Farming up to gas challenge
In October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its special report on the actions needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This, it said, would require ‘‘transformative systemic change’’ involving ‘‘far-reaching, multilevel and cross-sectorial mitigation’’.
The report says limiting warming to 1.5C implies reaching net zero CO2 emissions globally by around 2050 and ‘‘deep reductions’’ in shortlived gases such as methane. It recognises that, as a long-lived gas, CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, whereas methane from agriculture (while a strong greenhouse gas) is recycled through the system.
Are farmers up to the challenge? I think so, and this is why.
While some have advocated for net zero emissions across all gases, the IPCC report says the most ‘‘transformative’’ scenario is about a 35 per cent cut in methane emissions by 2050. Given some caveats, this is achievable.
We should accept (and the report acknowledges) that changes to farming and forestry systems could affect current ecosystems and their services (the positive things they do for the environment) and ‘‘potentially threaten food, water and livelihood security’’. It is a little repeated fact that the Paris Climate Change Agreement, while calling for mitigation and adaptation, recognised the importance of food security and requires that mitigation should not threaten production. So, rather than one goal, we have two, potentially competing, goals to consider: maintain, and even increase, food production, while mitigating emissions.
Helpfully, the report also says that ‘‘improving the efficiency of food production and closing yield gaps have the potential to reduce emissions from agriculture . . . and enhance food security’’, while reducing demand (eg, for meat) will be difficult.
New Zealand farmers are ahead of the game, producing almost twice the milk and meat per kilogram of CO2 than the world average, but we look bad with almost 50 per cent of our emissions from agriculture, and a small population. If you measured greenhouse gas emissions against a country’s food production, rather than population, we would be one of the good guys.
That brings me to the first caveat in reaching a 35 per cent reduction in methane emissions. The target is a global one, and New Zealand farmers should be recognised for their contribution on a global scale. The New Zealand
Global Research Alliance, along with the World Farmers Organisation and Federated Farmers, have for the past four years been working with farmers from less carbon-efficient farming systems to increase their productivity.
Since greenhouse gas emissions recognise no borders, a reduction of methane per kilogram of product in, say, Ghana is just as valuable as one in New Zealand, but is far more achievable while maintaining food production and security. In this way we can contribute to methane mitigation several times the magnitude of our emissions here at home. New Zealand, and New Zealand farmers, should get some credit for that.
The second caveat is a domestic one. To quote the report again: ‘‘technological innovation including biotechnology [and by that it means genetic modification, or GM], with adequate safeguards, could expand the future mitigation potential of agriculture’’.
Genetic technologies such as GM, including gene editing, are showing potential in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. What’s more, there have been two decades of safe use – longer if you count medicines and cheese enzymes. New Zealand had a royal commission on GM in 2001, which concluded we should proceed with caution. There has been plenty of caution but little proceeding since then.
GM is a tool of the biology revolution and will contribute to our drive to increase production efficiency while mitigating methane and lowering our environmental footprint.
The certainty that a bipartisan political agreement on climate change would bring is welcome, but it must reflect the dual goals to which both the Paris agreement and the IPCC report speak. It must recognise that, at most, a 35 per cent reduction in methane should be our aspirational goal, not 100 per cent. It must find a way to encourage and facilitate productivity both here and abroad, not simply punish farmers for feeding us three times a day; and, importantly, it must give New Zealand farmers access to the tools of modern biology.