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.
M2 Bull
Select chart tabs
22 Comments
Common sense?
Try adhering to first-principle truths (its hard, I know).
'However I wonder exactly how much value it contributes to the economy'
For a start, if the 'economy' is drawing down the resource-stocks of a finite planet or country - and this one sure as hell is - then it's TEMPORARY. Do that drawing-down at exponentially-increasing rates, and you can make that VERY TEMPORARY. You end up with a whole lot of tokens but an unlivable planet. Did you miss that bit, Mr Barber?
It appears that this government, Federated Farmers and this writer, are perhaps not sapient enough to understand the Limits to Growth; humanity's overshot status, and the collapse which is being made happen sooner by this kind of nonsense.
Odd? The data tells us we are exactly where we should expect to be on the journey to biosphere collapse. Right wing science illiterates squeaking about "common sense", that ironically evades them, must surely be the Fermi paradox in action.
https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models…
Err, no, that's a belief system you have there. Not something in the real world.
A belief system to provide comfort that nothing need be done and most importantly, one need not be inconvenienced.
"Common sense" in the sense used here is too much simply alternative wording for the entitlement to live at the expense of others especially following generations.
Yeah yeah. Do you believe in god too. People have believed in that falsehood for years, wars are even fought over it. It's never been true (it's been 1000s of years and people still believe), and in the past those that did not believe (even when it was so obvious) were ostracized. This is very similar, those that believe really do believe that the world is going to end, it's so similar to the god will strike you down baloney, or Covid will kill us all. Humans need something to worry about, or believe in, particularly the weak. That is why we have religions, like Climate change, like many other falsehoods. Nothing that the climate change worrywarts have said has ever turned out to be true, which is why every year they change their minds, much like weather forecaster (except the weather forecasters are sometimes right). I'm having a few beers with god tonight if you want to join....
The CCC likely needs fixing by changing the Labour/Green leaning appointees. The real issue is the Climate Change Act or some such wording. The CCC interpret the Act and report to the govt on what needs doing to achieve what's in the CC Act. So current govt needs to fix the CC Act and move away from the net zero nonsense.
I believe the last offer from the previous govt was a starting point of around $ 6 per head of stock. 95 % discount , lets say an end goal of around $ 60 per head of stock.
Hardly going to break the bank .
We will end up paying way more , and have lost the marketing leverage of been the first to tackle agricutlural methane. And the proceeds was going back into agricultural research.
I think in 10 years time , farmers will look back and regret not coming to an agreement.
It's also equally possible (and probably likely) that (in ten years) the same amount of livestock are still around, and the same or more agriculture. Farming practices will have probably changed, but effect the environment a lot less, client calculations will have been proven to have been wrong by a massive amount, a new type of energy will have been discovered, and will have been retrofitted to standard vehicles and machinery - saving billions of wasted money and materials on useless EVs and other pointless initiatives. To ordinary people nothing will have changed and life will go on as normal. People would have stopped moaning about the environment, and the green movement will have ceased to exist. People that tried to cheer on the destruction of the economy by attempting to destroy industries and lifestyles will be looked on as strange, much like the people that enforced mandates during covid (as an example). 10 years is a long time.
Why do people rag on EVs so much? Have you driven one? I have one because they are legitimately good machines, not because I’m an environmental crusader falling on my sword. It’s not some competition, it’s just a consumer choice. Just chill on the false attribution of it being some virtue signal.
Negative returns, on farm infrastructure decline, fertiliser cut backs, continuing wool losses, labour supply etc etc will mean the next 10 years maybe a pivotal moment for hill country farming. Let alone the succession issue when the average age is over 60. I see today Alliance wants farmers to stump up more capital NOW - that’s not a good look at all.
All of this is outside any climate stuff and shows there are far bigger issues at play that have been here for a long time. If China doesn’t reboot to what it was (unlikely IMHO) and Australia keeps getting rain, or even worse has a big East coast drought (when not if), it’s a hard road.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/the-country/news/recession-farmers-taking-on…
watch the video - a very honest assessment and comentary.
Solardb, is there really a marketing leverge? To cover the $60 per head I'm losing 21c/kg on a 280kg bit of beef and for what?
