good confidence we could demonstrate reductions in nitrous oxide emissions with these technologies and related farming systems. The methane project was somewhat more speculative but was still worth a go - it may have benefitted overseas dairy systems more than in NZ.
As someone knowledgeable said to me just today, NZ spends across all industries (not just agriculture) about $1.5 billion on R&D each year. And here we are talking of spending $10 million on GG research of the pastoral industries that earn 30 billion export dollars. In my opinion, the way we choose and manage research projects in NZ leaves much t be desired.
KeithW
I think the reason our emmisions per unit have decreased is because of genetic gain (breeding more productive cows) and feeding them better to take advantage of the genetic gains. However I think that the genetic gains are well ahead of the feeding improvements and that a lot of farms could feed their animals more and gain even more benefit from the genetic gains.
Appreciate the response Keith. I was reading that Ireland are looking to hit their near-term 2026 targets by signifciantly reducing the use of nitrogen fertilisers (stock reductions by proxy?). This would then buy themselves some time to do the R&D to reduce methane emissions from animals by 2030. Given the state of our waterways, this sounds like an attractive option to me.
Ireland is interesting because they have been developing their dairy industry very fast for the last 6-8 years, ever since EU quotas were removed. My guess is that, unlike us, they have been increasing their methane emissions considerably, but I don't have the numbers at hand. We too are reducing our nitrogen fertilisers - dairy farms are now down to 190 kg/ha whereas many were until recently using around 240 kg. I know of some that were using 400kg!
KeithW
Nothing easy here. If you look at it short term it is a problem as JFoe says - its all part of a bigger issue though and we need to reduce all emissions and start now (or yesterday). The real point is if we are getting in funds what should we do with them - spending huge amounts on consultants and admin wont help a dot.
A note I had from a retired scientist friend and reference which sums up the problem - yes over the long term Methane is a less of a problem but we don't have 100 years to wait - over 20 years its still a problem.
"Since CH4 has a shorter atmospheric residence time than CO2, the 100-year GWP is much less than the 20-year GWP. The CH4 20-year GWP has been estimated [8] to be 84–87, compared with the 100-year GWP of 28–36."
(Ref: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/global-warming-potential)
No easy answers but I agree HWEN sends all the money to places it shouldn't go. We need to have a more positive attitude to this, on all sides, to accept that we need to improve and find solutions for everyones benefit.
Jack,
If the short-term is really the problem then why don't we stop all car imports immediately? - just import some ambulances, fire engines, police cars. and some trucks to shift the food around. Similarly, why don't we stop harvesting all timber right now? The reason we don't do these things is because as a society we don't see a doomsday climate scenario in that timeframe. Indeed there is no evidence for such a catastrophe in that timeframe.
NZ's methane cloud is already essentially stable, which is the point that we want to get to with CO2 in another 28 years.
The nitrous oxide issue is different - we do need to get that down markedly. But simply taxing it won't actually solve any problems, because taxing in itself does not provide a solution unless there are alternative pathways for farmers to follow.
The target for methane emissions is for that to reduce by 10 % by 2030. That will lead to a significant reduction in the NZ-sourced atmospheric methane cloud. I think we could achieve that target with appropriate research, development, extension and education, also helped by some afforestation of marginal hill country.
KeithW
Im not disagreeing with you. We need to get all emissions down. Its a wicked problem on all sides. I don't see any point in just beating people with a stick all the time - sure you need some stick but we have to look for solutions not just blaming people.
As to the speed of change - well from my perspective its the old "a stitch in time saves nine". The longer we pontificate and do nothing and more we have to do later. If we had started doing something 2 decades ago we wouldn't be in this place re emissions, water etc - but it was just kicked down the road - a good lesson there I believe and a comment many senior ag industry people have told me privately.
Many would argue strongly that we do have a problem looming very soon as once the gases are there its hard to get them back. In fact I would say the voters who believe this, especially in younger age groups, will very soon have far more power and influence than those of our generation - in other words its coming whether we like it or not.
On not harvesting trees well thats what the ETS will do - its sending a price signal that society values the forest staying in the ground longer to provide another service, carbon capture, other than timber- now everyones up in arms about that and longer term exotic sequestration looks like it will be stopped.
Herein lies the crux of the problem, and challenge, no one wants to give ground or make some hard choices be it on farm or reduce fossil fuel emissions.
Farmers did start reducing methane emissions yesterday - around 1990 going by government data. I'm sure Jimmy will be doing a press conference about this shortly.
https://pcep02s1.blob.core.windows.net/cache/5/a/1/3/6/8/5a136842a51fbc…
Yes, lets bask in our success. Well done you!
"The global temperature departure from average in January fell from December to what is essentially zero, at +0.03 °C (+0.05 °F)."
