Why the ETS Must be Delayed

The ETS comes into effect in July this year. Initially it will only include energy (electricity, petrol and diesel) but by 2015 it will include ruminant animals because they produce methane.

 

It is difficult to get accurate estimates of the cost of the ETS. The initial costs, starting just with a tax on energy, are a few thousand dollars per farm, but when animals come into the ETS in 2105 the costs are estimated to start at about $5,000 annually increasing to about $10,000 for the average sheep & beef farm. The costs for the average dairy farm are likely to be double these. Given the current financial situation on many farms the ETS has the potential to ruin pastoral farming in New Zealand, especially the sheep & beef sector. And for what gain?

 

New Zealand is the only country in the OECD which has decided to include agriculture in an ETS scheme. The justification for this is that, unlike all other countries, much (about 50%) of our greenhouse gases come from agriculture and in particular methane from ruminants. As expressed recently by the Prime Ministers Chief Science Advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman, “Methane has a much shorter atmospheric half life than CO2 but is more than 20 times as potent a greenhouse gas, making it an attractive target for emission reduction measures”. But is it logical to target ruminant animals?

 

It is true that ruminants produce methane and that in time (7-9 years) this atmospheric methane is converted back to CO2 to be taken up by plants including pastures via photosynthesis. It is a closed system and therefore, if ruminants are the only source, the amount of methane in the atmosphere at any given time should be directly related to the number of ruminants. But the total number of ruminants (expressed in standard stock units (su)) in New Zealand for the period 1971 to 2007 has declined implying that net emissions of methane from ruminants have also declined.  

 

Ironically the only long-term measurements in New Zealand indicate that atmospheric methane concentrations have increased from about 1660 part per billion in 1990 to about 1740 ppm in 2007, very similar to the global trends. These measurements are made at Barring Heads in Wellington and do not necessarily reflect what is happening in terms of land-use in New Zealand. If they mean anything they represent the local expression of the net effect of all the global sources of methane in the atmosphere which include: all ruminants (feral, domestic and sacred), wetlands (natural and man-made such as paddy fields), landfills, organic matter oxidation, gas and coal production, termites and the oceans and freshwater bodies. The point is that ruminants are but a bit player when it comes to methane production contributing about 16% or the world’s atmospheric methane, and that includes all the feral ruminants and the holy animals of the Hindu. 

 

Given that methane concentrations and ruminant numbers do not appear to be related and given these other sources of methane, why are we in New Zealand focussed solely on ruminant methane? And if we do tax the carbon from ruminant methane will it reduce atmospheric methane and hence global warming? The data suggests that this is most unlikely and yet that is exactly what the “powers that be” are hoping the ETS will achieve.

 

Our leaders are reduced to claiming that we need to proceed with the ETS to show the world we are doing something and hence to protect our international markets dependant, it is claimed, on our clean-green image. What in fact we will be doing is handing our international competitors a wonderful dose of competitive advantage. But relax – it’s called leadership!    

 

 

Dr D C Edmeades

Agricultural Spokesman

NZ Climate Science Coalition