The Honest Truth: An Apology to Taxpayers
Here is a fantastic article from Methane Science Accord member, Jane Smith that was published in the Rural Guardian today. Jane's original article was shortened somewhat so here is the original. You can find the abridged version and a reply from Wayne McNee (CEO of AgriZero') on page 3 of the linked article. NZ farmers are saying a pointblank NO to methane mitigation requirements, what will it take to get our levy groups and politicians to listen?
An Apology to Taxpayers
97% of scientists and climate change dependent bureaucrats agree that a continued stream of methane mitigation money is crucial to their careers. Actually, I made that figure up – which sadly seems an acceptable practice these days - plucking figures from hot air when it comes to justifying unwarranted spending on unnecessary mitigation.
Wayne McNee CEO of Agrizero states in his recent article (Rural Guardian 04/09/2024) that New Zealand’s methane emissions need to reduce to “protect our sector’s future” and doing so is “no longer optional”.
Agrizero may be unperturbed by reality but down here at ground level, facts and stats are everything. This is how we have adapted and survived as a sector, without wasteful, quasi-research blocking the path of genuine progress.
At the risk of putting Wayne and co out of a job, imagine making the call to redirect this $183 Million (nearly $1 Billion has been wasted on methane over the past decade) into real research instead of chasing methane reduction rainbows. The inconvenient truth is this; methane emissions from our ruminant livestock are so minuscule on a global scale that even if they were to increase, this would have no measurable effect on global temperature. Even if we culled out every single ruminant in New Zealand tomorrow, it would make no difference whatsoever to global temperatures. Our methane emissions have been decreasing at a significant rate over the past decade (due to productive efficiency) continuing to spiral downwards at an alarming rate over the past 3 years due to land use change.
Methane mitigation is an expensive indoctrination exercise. Efforts would be better spent on properly modelling our methane emissions using the latest IPCC (AR6) endorsed methodology (which demonstrates the outdated method New Zealand is using overstates methane’s effect on global surface temperature by 300-400% meaning our ruminant emissions are in fact only 10% of outdated ‘CO2 equivalent’ emissions calculations). Our emissions do not need alarmist targets nor do they require expensive methane money laundering.
We now have a Methane Review Panel that have been charged with assessing our methane reduction targets and ensuring they are in line with the simple scientific concept of ‘no further warming’. The good news is that we have already achieved ‘no further warming’, and the irony is that if calculated in line with the definition of no further warming that other sectors use - we may in fact be adding slightly to global cooling with our downwards trajectory. One of the scientists on the panel has previously stated that NZ methane emissions are not making any measurable difference to global warming (at worst, only 4 millionths of 1 degree) yet in the same breath said we should be “seen to be doing something”. Science overridden by politics. Akin to a jury saying we know you aren’t guilty, but it would look better if we gave you a life sentence.
The Global Methane Pledge that banks signed up to around the world was to primarily address methane expelled from oil and gas pipelines– i.e. simply plugging up holes in pipes. Never would they consider signing food-producing ruminant methane up for punishment. Our banks did. Surely an export-reliant non-subsidised country who does not have the luxury of a methane profile heavily weighted with pipeline emissions would have taken a moment to consider just how focused on food production our natural methane emissions are, before signing up to something that they didn’t understand and then doubling-down and creating the Agrizero behemoth.
I can hear a scripted reply echoing through the corporate corridors of power “customers are demanding that we decrease emissions” (even though we haven’t bothered to work out our methane profile accurately let alone promote it) and ….“Intensive feedlot agriculture overseas is catching up and even lowering their ruminant emissions further per kg of product than NZ”.
At what point did these ‘customers’ decide that lowering natural biogenic ruminant emissions (that are already on a decreasing trajectory) was more important than exceptional animal welfare, free-range pastoral systems and allowing natural grazing behaviour of stock in low-input farming that doesn’t require high-intensity fossil-fuel burning interference, feedlots, vaccines, feed additives and boluses. Surely all of the above come with a climate ‘cost’?
NZ needs to decide – are we intensifying into feedlots to play in the same game as those intensive, heavily subsidised high-input factory farms or will we continue on our naturally pasture-raised continuum which has proven to become more efficient each year without government interference. Either leave us to it or get ready to ask taxpayers to underwrite expensive, intensive factory farming that will produce food that no New Zealander will ever afford to buy.
The reality is that Europe can’t even afford its own food due to the cost of its high-intensity farming systems and has had to heighten both producer and consumer subsidies in order to keep food on shelves. To think that New Zealand would even look at that mirroring those systems to then ship it around the world, is absurd. Expensive, unnecessary Methane mitigation is a major step towards painting ourselves into this corner.
The sad irony is that the opportunity cost of time, money and scientific resource that has been tied up by the great methane distraction could have been invested in something useful, such as putting an end to drench resistance, weeds, pests, facial eczema. Strangely enough, this would decrease emissions further through even greater pastoral productivity - two birds, one stone. Three birds in fact, as this would also improve the sector’s chance of having a naturally pasture-raised future.
My apologies to the taxpayer. There are so many crucial, urgent issues that need to be addressed with your money. This isn’t one of them. Methane mitigation is an embarrassing political subsidy that farmers never wanted nor needed.
Jane Smith, Environmentalist, Farmer and Rural Advocate.