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Cereal production, utilization, and trade reaching record levels in 2021/22
https://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
Profile,
This is not the first time you have put this climate link up. I can't think why. When you delve into it, it quotes a temp. increase sine 1978 of 0.13C per decade.
That is not far off the figure I would use from other sources of 0.18C per decade and just confirms the long-term warming trend. This of course, as you know, the inevitable consequence of increasing the atmospheric level of CO2-see the Keeling Curve.
That is now 2 links you have put up which actually show a different picture than the one you intend to convey. Keep up the good work.
Dudes like "profile" play down global heating for some weird ideological reason? The favourite data set they present (UAH) depicts a smaller increase in temperature than the other datasets run by NASA, NOAA, Hadlee centre, etc. The reason for this is, UAH doesn't measure surface temperature i.e. where humans live, it measures a slice of the troposphere. The greenhouse effect is most strongly expressed at the Earth's surface. A measure that includes a slice of atmosphere up to 12km in altitude is always going to skew temperature data to cooler, as opposed to surface measurements. In other words, it's a deliberate obfuscation!
Yes, of course it is warming. We are in an inter-glacial and still coming out of the Little Ice Age. It is fantastic time for crops and global greening - see the FAO data.
The interesting thing is the rate of warming 0.13/decade for the past 40 years is lower than pre-1945 warming when the world was barely industrialised.
Given that 30% of antro CO2 was emitted in the 21st century would you expects to see more rapid warming to fit the Keeling Curve theory? Some runaway global warming rather than currently 0.03 C above the 30 year average?
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)
"Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
...the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Trend
(C per decade)
1860-1880 0.16
1910-1940 0.15
1975-1998 0.16
1975-2009 0.16
"I'm gong to put my hands over my eyes and selectively ignore the satellite record"
Take a look at the chart you posted
- why was the pre 1945 warming rate as fast as post 2000 with a tiny fraction of antro CO2?
- why was the temp cooling from 1945 to the ~1970's but CO2 was rising?
Correlation isn't causation - and in this case you don't even have a correlation.
What are you asking me for? There's this thing called google these days. The experts in the field have been working on this for decades. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/
The magazine article reinforced my point - "After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.". They don't bother to address that rapid pre-1940 warming elephant in the room - then try and equate post 1940's cooling with a 1965 volcano, smog from industry and sea water intakes in ships - ignoring the largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century in 1912, industrial production didn't increase until the 1950's and ship intakes sound a little desperate. Temperature cooled globally not just where northern hemisphere industry was.
"Industrial production didn't increase till the '50s?" Seriously? Aren't you forgetting about that little event, World War 2? By the way, the cooling through the mid 20th century was more a northern hemisphere phenomenon, not global. Unsurprising, considering that's where most of the burning was taking place. https://climate.nasa.gov/system/image_uploads/main/HemisphericTemperatu…
"By the way, the cooling through the mid 20th century was more a northern hemisphere phenomenon, not global." The link you posted upthread contradicts your hemisphere theory. https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT5.0Analysis_300.p…
Here is chart of US industrial production - note the globe was rapidly warming 1910 to 1940 (see your New Scientist link) while industry went from 5 to 8 and global fossil fuel use consumption was pitiful. This rapid warming clearly wasn't caused but industrial CO2. WW2 industrial production peaked in 1944 by didn't get back to that level until 1950. From 1950 to 1970 it doubled from 18 to 39 while the globe cooled the opposite of what was happening pre-1940. Some correlation.
https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels
https://www.macrotrends.net/2583/industrial-production-historical-chart
I suggest you look at the HadCrut graph again? It clearly shows a far greater cooling in the north, compared to south! The "ourdata" reference you posted shows no drop off in fossil consumption, therefore industrial activity, through the '40s-'70s. The aerosols released were clearly cooling the planet through this period. It wasn't until the '70s, real concerns about this global dimming were acted on and industry started cleaning up it's act. The downside was, the aerosol masking effect reduced, allowing more solar radiation to reach the Earths surface and CO2 caused heating accelerated. Humans have been altering the atmosphere as soon as they used fire. This accelerated once they started burning fossilised carbon. This atmospheric engineering has been altering climate at an accelerating rate over time. The cooling blip mid 20th century was largely caused by aerosols, but as CO2 concentration increased and industry cleaned a little, heating re established itself! And here we are, backed into a corner. Unable to burn more carbon without collapsing the biosphere, causing mass starvation. Unable not to burn it, because there are no scalable alternatives and global population can't be supported. This doesn't end well thanks to guys like you, who convinced the world to keep burning, when science told us not to!
You can't claim cooling was "not global" while posting charts with SH cooling. .Satellite bulk temperature from even corner of the globe is a far more comprehensive sample than a land based thermometer plonked network next to the worlds expanding airports with the gaps infilled to give a "global temperature".
