Why carbon ‘quotas’ could be the fairest way to implement the inevitable cuts in herd numbers
Is it time to talk about a carbon trading scheme for farmers? A proposed annual 7pc reduction in carbon footprint for the agricultural sector is a far cry from the 1.5pc target being set out in Government policy only last year.
Farmers are right to react angrily to another attempt at getting the sector to take all the pain so the rest of the economy can drive on.
At the same time, no farmer wants to be accused of not shouldering their fair share of the burden. So could somebody please outline what that actually is?
Some of the focus had been on the 5pc of farmers that account for nearly half of all the fertiliser used in this country. We’re talking about Nitrate Derogation farmers, and part of my own farm is in this scheme.
Derogation farms are typically double the average in size, and quadruple the national average in terms of stocking rates. That’s why they use so much fertiliser.
But the regulators have derogation farmers exactly where they want them, with the screw tightening on the requirements to continue farming in such an intensive way.
It’s the same for the pig men with their EPA licences. The system is accepting that some farmers operate very intensively because it’s very profitable. But the proviso is that you only operate within stringent rules.
To some, that’s a deal with the devil. To me, that’s the only way this thing works.
The problem for the wider agriculture sector is that it makes so little money that it is relegated to being a hobby that part-timers can use as an excuse to get out of the house at the weekends.
These guys aren’t interested in endless form-filling in another complicated scheme that promises to increase their profitability by 50pc. Half of zero is still nothing!
So the big push in €uro-star indexes in the beef sector has yielded diddly squat in terms of climate action. The data going in at one end is still ropey, so the data coming out the other end is dodgy.
Any genetic progress in beef is going to be glacial, since over 80pc of suckler cows are bred by stockbulls. The corresponding figure in milking cows is 33pc.
Meanwhile, all the beef breed societies continue to protect their own fiefdoms, which slows down the national gain even further.
Genetic progress will continue at a pace in dairying but each cow will still be a mini-methane factory.
Protected urea will help, but it’s not going to solve everything. Same with more reliance on clover.
The notion that some feed additive is going to slash emissions is probably wishful thinking.
Slashing the average age at slaughter from the current 28.5 months to say 23.5 months would wipe a massive 800,000 tonnes of carbon off our annual output. But given that the sector ground to a
Green Party leader Eamon Ryan is looking for a 52pc drop in emissions over the next decade. halt six months ago over various demands for higher prices, including over-30-month beef, I can’t see any appetite for younger slaughter ages across the board.
Meanwhile, the Greens are looking for a 52pc drop in emissions over the next decade. All the work by Teagasc to date was on the basis of a 1.5pc annual fall in agriculture emissions over the coming years.
There is a massive chasm between the two positions, and a theory that seems to be gaining ground is that agriculture has been let off the hook up to now.
It all makes the calls for a cut, or at the very least a cap, on the national herd look like something of an inevitability.
But even if we do go there, it’s vital that we don’t lose sight of the market realities there is nowhere else in the world bar New Zealand where milk can be produced as cheaply, and marketed as successfully.
If you start messing with the market, you end up with a mess. Just look at the CAP.
So back to the question at the start. If every livestock unit or acre was allocated a carbon credit, we would be creating a new quota. But isn’t that where all this is heading?
Let those carbon credits be traded on the open market and market forces determine both the value of the credits and the number of beef or dairy animals farmed on the island. If the Government really want to reduce numbers, let them buy farmers out of their carbon credits.
Farmers are right to react angrily to another attempt at getting the sector to take all the pain so the rest of the economy can drive on