Nestle are on a big push for the dairy guy's to drop there carbon number's. According to them you chuck some plantain in your new grass mix and next minute you are regen farming. I haven't seen a KitKat on the self yet that says it's from regen farming or some low carbon farm with a premium price.
Agman, I appreciate it's your livelihood we are talking about.
But consider the schedule has dropped from mid $6 to high $5 in a year, and that would have been around $6 starting 2025, I don't think it was that great an ask.
I do think nz beef future is in marketing our green clean image, for high end pricing. Trying to compete on price and volume is a race to the bottom.
Regenerative is lacking in guidelines, and needs adapting to our circumstances. Wr are already there in some ways.
Sadly the drive to plant more trees led to the inevitable conclusion of pine forests poorly managed on flood prone land above waterways and look how that turned out for Hawke's Bay. Anyone can claim a tree is good for the environment has not met NZ forestry companies, our lack of legal response for company failures and our massive poor management of forestry planting and business. Which now still contaminates and destroys much of the coastline ecology, stripping the area and spreading toxins as they go. If any other company stripped, dredged and destroyed as much of the rivers, coasts, towns and bridges we would have them up in court on personal charges. Yet it is the public paying for the destruction, it is the national and local taxes paying for the clean up and repair. Not the company owners, or shareholders, or those who approved of the forestry companies actions there, nor the CCC which promoted provided funding for it. Nope.
By pushing the line of farmers switching to planting trees literally no thought was given as to the environmental effects of that with NZ landscapes.
The CCC also thought that massive EV uptake & complete redesign of NZ lines infrastructure would immediately lower electricity costs to residents but show me a power company in the last 5 years that significantly dropped their power charges with higher demand. Even to retain the existing lines infrastructure with basic essential maintenance power charges have increased significantly.
The CCC also thought that burning wood & wood by products would improve air quality. We have the worst air quality in Australasia in our lowest population cities who have the highest rates of public transport use, walking and cycling, with significant spikes from respiratory diseases. All where wood burning is so frequent you cannot see clearly across the road because of the low lying smoke in many seasons.
The CCC did a survey of 77 members of the public to confirm all their reckons.
Next minute they are taxing disabled people the highest amounts, thousands of dollars, for their only form of transport.
You couldn't literally make up a more ignorant, unscientific, discriminatory and actually harmful to the environment & public organization.
It would be of more benefit to the environment to strip the CCC and take all the consultant and bureaucratic costs of it and direct that money to DOC & NIWA. An organization planting trees correctly and managing forests and an organization that monitors the waters, atmosphere, coastline and climate changes and provides targeted evidence backed science advice for future planning. NIWA is essentially doing a better job then CCC and yet we have defunded the science backed org for one that could not even find a logical argument even if it was taped to their heads.
Rodd Carr should be the first to go. He has no qualifications for the role he performs and advocated for endeavors that did great harm to both the environment and NZ families. If he retains any employment in the environmental sector it just shows how hypocritical that org is and how much they should not be trusted. Rodd Carr has literally turned the CCC into an everlasting money pot for bureaucratic criminals.
In case you were wondering my motives I won sustainability awards in my sector and have done more scientific research into urban, farm and industrial sector air quality then the entire CCC put together. My family also did more forestry management and planting of native bush then any done during the time of the CCC. So lets not just file my warnings about the CCC as being against CC. I absolutely understand, believe, and monitor the anthropogenic CC as it is a critical issue. I follow the recent international research & updates regularly and get a hard on for talking about ice cores (not just because I like a big drill) but also the small studies & developments to understand how humans can adapt to our circumstances (change our traditional energy management behaviours & physical living needs). So to just file this aside as a CC objector complaint (simply because I think the CCC is actually harmful to the environment and the public) would be wrong, biased and a telling over defensiveness. When the money we wasted on the CCC pushing high paid under qualified consultant unscientific unresearched ignorant reckons literally could have gone to our science backed and advisory orgs we ALREADY have (but defunded to make up the CCC). The CCC instead pushed for very harmful policies that did billions in environmental damage.
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.