Global warming in not accelerating, and the current theory cannot account for rapid pre-1940 warming. Nit picking over land thermometers vs state of the art satellite systems doesn't change that. Look at this chart for rates of warming over the past century and compare it to the growth in fossil fuel use - notice any correlation or acceleration?
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/70025000/gif/_700258…
"I'm gong to put my hands over my eyes and selectively ignore the satellite record" Ignore?The satellite record is part of the overall picture, but it's not particularly useful telling us what is happening on the Earth's surface, like other datasets. Why are you ignoring the data sets that focus on where humans live?
People live in cities from below sea level to over 5000m asl. To suggest the lower troposphere is not representative of the earth surface is laughable. UAH tracks Sea Surface Temperature very well and is calibrated by weather balloon data - is SST and weather balloon data not useful either?
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/…
"Temperature very well and is calibrated by weather balloon data - is SST and weather balloon data not useful either?" It's as useful as your satellite data. It's measuring a slice of atmosphere, not surface temperature. You answered your own question. Again, why do you ignore surface temperature records, where humans actually live, in preference to records where no humans live?
SSTs are lower than land surface temperatures, for obvious reasons. If SSTs compare with satellite readings, they are still not measuring exactly the same things. This also means land temperatures are higher than the global average, which is bad, because people live on land, not sea surface!
Of course that are not measuring the same thing it was show you the tight correlation with the lower troposphere and other measurements. The lower troposphere measure is from the surface to 10km. We have cities from the surface to 5 km if it encapsulates quite well where we live. If we had runaway global warming you would find it here.
The scientific consensus is, I am right you are whistling. Without having the actual data to hand, I'd say the vast bulk of the population lives below 1000 metres. How many cities can you name at 5000 metres? The lower troposphere where UAH data is collected from is 0m ASL to 12000m ASL.The greatest warming is where the atmosphere is densest. sealevel. We do find runaway global warming at 5000 metres, as we do at sealevel! https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-cha…
There is no runaway global warming - just boring inter-glacial warming.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/70025000/gif/_700258…
There is one particularly salient aspect of the conversation around NZ agriculture's contribution to global warming and the part played by grazing animals' methane emissions that is ignored by all commentators. That aspect is that livestock numbers in NZ have been in steady decline from their peak in 1980 to 1984 to the present day, this decline (when corrected for species) being about 15%. Even when allowing for different rates of emissions from the different species the reduction in methane emissions is about 13%. With the rapid conversion of grazing land to forestry that is taking place at present the reduction in stock numbers is accelerating even more. Why then, one should ask, is there any need for individual farm reductions when the sector as a whole is reducing?
Declining stock units ( but with each stock unit more productive) is a key reason why the inflows and outflows of NZ-sourced agricultural methane to the atmospheric methane cloud are in approximate balance. So the NZ-sourced agricultural methane that is resident in the atmosphere is essentially stable and so it is not contributing to further warming in any significant way.
KeithW
So the NZ-sourced agricultural methane that is resident in the atmosphere is essentially stable and so it is not contributing to further warming in any significant way.
Disappointed you are still running this line Keith because it is fundamentally flawed. The presence of the "methane cloud" over New Zealand will be contributing to trapping heat in the atmosphere for as long as it exists. The fact the cloud is static in size makes no difference to the damage that its existence is doing each and every year.
If the cloud were growing, it would indeed be worse than the present situation. But the fact that cloud is static, doesn't mean we can just ignore it, as you are effectively doing here.
Now, perhaps on a global scale the cloud is not by itself doing much damage compared to the methane clouds produced by other countries, which may be growing in size (although they too will ultimately reach an equilibrium if the methane contributing to them is constant). But its still doing more damage than 0. Saying "well it's static in size, so just ignore the damage it does, it's already baked in" is disingenuous - if we could magically reduce the cloud to 0, then it would cease to do any damage at all.
I'm curious, are you more disappointed that the CO2 cloud is growing every year, which is technically much worse for much longer. I hope you are aware that net zero means that emissions are not getting produced faster than they are removed from the atmosphere and that is where methane emissions currently are, unlike CO2 emissions. While pastoral farmers have achieved net zero, you are not happy until pastoral farming is at zero. I wonder if you hold the same opinion of CO2 emissions, you want them to be a zero, or are you just anti animal farming?
No, that's not what "net zero" means.
Net zero means for the gasses produced by humans, humans also do activities to 100% offset those same emissions. Now those activities might (and generally do) use natural processes to achieve the net offset, eg planting trees to grow and store CO2 as an offset for produced CO2. But the point is humans planted those additional trees that would otherwise not exist, so that is why they get to be counted as a carbon offset, because they are an additional activity that has been undertaken.
