The Government's new target lowers methane cuts to 14–24% below 2017 levels by 2050. Photo / Mike Scott
Gianina Schwanecke of RNZ
Farmers have welcomed the Government’s new “science-based” biogenic methane targets for 2050.
It’s dropped the reduction target for biogenic methane from 24 to 47% below 2017 levels by 2050, to 14 to 24%, saying it reflects the findings of the independent Methane Science Review released in 2024.
Agriculture and Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay said the Government had worked closely with industry and accepted a range of advice to determine a “practical target”.
“We’ve accepted a range of advice and worked closely with industry to agree a practical target that protects food production whilst substantially reducing New Zealand’s farm emissions.”
Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford said the new targets were backed by science and had landed in a “solid” place.
He said the targets set under the previous Government had felt “political[ly] and ideologically driven”.
“I think what’s important to understand is just how far off the last lot of targets were,” he said.
“So, 24 to 47% was going to put well over 20% of sheep and beef farms out of business, 6 or 7% of dairy farms.
“It was literally going to destroy rural communities.”
Langford also welcomed confirmation that there would be no tax on agricultural emissions like methane.
“This is a major step forward and will be a huge relief for farming families who have had the threat of a massive tax hanging over our heads, threatening the viability of our businesses.
“A methane tax would have achieved the opposite of its intent - forcing the closure of Kiwi farms, driving production to less efficient countries, and increasing global emissions.”
However, Langford said the changes don’t mean farmers are being let off the hook - farmers were already working hard to reduce their methane emissions and had made huge improvements in the past decade.
A dairy farmer himself, he said he had faced huge pressure from processors to improve.
However, last week Nestlé announced it was withdrawing from an international partnership aimed at reducing dairy emissions.
Langford said this was more a reflection of the cost-of-living pressures facing consumers.
He said a growing range of technologies to better calculate and reduce emissions on-farm would only help farmers further improve.
Beef + Lamb NZ chairwoman Kate Acland also welcomed the new targets, which she felt better reflected the science, but said it would still be a stretch for the agriculture sector to achieve.
“The previous targets were arbitrarily based on ranges used in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that explicitly stated those ranges should not be used to set national targets.
“The revised targets better reflect the science around the different warming impact of short- and long-lived gases.
“Methane should only be asked to do what is expected of other gases, which is to achieve no additional warming.”
Acland said New Zealand’s red meat was already among the most climate-efficient in the world.
“While our sector has made significant progress on reducing warming emissions, the revised targets, particularly the upper end of the range, will still be very challenging.
“This is by no means letting agriculture off the hook.”
It was important to avoid stock number reductions seen in recent years, which Acland said was being driven by afforestation caused by New Zealand’s ETS settings.
She said it was important to work towards reducing methane by investing in efficiencies on-farm, genetic improvements and tools and technologies that could help farmers.
Acland said the tax on agricultural methane emissions being ruled out was especially welcome news for the sector
“Emissions from our sector are already coming down - the threat of a price was draining confidence from the rural sector and was just not justified.”
Victoria University of Wellington Professor James Renwick said the Government’s decision was “disappointing” as it represented a “major step backwards in ambition and in climate action”, but he was not surprised.
“The climate is currently changing rapidly, and we need to be doing all we can to slow the warming and avoid catastrophic impacts from extremes and from tipping points crossed.
“Yes, carbon dioxide emission reductions are the number one target, and we must get to zero as soon as possible.
“But methane emissions are the next most important, and emissions reductions there would quickly translate into reductions in atmospheric concentrations (because of the short lifetime of methane in the atmosphere), providing a cooling effect in the short-medium term.”
Renwick said the idea of “no additional warming” seemed to influence the scientific advice to the Government.
“This approach goes easy on the agriculture sector and in no way does it represent our ‘highest possible ambition’ as laid out in Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, to which New Zealand is a signatory.”
He said this was likely to concern some trading partners.
Others like Canterbury University’s Associate Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry Laura Revell said biogenic methane emissions in New Zealand had “largely stabilised so far this century”.
Revell, who was part of the independent methane science review, said the group had modelled the methane cuts needed to ensure no additional warming relative to 2017 levels.
She said they found the level of cuts needed depends on global methane emissions.
“Because atmospheric methane concentrations are continuing to increase - driven largely by emissions from other countries - steeper cuts to New Zealand’s emissions alone would have little impact on total atmospheric heating.
“If the rest of the world makes steep cuts to methane emissions, then New Zealand would need to make steeper cuts too to ensure the no additional warming target is met.
“Periodic reviews of the target seem sensible.”
- RNZ