The Truth about Ruminant Methane

Farmers are being consulted on options proposed by He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN) – a government-appointed body seeking to devise alternative options to the ETS.

FARM (Facts About Ruminant Methane ) proposes media commentators take into account various terms, facts about methane and context when covering the HWEN consultation document.

The major livestock emission is methane.

The Government’s position on the warming impact of methane is expressed in the Ministry for the Environment Zero Carbon consultation document which states, “stabilising our short-lived gases   (methane),   would mean our domestic emissions would not contribute to any further increase in global temperatures.”

The Climate Commission position on the warming impact of methane is that stable ruminant methane emissions, (as we have in NZ), mean a stable atmosphere. (In terms of methane) – Page 188 Climate Commission Report – ‘Low Emissions Future’.

The Climate Commission’s reason for proposing methane emissions reduce to between 24-47% by 2050 is that these reductions are needed to offset CO2 emissions, (not to stop methane causing further warming, because a stable atmosphere is not one in which warming occurs) Page 381 ‘Low Emissions Future’.  Further, the Government has stated that methane emissions need only remain stable to achieve climate neutrality.

The Climate Commission is advocating that farmers reduce methane emissions to allow CO2 emitters to carry on polluting at a higher rate than they would be able to do so otherwise and supports taxing farmers to incentivise this.

We suggest media to take into account the unfairness and lack of climate justice in this recommendation.  Why should farmers be taxed for emissions which are not themselves causing warming?  This is confirmed by the Government, and farmers are only being required to reduce them so that CO2 emitters can carry on polluting.

James Shaw also advocates that a price on agricultural gases “must be a significant driver of change” and that a “serious price signal is the best tool the Government has to reduce emissions”.

Not only is this unjust but an analysis of New Zealand emissions does not support the Minister and the Commission’s position on the incentive of pricing emissions.  In fact, they show the opposite is true.

Emissions that are already priced have increased the most (transport emissions) and emissions that are not priced (methane) have increased the least.       

We encourage the media to challenge the Minister on his statements. Where is his evidence that pricing emissions has reduced them?

Under NZ climate policy foresters are paid to offset CO2 emissions by planting trees and there is no reason why farmers should not be paid to offset CO2 emissions by reducing methane. Both allow CO2 emitters to keep polluting in the same way. In fact, converting farmland to forestry also causes warming by releasing soil carbon and changing albedo (heat absorption from dark surfaces such as forests versus heat reflection from light surfaces such as pasture) and these are not fully considered in the ETS making many forestry credits environmentally and financially fraudulent.

Methane reduction credits would have more integrity.

Both HWEN proposals and the ETS option are expected under modelling to do no more than reduce emissions by 1% which is understandable. A farmer will be taxed under these options whether they reduce emissions or not so why bother?

In fact, the incentive to reduce the tax by reducing production will be less than the incentive the schemes provide to increase production and therefore emissions to be able to pay for the tax. Both HWEN and the ETS could incentivise an increase in emissions.             

We ask the media to talk to farm economists before accepting the Minister’s word on this

Is the ETS Option Bad for Farmers and Is It a Sweetheart Deal?

If farmers are placed into the ETS, as is threatened by the Government if they do not agree to HWEN, they will receive a 95% free allocation. Some media have described this as a “sweetheart deal”.

All emission intense trade exposed industry received a free allocation on entering the ETS of 90% with a two for one surrender deal. That equates to a 95% free allocation. The two for one deal is now gone but the 90% free allocation remained until it started to reduce by 1% per year last year.        

So, if the media want to call the farmers’ allocation a “sweetheart deal” we ask that not only do they apply this description to all others who receive a free allocation, but they take note that farmers are not getting anything that other industries did not. They could also add that unlike industrial emissions, most of the farm emissions do not contribute to any further increase in global temperatures in any case, so farmers are getting a raw deal compared to them.

The CO2 Equivalent System.

The ETS has a major flaw in that it uses the CO2 equivalent system. The CO2 equivalent system quantifies methane using a system that is akin to counting people walking into a room and ignoring those who walk out of it. Once 100 people have walked into the room and 100 people have walked out the system tells them that there are 100 people in the room when in fact there are none.

Yes, it is that stupid. Climate policy the Government develops based on its understanding that there are 100 people in the room, when in fact there are none, is going to be too flawed to achieve anything.   See Professor Myles Allen – Oxford University https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6d7e

Even though both the ETS and HWEN propose taxing farmers for emissions (which should not be taxed) the ETS provides some protection for farmers that HWEN does not because the price of emissions in HWEN will probably be set by the Government, whereas the price of carbon in the ETS will be set by the market.

The ETS is designed to reduce emissions by transferring the ability to emit carbon from the poor to the rich, as the price of carbon climbs. There will always be a limit to how high the carbon price will go because of the devastation the ETS will bring upon the poor. If one wanted to design a scheme that will increase inequality and poverty the ETS would be hard to beat, so it has limitations.

In addition, if farmers act collectively, they should be able to outbid industries that are smaller than the combined agricultural industry for credits, forcing them to close? The free allocation of units is also based on historic emissions and projected efficiency gains that farmers make could see their emissions reducing faster than the free allocation reductions giving them a financial windfall in surplus credits.  

Some industrial emitters who receive free allocations now can sell some of them because their own emissions have decreased.  The ETS may reduce emissions if it unwittingly ends up providing windfall gains for farmers. A financial reward will always be a better incentive than a tax.

Conclusion. Farmers Should Not Have to Pay For Emissions Which Do Not Cause Warming.

We urge media to be aware of the injustice farmers paying for these emissions would be if HWEN, as it currently stands, or the ETS is used for farm emissions.     

If HWEN was focused on identifying the true net warming or cooling impact of individual farms, once all factors are considered, farmers would be all too happy to be part of a scheme that recognised their contribution to global cooling reducing methane causes, or their contribution to allowing CO2 emitters to continue to pollute, with a financial reward in the same way foresters are rewarded for doing the same thing.

Equally, they would support any scheme that identified any net warming impact of a farm and incentivised reductions.

James Shaw has extreme views and believes that global warming is going to mean we run out of oxygen. His views on methane are no less extreme and unscientific and he should not be taken seriously on matters of science.               

Media commentary on climate policy relating to livestock emissions should be based on science, calling out science deniers like James Shaw and the climate injustice facing farmers under both HWEN and the ETS.

The media should also recognise that New Zealand has adopted a split gas approach to emissions because the CO2 equivalent system of calculating carbon emissions is scientifically discredited and overstates the impact of ruminant methane emissions massively.  

Under the split gas approach ruminant methane emissions in NZ are effectively at net zero now, as acknowledged by the Climate Commission statement on methane emissions contributing to a stable atmosphere.

Any commentary or statement that claims livestock emissions contribute 48% of our carbon emissions that does not include an explanation that these carbon emissions are not real and they are calculated using a system that is now a scientific joke, is being deceptive in our view and we urge the media to avoid repeating this error.

There is a great opportunity for New Zealand to get the right outcome for methane emissions. Neither HWEN nor the ETS have scientifically robust and practical solutions. A scheme that uses real measurements of real net warming or cooling impacts by individual farms should be the goal and every farmer would support that. The designers of HWEN and James Shaw have let us down by failing to do this.

He Waka Eke Noa translates in English to “It’s a free ride” and that is exactly what the Climate Commission, the Government and HWEN propose CO2 emitters get at the expense of farmers.