Natural processes that happen irrespective of humans do not count towards net zero - and it is actually many of those natural processes that we want to 'leave to their own devices' and not burden with the removal of human-emitted gasses. For example the ocean is soaking up human emitted CO2, making it more acidic - it would be better if humans offset all of the CO2 they added to the atmosphere themselves (ie, were 100% truly net-0 for CO2), so then the ocean would not soak up the CO2 and would not become acidic.
If a farm is producing 100 tons of methane, that farm must also proactively undertake activities that would withdraw 100 tons from the atmosphere. Then that farm is net 0 - making 0 difference to the balance in the atmosphere. If the farm emits 100 tons of methane, and the natural processes of the planet cause 100 tons to decay out of the atmosphere, the farm has still emitted 100 tons of methane and the farm is not net-0, because if the farm didn't exist those 100 tons would still have decayed out of the atmosphere anyway (out of the gigatons that are already up there).
So, given that the entire premise of your question is wrong, any answer I give would be meaningless. If NZ farms in aggregate were truly net-0 for methane (so every 100 tons emitted were directly offset by other human activities that removed 100 tons (or equivalent)), it means the methane cloud over NZ would be shrinking at the natural decay rate of methane, not stable.
I can't find anywhere that assumes net zero doesn't include natural effects, and it's worth pointing out that methane breaks down into carbon which is absorbed by the very plants that cows eat. It's such a simple cycle. It's not generating new carbon because every CO2 molecule had to come from the air get absorbed by a plant, get eaten by a cow, turn into methane then dissolve back into CO2 in the atmosphere in 10y then get absorbed by a plant again. If the 'methane cloud' was shrinking, it would be carbon negative. If the methane cloud was growing then it would be net positive, but as has been said many times, it's net zero.
From the IPCC
Net zero emissions
Net zero emissions are achieved when anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are balanced by anthropogenic removals over a specified period. Where multiple greenhouse gases are involved, the quantification of net zero emissions depends on the climate metric chosen to compare emissions of different gases (such as global warming potential, global temperature change potential, and others, as well as the chosen time horizon). See also Net zero CO2 emissions, Negative emissions and Net negative emissions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/glossary/
Note that it is specifically a balance between gasses emitted by humans and gasses removed by humans. The natural removal or decay of gasses does not count.
NZ's farms are not net zero as you have claimed, because although the 'methane cloud' over NZ may be static and not growing or shrinking, it is only static because the natural decay of methane is roughly equal to the rate at which new methane is being emitted each year as a result of human activities. By definition, we do not have net-0 emissions because we are relying on natural decay, and not human-directed activities to reduce methane in the atmosphere (which is difficult for CO2 already, but even more difficult for methane and the other high potency GHGs).
I appreciate these things seem simple on the face of it, but actually it is deceptively complex and a lot depends on the scope of what is being discussed. That is my whole issue with Keith's comment - it can be easily misread and misunderstood and give a false impression about the action that our country needs to take if we want to actually achieve net-0 methane (or CO2, or GHG) emissions, because we are a long long way from that.
Whether it makes sense for NZ to achieve net-0 emissions of any greenhouse gas, and the ways we go about doing that, are separate questions.
NZ sheep and beef farms are net zero as soil carbon sequestration is ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative..
Before soil carbon is taken in to account - "On balance, sheep and beef farmland have net annual GHG emissions that lie within a range between +6,143 kt CO2e (positive net emissions) and -3,128 kt CO2e (positive net sequestration)."
https://beeflambnz.com/sites/default/files/news-docs/BL_Carbon_report_f…
And from US research where they do bother to include soil carbon:
"- Adaptive multi-paddock grazing can sequester large amounts of soil C.
- Emissions from the grazing system were offset completely by soil C sequestration.
- Soil C sequestration from well-managed grazing may help to mitigate climate change."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X17310338?_rd…
Really, so CO2 removed by trees counts, but CO2 removed by the ocean doesn't count. What about CO2 removed by the plants that are grown by humans and fed to cows. I think you are pretending there is a difference there somewhere but there isn't, it's all balanced out which is why it's stable. Carry on blaming farmers though, I'd hate for you to take any responsibility for the growing CO2 cloud from Fossil Fuels, much eaiser to take it all out on the 20k dairy farmers.
Really, so CO2 removed by trees counts, but CO2 removed by the ocean doesn't count.
No. Trees planted by humans count.
Natural forests do not. Oceans do not because they were not created by humans.
If a human isn't involved in either side, it's not relevant - thus volcanoes spewing CO2 into the atmosphere does not count against humans (unless I guess you could somehow show that humans were directly influential on a volcano erupting).
