Climate change scientists accuse government of 'ignoring scientific evidence'
Photo:
RNZ / Marika Khabazi
More than 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, accusing the government of "ignoring scientific evidence" and urging it to "deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees".
The open letter warns the New Zealand government that plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets based on a goal of causing ''no additional warming" will jeopardise New Zealand's commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Global Methane Pledge.
The 26 scientists from different countries say adopting targets consistent with no additional warming implies that current methane emissions levels are acceptable when they are not.
"Setting a 'no additional warming' target is to say that the wildfires in America, drought in Africa, floods across Europe, bushfires in Australia, increasing food insecurity and disease, and much more to come are all fine and acceptable, signatory Paul Behrens, global professor of environmental change at Oxford University said in a statement sent to RNZ.
"The irony is that agriculture, one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, has many large, vested interests that resist and lobby against the very changes and just transitions needed to avoid those impacts," he said.
Another scientist behind the letter was quoted prominently in UK newspaper the
Financial Times
saying the New Zealand government's approach was an "accounting trick" designed to hide the impact of agriculture in rich countries with big farming sectors, namely Ireland and New Zealand.
Luxon dismissed the letter, saying academics "should send their letters to other countries" and he was not going to penalise New Zealand farmers because they were already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet".
New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita methane rates in the world because of its farming exports, as well as high per capita carbon emissions.
Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target so that, rather than aiming to reduce global heating from livestock, it would aim to keep them the same, a target known as "no additional warming".
The current target of 24-47 percent by 2050 already reflects the fact that methane is shorter lived at heating the planet than carbon dioxide, but farming groups says it is too high - and the current government appears receptive. Federated Farmers says the current target is unscientific, and the government appointed a panel to conduct a "scientific review" to the side of its independent Climate Change Commission.
Lowering the target would fly in the face of advice from the commission, which says reductions of 35-47 percent are needed for New Zealand to deliver on its commitments under the Paris Agreement.
Signatory to the letter Professor Drew Schindel is a professor of climate science at Duke University in the US and chair of the 2021 UNEP Global Methane Assessment.
"The New Zealand government is setting a dangerous precedent," he said.
"Adopting a goal of no additional warming means New Zealand would allow agri-methane emissions to continue at current high levels instead of using the solutions we have available to cut them.
"Agriculture is the biggest source of methane from human activity - we can't afford for New Zealand or any other government to exempt it from climate action," he said in a statement sent to RNZ.
Shindell told the
Financial Times
that using the New Zealand government's approach: "If you're a rich farmer that happens to have a lot of cows, then you can keep those cows forever" which "penalises anybody who's not already a big player in agriculture", including "poor farmers in Africa that are trying to feed a growing population".
Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target.
Photo:
Supplied
The letter was prompted by a powerful push by agriculture lobby groups here and overseas for developed countries to base their climate targets on an alternative method for calculating methane's climate impact, which estimates its contribution to warming based on how emissions are changing relative to a baseline.
Proponents argue the newer method, known as global warming potential star (GWP*), better reflects methane's short-lived nature in the atmosphere compared to the long-lasting effects of carbon dioxide and should replace the traditional method of averaging climate impacts over 100 years.
Experts say both methods are scientifically valid and can be used to reveal different things. The controversy is over using GWP* to argue that farming sectors in wealthy countries do not have to reduce their climate impacts.
The letter argues using GWP* to justify not reducing the impact of farming is incompatible with global efforts to limit heating to between 1.5 and 2C.
"It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'," Behrens told the
Financial Times
.
The
government's science review
of New Zealand's methane target has been dismissed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as a purely political exercise.
Simon Upton
has said there is no particular reason why farmers should get to 'keep' today's levels of heating, particularly given farming's climate impact is larger than it was in 1990. Methane has caused most of New Zealand's contribution to heating so far, partly because it acts more quickly than carbon dioxide, front-loading the impact before it tails off.
Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said Cabinet was still carefully considering its decision on whether to lower the target and to what level.
He said he did not take the commentary to heart and "it doesn't stop the direction of travel we are following in undertaking a scientific review".
Simon Watts said he remained happy with how the government's review of New Zealand's methane target was progressing.
Photo:
RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
He said he remained happy with the context of the review and the expertise of the scientists the government selected for it.
The panel established by the government last year concluded a 14 - 24 percent reduction in methane emissions off 2017 levels by 2050 was sufficient to ensure no additional warming from the livestock industry.
The review was led by former climate change commissioner and former Fonterra board member Nicola Shadbolt.
However the panel was not allowed to comment on whether "no additional warming" was an appropriate target.
That decision remains one for Cabinet to make.
Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford University's physics department and one of the scientists behind GWP*, agreed it was a political call - telling the
Financial Times
that governments, not scientists, must decide whether farmers should undo past warming from herd growth.
He said he supported separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide, and said traditional approaches to methane overstated the warming impact of keeping emissions the same, and were slow to reflect the impact of raising or lowering methane. Methane is more potent over short periods than carbon dioxide, so raising or lowering it has an immediate strong impact.
New Zealand has separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide. The latter needs to fall to net zero by 2050.
The open letter comes almost a year to the day after a top Australian climate scientist told RNZ the government's goal of 'no added heating' from farming's methane was problematic.
Professor Mark Howden
, Australasia's top representative on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said taking a "sensible" mid-point from various IPCC pathways, methane would need to fall by roughly 60 percent by 2050 to meet global climate goals, though not all of that reduction needed to come from agriculture.
Oil and gas industry leaks are also major contributors to methane production, and are under pressure to fall more rapidly, because they do not contribute to food production.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
7 hours ago
- RNZ News
Rats and mice to sort out: Parliament's tiny laws
Photo: VNP / Daniela Maoate-Cox The bills Parliament considers that are heavily reported by the media are generally the most contentious, the most impactful or the most far-reaching, with special emphasis on the most contentious. Bills that generate little animosity get little attention. Bills that will have scant impact receive scant love. And bills with a geographical reach that is negligible, get about that much coverage. As a result, it is easy to assume that all the things Parliament does are big and important. But sometimes Parliament manages the triple-whammy - a bill that everyone agrees on, which has negligible impact, and is also incredibly specific. So let's break with tradition look at it. This is especially true of two less common types of law: the unusual 'local bills' and the rare, and highly specific 'private bills'. These bills can be brought to the House for debate by any MP and each has a very specific impact. Local bills have a geographically specific impact, while private bills deal with a specific thing, an organisation, group, trust, charity, church, or even a specific person. The topics can be so unlikely that they might be accidentally mistaken for a lacklustre political spoof. On Wednesday for example, the House spent more than an hour on third reading speeches for a bill with an encompassing name - the Auckland Harbour Board and Takapuna Borough Council Empowering Act Amendment Bill, but that affected just one single building. It was not riveting stuff. The MP in charge was National's Simon Watts, who-whether intended ironically or not-rather grandly announced, "This is a moment we have all been waiting for". The bill had an admirable purpose - fixing an issue with the ongoing costs and rental income for a community asset; but why did such a local issue need to be debated and passed by the House? It was a fault of history. As always, history has a lot to answer for. The background for many modern local and private bills is very similar - fixing problems caused by historic legal drafting. Local organisations (including local government ones), are sometimes brought into being, empowered, or had constitutions enacted under specific legislation, written and passed by Parliament just for them. That includes many things like clubs, churches, amenities, and charities. Even patches of land or parks. That kind of empowering legislation used to be more common many decades ago, but does still happen. Unfortunately drafters are not prophetic seers, and the very specific rules and purposes included in these old laws inevitably cause issues over time. Now, when such an organisation wants to act outside its early restrictions they need Parliament to amend the original law. Let's consider this week's example. The 1923 Harbour Board etcetera law in question included stipulations for the use of a waterside property. Community activities like swimming and watersports were allowed but private gain was specifically outlawed. Just three years later, it became the Takapuna Boating Club but has since fallen into disrepair because it isn't able to raise money, for example from a café, to help cover maintenance costs. And so a new bill was required to carefully loosen those constraints. As Simon Watts noted during the debate: "It is important that while we preserve the community purpose, we don't pass a law that ends up being too restrictive in the future, meaning that another North Shore MP in a hundred years from now will have to come back and lament on the old laws that we're doing right now." That may all seem bizarrely specific and trivial, but it is, sadly, not unusual. Many local (and especially private) bills only exist to fix archaic legislation. In doing so they offer MPs a debate that is refreshingly amicable and without the usual layers of import and consequence. With so little at stake Parliament can be almost fun. This debate had MPs reminiscing about beach days, eulogising Sir Peter Blake and talking of plans to play Mahjong at the club. Simon Watts revealed his caucus referred to the bill as the "Takapuna Ice Cream Bill". Cameron Brewer suggested the bill's sponsor would get a weekend ticker tape parade through Takapuna's shopping thoroughfare. There were many oddities, but the highlight may have been ACT MP Simon Court enthusing like an awestruck fan over a dreamy possibility. "I would suggest to the member Mr Steve Abel, who spoke before, that on top of