Latest news with #PaulBehrens
Irish Examiner
17-06-2025
- Science
- Irish Examiner
Scientists accuse Ireland and New Zealand of methane ‘accounting trick'
A group of 26 climate scientists from around the world have penned an open letter to New Zealand and Ireland criticising how the methane greenhouse gas is measured. In Ireland's case, it may be a reaction to the programme for government 2025 commitment to "recognise the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane, as described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and advocate for the accounting of this greenhouse gas to be re-classified at EU and international level". The 26 scientists, in an open letter shared with the London-based Financial Times newspaper, said governments with large livestock sectors, including those of Ireland and New Zealand, are increasingly using a new method for calculating methane's effect on climate change which estimates its contribution to warming based on how emissions are changing relative to a baseline. They specifically accused politicians in New Zealand and Ireland of using an 'accounting trick' to back their sheep and cattle industries. It is believed they are referring to GWP*, a version of the Global Warming Potential formula devised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Other climate researchers, at the University of Oxford, came up with GWP* about six years ago, as a better way for governments to set emissions targets for different greenhouse gases. They said the original GWP100 method did not reliably account for the different impacts of long-lived (such as carbon dioxide) and short-lived (such as methane) gases. They said different lifespans of emissions were crucial to understanding their potential to warm the earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, and even if its emissions ceases, the warming they caused would continues for centuries. But methane does not accumulate, being relatively rapidly removed naturally from the atmosphere. But GWP100 does not allow for this, according to the GWP* camp. Now, a different scientist at the University of Oxford, Paul Behrens, global professor of environmental change at the university, is one of the 26 whose open letter to the Financial Times warned some governments are misapplying GWP*, to justify allowing emissions to remain flat rather than decline. They warned this could set a precedent, allowing other countries to justify minimal reductions in methane emissions, and jeopardising commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement as well as the Global Methane Pledge launched in 2021. Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford University's physics department, and one of the scientists behind GWP*, said governments, not scientists, must decide whether farmers should undo past warming from herd growth. He still supports separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide, saying GWP100 overstates the warming impact of constant methane emissions, and is slow to reflect the impact of emission changes. Read More Rise in low-emission slurry spreading puts Ireland on track for ammonia target
RNZ News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Scientists hit back over Prime Minister's 'worthies' insult
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon makes a tourism funding boost announcement at Auckland Airport. Photo: Marika Khabazi A British scientist says it's concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower the country's methane emissions target. Global professor of environmental change at Oxford University Paul Behrens said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish, my point was very clear, those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Christopher Luxon says New Zealand is already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". Photo: Gianina Schwanecke / Country Life Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24 and 47 per cent by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the prime minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14 to 24 per cent by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb says yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. "In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Victoria University Professor of Climate Change Dave Frame. Photo: RNZ / Chris Bramwell Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel atmospheric scientist Laura Revell said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address," she said. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35 percent, because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
09-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Luxon doubles down on calling climate advocates 'worthies', scientists hit back
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon makes a tourism funding boost announcement at Auckland Airport. Photo: Marika Khabazi A British scientist says it's concerning that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower the country's methane emissions target. Global professor of environmental change at Oxford University Paul Behrens said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish, my point was very clear, those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Christopher Luxon says New Zealand is already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". Photo: Gianina Schwanecke / Country Life Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24 and 47 per cent by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the prime minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14 to 24 per cent by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb says yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. "In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Victoria University Professor of Climate Change Dave Frame. Photo: RNZ / Chris Bramwell Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel atmospheric scientist Laura Revell said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address," she said. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35 percent, because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Spinoff