That's just the definition of "net zero" - the actions by humans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere balance the actions by humans that add CO2 to the atmosphere.
What about CO2 removed by the plants that are grown by humans and fed to cows.
The CO2 was only temporarily stored in the plants, before being fed to cows, which turned it into methane. If you look at the IPCC definition of "net zero", it talks about it being "net zero" over a specific time frame.
If your time frame is from when the plants are planted as seedlings, up until the moment you harvest the mature plants, and you don't consider what comes next, then the plants will have removed CO2 from the atmosphere as they grew.
However if you do consider what comes next - the plants being fed to cows that produce methane (a potent short-term GHG), then the whole process is likely to be on net bad for the environment - the plants have taken CO2 from the air, a very long-lived GHG, and the intervention of humans has created some quantity of methane gas, which is a short-lived but very potent GHG, which over a short time horizon will warm the atmosphere more than an equivalent mass of CO2 would.
I think you are pretending there is a difference there somewhere but there isn't, it's all balanced out which is why it's stable.
No, I'm not doing anything. I'm telling you how climate scientists define the term "net zero". You're disagreeing, and you are wrong. Sorry.
You can believe what you want, but you won't be less wrong.
Carry on blaming farmers though
I've never actually "blamed" farmers. This is a persecution complex on your part.
I'd hate for you to take any responsibility for the growing CO2 cloud from Fossil Fuels, much eaiser to take it all out on the 20k dairy farmers.
Well, lets see shall we? We built a Passive House that we now live in and plan to live here for at least the next 10+ years. I'm not going to have children. I now bike to work daily instead of driving. I'm going to be selling my petrol vehicle and buying an electric car this year. I grow my own vegetables, make my own compost, the majority of waste from my house is recycled.
I've done far more for in reducing my impact on the environment than most people my age have.
And once again, I'm not "blaming" farmers for anything - I am telling you that you are factually wrong about your understanding of what "net zero" means.
Right, so nothing to do with stabalising greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, it's all about spending money. So Bill Gates and all the elites can tour the world in private jets and be net zero champions because they are buying carbon credits from George Soros but a farmer feeding his cows grass in a cycle that has been around for longer than humans, can't be net zero so he needs to pay a tax. 'Is the tax going to be spent on planting trees?' No, no, no no no, the tax is going to be used to pay the people who wrote the rules so that they too may join the elites in fighting climate change by spending money.
I'm glad to hear you are promoting the Bill Gates method for fighting climate change. Glad to hear you are living pretty much how I grew up and most of my life except for the soon to be purchased electric car and building a passive house of course.
"Trees planted by humans count" but farming sheep and beef that sequesters carbon doesn't count because there is no money in it for multi-nationals, consultants and financiers.
"- Adaptive multi-paddock grazing can sequester large amounts of soil C.
- Emissions from the grazing system were offset completely by soil C sequestration.
-Soil C sequestration from well-managed grazing may help to mitigate climate change."
Lanthamide,
Your use of double quote marks towards the end of your comment implies that it is indeed a direct quote of what I said. But it is not a direct quote. And I would never make that statement because it does nor represent my perspective at all.
You need to re-read what I wrote. If you do so you might notice that I am advocating a structured programme to reduce methane emissions.
KeithW
Sorry, you are right, you did not directly say that. However that is my understanding of what you have written.
More to the point, your article says this:
That means that there is now minimal growth in the invisible ‘atmospheric cloud’ of methane sourced from New Zealand agriculture, with inflows and outflows approximately in balance. That in turn means that agriculturally sourced methane from New Zealand agriculture is having very little additional warming effect on climate, despite methane being a well-acknowledged greenhouse gas.
Later on you say
If New Zealand’s methane emissions were to decrease, then with all other things being unchanged, the world would cool, albeit by a tiny amount, given that the world is big and New Zealand is small.
So it appears you understand that the presence of the 'static methane cloud' over NZ is indeed contributing to warming of the planet, hower the impact of that warming is very small, because compared to the size of the planet NZ's stable methane cloud is a drop in the bucket.
Which is fine and I agree with that, but your first statement was:
That in turn means that agriculturally sourced methane from New Zealand agriculture is having very little additional warming effect on climate
and you're implying that the "very little additional warming effect on climate" is due to the static nature of the cloud. That is incorrect - the "very little additional warming effect on climate" is due to the overall size of the cloud relative to the planet being small. If it was a very small cloud and growing slowly, it would also have very little additional warming effect on the climate. If it was a very large cloud gradually declining, then it would have a very large additional warming effect on the climate - by virtue of its size, not its relative rate of change.
The point is: the fundamental issue is the existence of the cloud. The fact that it is shrinking, static, or growing is secondary. But your first paragraph addressing this in your article implies that it is the static nature of the cloud that is the primary factor that makes it have a small impact on climate.
