It is not surprising farmers have welcomed the government’s announcement it will make the target 14%-24% below 2017 levels by 2050, way below the existing legislation which aimed for a 24%-47% reduction.
In other words, what was the minimum reduction required, now becomes the maximum.
The government says its plan provides a practical, fair pathway, recognising New Zealand’s agriculture efficiency, protects jobs and production and upholds its climate commitments.
Critics have a different view, accusing the government of breaching international law, emboldening other countries to backtrack on climate action and not understanding the urgency of continuing to strive for 1.5°C of global warming.
Concerns it could also ultimately have negative trade implications which will harm farmers’ livelihoods have also been raised.
The government decision follows the findings of the Methane Science Review, but goes against the thinking of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Climate Change Commission advice which sought even greater emissions reduction than that proposed in the earlier legislation.
The issue of how to treat methane in our emissions reduction targets has long been controversial.
The greenhouse gas, mostly emitted from our cows, makes up nearly half of New Zealand’s emissions. Unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, methane breaks down in about 10 years which is why it has its own niche in climate change policy.
But although it is short-lived, its impact on warming is significant, with estimates it accounts for almost two thirds of the temperature rise New Zealand has seen so far.
However, the theory the government is running with, called "no additional warming", is that rather than push towards net zero methane emissions, it can hold more heating at bay by keeping methane levels basically steady.
It is a stance rubbished by some leading international academics, including Oxford University’s Prof Paul Behrens, who described New Zealand’s action as setting a dangerous precedent.
Cutting methane was not an optional extra but would deliver the rapid reductions in warming needed to avoid dangerous tipping points in climate change.
Given the current reliance on the dairy industry to boost the country’s coffers, it is understandable there is no mention from the government encouraging a reduction in the number of cows over time might be the best way to reduce methane and improve our polluted waterways.
The government is putting its trust in technological change to deliver significant emissions reductions, while enabling the sector to grow. It reckons that if 30% of farmers took up technologies expected to be available before 2030, total agricultural emissions could reduce by between 7% and 14% in the next decade.
It is not prepared to tax methane emissions, saying it would risk closing down farms and send jobs and production overseas. It says reductions in methane to meet the targets would be achieved in partnership and through industry leadership and processor incentives following the lead of companies like Fonterra and Silver Fern Farms.
That position has been described as all carrot and no stick. It is hard to grasp, if the industry’s performance falls well below expectations, how pressure can be applied.
A huge flaw in the new proposal is that, unlike the existing legislation, there is no political consensus on it. So, far from giving certainty to the farming sector, it may not survive a change of government.
The fact both Labour and National were on the same page with the existing legislation was its real strength, but this government has not seen fit to involve the Opposition in its push for change.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had repeatedly rejected approaches about getting cross-party support on this.
National’s failure to do this may come back to bite them at the ballot box when farmers will not be the only voters.