mahjong, there might even be a venue where he might be able to play some of his famous songs that he composed when he was a famous New Zealand folk singer." In the Speaker's chair, National's Barbara Kuriger chortled, "One never knows where one's endorsements might come from". The slightly breathless nature of the debate was helped along by the fact that National Party MPs seemed keen to make it last as long as possible, because they weren't in favour of some member's bills due to be debated afterwards. Governing party MPs get very little exercise in extemporising in the House about so very little. For example, Cameron Brewer's speech seemed to dawdle over every topic he could think of vaguely connected with the locality, including ice cream, cafés, local magazines and long-past America's Cups. He was not alone in the approach. When he finally concluded, Labour's Phil Twyford took the next call: "Well, the member Cameron Brewer did well to remain on his feet for nine minutes and 48 seconds, but it came at a terrible human cost. Those of us in the House this afternoon - we're the living evidence of that." *RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
US refuses to budge on 15 percent trade tariff imposed on NZ
Trade and Investment Minister Todd McClay says President Trump's 15 percent trade tariff on New Zealand will be harmful. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Trade Minister Todd McClay has spoken with the United States trade representative to make the case against increased tariffs, but Jamieson Greer appears unlikely to budge. On Friday, the US announced a new 15 percent tariff on exporters , which McClay called a "blunt tool". Speaking to delegates at the National Party conference in Christchurch, McClay said he spoke to Greer on Saturday morning. "I made the case that it is not reasonable and it should not be happening to New Zealand, and it is going to be harmful for some of our exporters, and we would ask them to look at that and reconsider it," he said. However, Greer had made it clear that President Donald Trump had made a decision, if a country had a trade deficit with the United States, it would be hit with the 15 percent tariff, wherever they were. Top trade diplomat Vangelis Vitalis will travel to Washington on Sunday, while McClay intended visiting in coming weeks. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said New Zealand had underscored it did not believe tariffs were good for the world economy. "The reality is, as a small trading nation, our job is get out there and hustle, and create opportunities for New Zealand businesses," he said. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
9 hours ago
- RNZ News
PM wants NZ to get behind development, progress, stem tide of Kiwis leaving for Oz
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon addresses 550 delegates at the annual National Party conference in Christchurch. Photo: RNZ / Giles Dexter National leader Christopher Luxon has told the party's annual conference that the country needs to "say yes" more. Addressing about 550 delegates, MPs and supporters at the Air Force Museum of New Zealand in Christchurch, Luxon bemoaned "activists" who opposed housing developments, agriculture, cruise ships and mines. "If we're serious about keeping Kiwis at home, creating jobs and increasing wages for all New Zealanders, we can't afford to keep saying no to every opportunity that comes our way." Opposition parties have heavily criticised the government for its economic policies and laid the blame at its feet for the 30,000 New Zealanders who moved to Australia last year, but Luxon said the opposition would make it worse. "Take a look at Australia," he said. "If they shut down their mining industry or their energy industry tomorrow, as Labour and the Greens want to do here, I guarantee you would see fewer Kiwis moving across the ditch." Luxon's speech came hot on the heels of an announcement from the United States that it would increase tariffs to 15 percent. Still digesting the announcement and what it would mean for New Zealand exporters, Luxon acknowledged "challenging" global conditions. "We can't just batten down the hatches and hope for the best," he said. Luxon's speech made no mention of National's coalition partners, New Zealand First or ACT, or even the word 'coalition' itself, although deputy Nicola Willis acknowledged the "energy" it took to keep Winston Peters and David Seymour under control. Instead, Luxon's speech was heavy on shoutouts to his National ministers and their policies, and also on blaming the previous government for the cost-of-living struggles New Zealanders currently faced. "In the years to come, immediate action on the cost of living isn't enough," he said. "The last government spent billions of dollars in failed handouts, only to watch inflation roar and the economy falter. "We have to keep our eyes on the prize." Echoing his speech at Monday's post-cabinet press conference, Luxon leaned on the economic policies the government had introduced, such as tax changes, FamilyBoost and the removal of the Auckland Fuel Tax. "We're doing what we can," he said. The speech contained an announcement the government would make it easier to get a concession on Department of Conservation land . "That means more certainty for businesses, less bureaucracy and much faster decisions, so the businesses that should be operating can get up and running." There would still be restrictions on some parts of the DOC estate. "Where it does make sense, we need to get to the 'yes' much faster - instead of being bogged down in process and uncertainty," Luxon said. Charges of $20-40 for foreign visitors to high-volume sites like Cathedral Cove, Tongariro Crossing, Milford Sound, and Aoraki Mount Cook were being introduced, but New Zealanders would be exempt from the fees. Party president Sylvia Wood, who was re-elected at the conference, said the party would select candidates for the 2026 election shortly. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