You might think I'm nitpicking over stuff that doesn't matter, but see WhiskeyJack's question to me above, where he believes that farmers in NZ are already at net-0 emissions because of this 'static' methane cloud in the atmosphere, and therefore they have no more work to do.
Lanthamide
I try and choose my words carefully, and I don't believe I have ever used the words 'net zero'.
However, I have said that the size of the NZ-sourced methane cloud is essentially stable (whereas that is very definitely not the case for NZ-sourced carbon dioxide).
But you then drew an incredibly long bow to claim that I was advocating that NZ should do nothing to reduce its methane emissions. Please note that I argued rather strongly within the article for a structured program that would lead to reduction of methane and nitrous oxide emissions. So I invite you to find the flaw in that argument.
KeithW
First Keith, I never claimed you use the word net-0. I said WhiskeyJack did, and I used that as an example for why discussing this stuff very carefully is important, because people read things and take away the wrong interpretations of what was written, as I believe WhiskeyJack has done in this case. You would of course actually have FAR more experience than I when it comes to your words being misinterpreted, so I'm not meaning to teach you to suck eggs here nor am I trying to be condescending, I'm just saying why I replied to your comment in the way that I did - I think while you do actually understand what is happening, the way you've written it can be easily misunderstood by others, especially since this is a deceptively complex subject to get your head around.
Secondly, yes I admitted that what I put in quote marks was not what you directly said. It is a bad habit of mine when arguing with people on the internet, and was definitely not appropriate in my reply to you. Once again, I apologise for that.
Thirdly, my point is that the way you worded your article implied that it was the rate of change in the cloud (ie, static) that meant it was making no significant contribution to warming the planet, when that is not the case, is it the size of the cloud that means it is not making a significant contribution to warming. My first comment did not make this clear, but my second comment above (that you have replied to) does make that very clear that that was my point. You have not actually addressed this specific point.
Finally, I find no flaw with the rest of the post, which is why I am focussing on this specific, very narrow part of it. Because I believe many people think 'static cloud = nothing to worry about' - you'll note that is the sentiment I incorrectly implied you wrote in my first comment, but it is the sentiment that WhiskeyJack espouses in his comment (in my reading of his comment).
The carbon fund is a derivative available on the NZX. Today it is selling at $2.37.
I tend to follow the carbon price itself which today has moved to $81.50.
Accordingly, the carbon price would need to rise to around $160 for your lunch mate to win his bet. That is not impossible, but I would be cautious as to whether it will rise that high quite so quickly. EU carbon prices are already somewhere around that level.
KeithW
I voted Green at the last election to be, if you like, our environmental conscience. I will not do so again, partly because the party is, in my view, moving further to the left and partly because of what Keith describes so well.
The farming community can and must do more, but as Keith says, there is a real danger that we will if not destroy, then seriously damage our largest export. This country absolutely needs a vibrant agricultural sector to allow us to afford the standard of living to which we aspire.
I've long said that turkeys don't vote for Christmas, and that's why democracies are spectacularly unsuited for solving a crisis like climate change - which is probably why this problem has been able to grow to the size that it is.
Classic tragedy of the commons, with the harms far too distributed and each individual action makes infinitesimal difference to the grand scheme of things, but to overhaul society at large to reduce emissions will be extremely expensive, and in some cases simply impossible.
Ultimately it will require lower standards of living, which humans in democracy are too selfish to accept (especially the average boomer).
Seems you really didn't comprehend my comment if you're asking this question.
1. I don't have "the solution"
2. I've just said that everyone is going to have to accept lower living standards if they don't want run-away climate change, but historically people have not voted for parties that promise lower living standards.
But then there is the nuclear option for industrialised nations
I believe the levelised cost of nuclear is similar to coal, which may be why the French are considering building 16 reactors.
Wealthy nations should be able to get emissions under control and maintain their society, such as it is.
It's essentially religious belief: so unbelievers are committing apostasy and deserve their fate.......hence the anger, the demonizing (bit of a giveaway right there) and the steadfast refusal to listen, engage meaningfully, or even to try to convert.
Have Faith, my child, have faith. The Priesthood is infallible, and Knows Best. Stray ye not from the One True Path.....
Textbook definition of irony. It's laughable worshippers of the invisible hand accuse those that understand where the physics of our situation is taking us, of their very own cult like shortcomings. Talk about delusional anthropcentrism. There is no grand economist spirit coming to save us once we have screwed the planet.
Oh, the Planet, to anthropomorphise it, has managed to survive vulcanism, meteor strikes, plate tectonics, Carrington events, and Ice ages. It's simply hubris to assume we puny humans can screw it to quote yer good self. And after Hubris, if the Greeks had it right, comes Nemesis....