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Spinoff
Changing our methane standards could set a ‘dangerous precedent', scientists warn
A group of scientists from around the world is urging the New Zealand government to ignore a methane report it commissioned that 'redefines the goal of climate action'. Shanti Mathias explains. I hear there's an open letter. What's that about? Twenty-six climate scientists have signed an open letter urging the government not to adopt a standard that would limit the amount of methane reduction New Zealand needs to achieve to reach its climate target. A review of New Zealand's methane targets, conducted in 2024 by a government-appointed group separate from the independent Climate Change Commission, looked at the goal of 'no additional warming'. The open letter says that 'no additional warming' is a goal that 'ignores scientific evidence' and could jeopardise New Zealand's ability to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. What does 'no additional warming' mean? This term is a way to avoid responsibility, says the open letter. 'It redefines the goal of climate action as simply stabilising the warming impact of emissions from any given source at current levels – rather than seeking to 'minimise all greenhouse gas emissions' and their contribution to global warming.' The concept of 'no additional warming' is supported by agricultural lobby groups like Beef and Lamb and Federated Farmers. It would mean that methane emissions could be kept at current levels, as long as they don't increase; essentially an endorsement of the current amount of climate change. 'It's kind of like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river and it's killing life. If I go and pour 90 barrels of pollution in, I should get credit for it,' Paul Behrens, a professor at Oxford University and signatory of the letter, told the Financial Times. Farming lobby groups are pushing for the government of Ireland to adopt a similar approach, which scientists have also criticised. Why are New Zealand and Ireland being singled out? Both countries have large agriculture sectors which produce a lot of dairy and beef for export, and have very high per-capita methane emissions. The vast majority of methane emissions come from agriculture; more than 85% in New Zealand, from grass-eating animals like cows and sheep burping it out as they digest their food. Methane made up 28.9% of Ireland's emissions in 2022 and 43.5% of New Zealand's emissions in 2020. By comparison, methane is about 12% of the United States' emissions. Drew Shindel, an American professor who chaired the UN Environmental Programmes 2021 global methane assessment, told RNZ that the 'no additional warming' target set a 'dangerous precedent'. If New Zealand and Ireland adopted this standard and were followed by other countries, methane emissions wouldn't be reduced fast enough to meet Paris Agreement targets that are already in jeopardy. Methane is a particularly dangerous source of emissions. While it stays in the atmosphere for less time than carbon dioxide, it causes 80 times as much heating, and causes that heating almost immediately – meaning that if methane continues to be emitted, its dangerous warming effects will continue, too. As a recognition of its more short-lived nature, the amount of methane New Zealand needs to reduce by 2050 is a separate goal to carbon emissions reductions. By 2050, New Zealand is aiming to have net-zero carbon dioxide emissions and a 24% to 47% reduction of methane. By 2030, New Zealand is aiming to have a 10% reduction of methane from 2017 levels. How have New Zealand politicians reacted to this call to reduce methane? Fairly predictably. Christopher Luxon, to whom the letter was addressed, said that the scientists, whom he described as 'worthies', 'might want to direct their focus and their letters to other countries'. He told RNZ 'I'll stack New Zealand's record up against any other country on the planet Earth around our methane emissions,' saying that if New Zealand limited dairy or beef production, those emissions would be produced elsewhere by countries with less environmental efficiency. Chlӧe Swarbrick, co-leader of the Green Party, said that the 'no additional warming' measure could damage New Zealand's reputation and threaten its exports. 'It's really clear that Christopher Luxon has to end any further speculation that his government is on the climate denial bandwagon, they have wasted a year playing around with this mythical notion of 'no additional warming' and now international alarm bells are ringing,' she said. Following the report of the methane panel last year, Cabinet will decide whether to adopt a different methane target. Is New Zealand on track to meet its climate targets otherwise? No. Current policies rely on tree planting and a carbon capture and storage project in the Kapuni gas field, which currently seems completely unviable. The second emissions reduction plan, released last year, put the net zero 2050 target out of reach with domestic targets, meaning New Zealand will likely have to buy millions of dollars of international carbon credits. The organisation Climate Action Tracker rates New Zealand's progress as 'highly insufficient' with current policies headed towards heating of more than four degrees Celsius. Changes to climate finance in the recent budget also mean that New Zealand is not doing its part to support less well-off countries adapt to a warmer planet and reduce their emissions.
RNZ News
03-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Climate change scientists accuse government of 'ignoring scientific evidence'
Climate change scientists have written an open letter to Christopher Luxon warning that New Zealand government plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets will jeopardise existing agreements. 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.