Gaia is a Resilient Wench....
Good article Keith,...I am amazed a your patience in dealing with James & his expanding team. (I would have long ago gone berserk with a thistle grubber!)
I get that NZ needs to 'do it's bit' on the global scene despite being such a small player. I also get that our recent record has been really bad,...quite predictable really, given our huge intake of immigrants. (where was James in that discussion?)
I also get that government proposes to reduce greenhouse gases via financial penalties on emitters, albeit that a large portion of that (essentially new tax..) income will be used to fund more bureaucrats.
I imagine if all goes according to the cunning plan, agricultural production will fall and consequently emissions will reduce.
But what I have yet to get my head around, is what James plans to do next. Does he plan to reduce population numbers to maintain some parity with our falling export receipts. Or perhaps he has in mind to close a hospital or university, or other big user of foreign exchange?
Surely he has thought it all through.
Shaw was concerned the proposal was to use 100% of the carbon "credits" from dairy farm riaprian plantings, and shelterbelts, (they are not eligible for ETScredits) to pay for the 5 % the farmers are expected to start contributing from 2025. n effect , they would pay nothing, i dont think they would be cheeky enough to claim actual credits. Other than that i think he has stayed out of it , and is waiting to see what they come up with .
You mean '89? Well no. Post '90 plantings can only be monetised if you choose to sell carbon units through the ETS. If they are not sold, that free sequestration is being nationalised. Those units aren't actually an asset though are they? They are registered as a permanent liability on the the land they are planted on. So the land is effectively nationalised, if you do sell units. If you sell units at the current $80 and the price goes up to $250, that land will be permanently forested. I have no problem with the idea of permanent reforestation, however land owners should be rewarded with a yearly dividend for that sequestration, or at least a tax right off, not some scheme which financial pointy heads get to clip the ticket all the way through.
Yes , 1989 , sorry .
I see your point, ( and feel it , given I've planted 1000's of trees i can't claim for) ,but the line had to be drawn somewhere.It only applies to native forest , as any exotic would have been rotated since then (other than amenity plantings).
That is the ETS rules, now it seems there is the possiblitiy that trees not eligible for ETs may used to calculate a whole of farm equation.
I am also not sure the govt is "taking" the ongoing carbon credits for pre 1989 forest , when people say the govt is taking them , they may just mean they are not able to claim them.
No one got any credits for pre 1990 - its a baseline number which a country has to maintain. If you destroy it you have to declare it and pay - for any exotic forest that meets the Pre 990 definition if you clear it you have to pay the carbon back - farmers think they have it tough - forest owners are locked in with the threat of huge penalties if the don't keep it in forest. That is why they got a small compensation payment of credits at the start of the ETS for taking the hit for NZ Inc.
On Post89 - you are correct once you start selling credits its effectively in forest unless you can afford to pay them back one day at whatever the cost is. If you are in permenant you get credits every year. Under averaging you get them for set period but then they stop you can harvest but must replant in trees. Eyes wide open if you go into the ETS.
Under some of the proposed water reforms you aren't allowed to clear any forest anyway over 10ha - native or exotic, unless nutrient runoff dosn't increase - impossible - so that routes been shut.
In effect the days of developing land into intensive pasture are over. We are leaving the pioneer slash and burn phase of this country and maturing. This change in focus is whats causing lot of angst not that many really realise what has happened.
By the way Solardb thanks for your advice on the solar panels from another post.
Any thought on pros and cons of the HWEN levy proposals?
Farm level levy; would it be more transparent and accurately incentivise sequestration and mitigation practices?
Processor hybrid levy; apparently easier to administer, but can farmers be confident of fair and equal emissions accounting that reflect on farm mitigation measures?
Hi Keith, I don't think any option encourages efficiency per unit of output at least not in the handout, I doubt I will read the 500 pages.
On dairy farms, methane comes from cows which is mostly what we are dealing with. Two identical farms but one is doing 540kg/ms/cow and the other is doing 330kg/ms/cow then the farm with the higher output is going to be producing a lot less methane per kg/ms. The same would be true for beef, if one farmer can get his bulls to 600kg and the other farmer is only getting his to 500kg in the same timeframe. Then per kg the higher performing is producing less methane.
A low producing cow is not getting fully fed and 75% of her diet is just maintenance, but a high producing cow is getting fully fed and only 50% of her diet is maintenance. Each cow has a baseload methane production regardless of how much she produces because a certain amount of her food is just for body maintenance. So if pasture consumed = methane produced then you produce 25% less methane per kg/ms from high producing animals.
Somehow this obvious fact has been ignored in the discussion in favor of unproven or unprofitable ideas (compared to an efficient farmer) even though improving per cow production would result in a very significant reduction of methane per kg/ms.
Is that absolutely a linear relationship between time and methane produced though?
Is the higher milk output cow actually larger, consuming more feed, producing equivalently more methane as a byproduct?
Farms that run once a day milking v twice a day milking etc. Lots to measure, model and calculate I'd have thought?
Basically, the methane is a function of the amount of feed eaten. Therefore the greater proportion of feed that goes into production, then the lower the methane-intensity of that product.
A key measure I am always interested in with dairy is the ratio of kg milksolids to liveweight. This tells us whether or not the animals are getting more efficient or the animals are simply getting bigger. Most NZ dairy farms are between o.7 and 0.8. Some dairy farmers are around 1.2 but that is exceptional.
With beef, increasing use of dairy cows to produce the calves reduces the maternal overhead to be charged to the beef operation.
With sheep, increasing lamb weight carcasses relative to ewe liveweight, and increasing lambing percentages are the two most important measures of biological efficiency and hence also in the reduction of emissions intensity.
KeithW
Hi Keith,thanks again for explaining the pros & cons of the proposed legislation before us,thank you for explaining it in an unbiased form & which is backed by science rather than emotion.What is your opinion on the use of monensin in ruminating animals,is it true as some manufacturers of the product claim"works by improving the digestive efficiency of the rumen in converting feed into energy.The result is 7-15% more energy from pasture or supplementary feeds,& less gas produced".Regards
A small pregnant 350kg jersey cow only needs 5kg of dry matter per day for bodily maintenance which is a constant daily requirement with no weight gain and no milk production, so that's a baseline methane production and the extra food she eats goes into milk production and depending on the farm and how well she is fed, she could do anywhere between 200-350kg/ms (or more). The more production she does, the more you can dilute the methane effects of daily maintenance. A big 550kg Friesian cow can do between 330-550kg/ms (or more) and it costs 7kg of dry matter for daily maintenance which is very slightly more efficient 0.0127% of liveweight v a Jersey 0.142% of liveweight daily maintenance. These figures are all from DairyNZ facts and figures.
It's impossible to run a farm to perfection when you are dealing with a business heavily influenced by natural parameters effectively beyond business control. This year I have red clover up to my knees. The last two years at this time, the paddocks were bare. So what do you do? Feed maintenance until you have a surplus? Destock and sell onto a depressed market? Either way stuffs your business, but at least you don't have to buy back when the grass grows again. Does that mean I'm an inefficient farmer for two years, but now efficient? Dairy can afford to take the water variable out. Red meat can't. 540kg/ms/cow vs 330kg? How do you know all things are equal between these properties? The lower producer may be highly efficient in less favourable conditions.
My farm policy is to fully feed the cows and if we can't do that either we have to buy in feed or get rid of cows. It's that simple. If year after year we had to cull cows then I would be wondering why we had too many cows in the first place.
If 2 farms have the same type of cows and one is doing 330kg/ms cow and the other is doing 540kg/ms cow, the farm doing 540 is producing less methane per kg/ms, it's an inescapable fact. It doesn't matter if anything else is equal because methane only comes from cows.
I'm not clear on your point. Is it to be emmision efficient NZ farms need to purchase off farm supplement or make silage in order to manage pasture quality so as to fully feed cows? It seems to be only accounting for the bovine emmissions, and disregarding those associated with supplement feeding.
No the point is that fully fed cows more efficiently produce milk. It doesn't matter what measure you use this is still true. It doesn't matter if you have a surplus in spring early summer and store that for feed during the rest of the season or you buy in extra and feed it. Either way has it's pro's and con's, the important part is that the cows are fully fed. You can feed a heap of of imported supplement and use a lot of N and still have a lower than average CO2e per kg/ms if your cows are doing high per cow production. With fonterra you can test it on the farm records section and then edit back to make sure they have correct data.
"It doesn't matter if anything else is equal because methane only comes from cows." I'm sure that was a little Freudian slip there? Globally atmospheric methane concentrations leveled off through the early 00s. Once the US fracking boom took off in the States, the concentrations started climbing again. Cause and effect? https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2015/12/03/1522126112.full.pdf
There has been a huge spike in atmospheric methane ostensibly due to global warming itself. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00312-2. Nevertheless to mitigate the contribution by NZ agriculture the Labour party and their side-kick James Shaw need to take some rapid action to destroy the NZ economy by ordering the slaughter of 50% of the farm animals in proportion to their methane contribution. At least there'll be some re-imbursement to farmers from the sold off carcasses.
By the way I think India has around 300million cattle. Not sure of the number of sacred ones vs dairy. Perhaps they only produce half the methane that NZ cattle do. Maybe something to do with eating rice plants. But still does India have an methane reduction say via a punitive financial ETS?
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.