Train the Trainer- faulty logic, as discussed by Neil Henderson

Recently a series of three hour meetings entitled “Train the Trainer” was held around the country. They were funded by MAF and led by DairyNZ, with Beef and Lamb providing a senior staff member to assist with the presentation. The purpose of the meetings was to provide farm consultants and rural professionals with information on climate change issues and the ETS so they can in turn advise their clients on mitigation and adaptation options.

The presentation is based around a grossly inaccurate representation of the carbon cycle. A series of four slides shows how an initial 20 tonnes of carbon, in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, flows through plants, plant litter, animals and animal products and back to the atmosphere as 20 tonnes of carbon. The cycle stops with 19.84 tonnes carbon in carbon dioxide, and 160 kg of carbon in methane. It fails to show the last step. In that step the 160 kg of carbon in the methane reverts to 160 kg of carbon in carbon dioxide, thus giving 20 tonnes of carbon, all in carbon dioxide which is exactly what we started with. Sure, it takes time. According to a reply to a written question to Climate Change Issues Minister, Dr. Nick Smith, the half life of methane is seven years. This means that after 21 years only one eighth of the methane our livestock produce this year will be left in the atmosphere. A constant number of livestock will produce a constant quantity of methane each year, and a constant amount of methane will break down each year. The two amounts will be equal. This means there is absolutely no global warming as a result of animal emissions.

The cycle also clearly shows methane as 21 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO₂. This is very misleading. This warming potential is based on weight. But a methane molecule is only about a third the size of a CO₂ molecule. An animal can only produce a methane molecule by taking the carbon atom that originally was taken from a CO₂ molecule by a plant. To get 4 kg of methane it takes 11 kg of CO₂. This means the relative warming effect of methane is only 7.6 times that of CO₂. The writers of the seminar know this as the next slide showing the CO2 equivalents ofa dairy farm has used this ratio. But unless one sits down and uses a calculator to check the figures, you would not know, as it is not stated. Why are the presenters deliberately overstating the effect of methane?

The presentation then runs through a range of scenarios for different farm types showing how policy changes can improve profitability to help meet ETS costs. The best policy change in the sheep and beef examples raises the economic farm surplus (EFS) by just under 20%. However after paying for the full cost of livestock emissions at a carbon price of $25/tonne the profit drops to only 76% of the EFS of the original policy before the cost of emissions. At a carbon price of just $70/tonne the entire EFS would be used to pay for the full livestock emissions!

I have written to MAF, all the directors of Beef and Lamb and the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Scientist of DairyNZ about these concerns. I also gave them figures derived from calculations by Dr. Wilson Flood, a chemistry teacher in Scotland that show that even if all livestock in the world were to somehow double the amount of methane they put in the atmosphere the temperature would only rise by 0.01 degree. Check you have read that right; the temperature rise would be one one-hundredth of a degree!

How anyone expects to sell this lemon to the sheep and beef farmers of NZ beats me. Why a producer funded organisation would want to try is an even greater mystery. The only reply I received was from Deborah Gray, Acting Manager, MAF Policy Communications. She said “MAF stands by the use of the carbon cycle in its current form including the use of 21 as methane’s Global Warming Potential, and MAF stands by the way DairyNZ presents the carbon cycle in its Train the Trainer workshops.”

She made no comment at all about the global effect of any rise in methane content of the atmosphere.

Mike Petersen and others comfort themselves with the words of many within government, including Dr Nick Smith that livestock will not enter in 2015 if our trading partners aren’t moving. But Dr Smith spends much time at his roadshows, in letters and in his ETS pamphlet asserting that we are not a leader and that other countries are doing more. Just this week the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, announced the formation of the Agriculture ETS Advisory Committee and said "This high calibre committee will lend weight to understanding agriculture's role in the Emissions Trading Scheme leading up to its planned implementation in 2015”.

Furthermore, if livestock are in a post Kyoto agreement, and at this stage that is likely, NZ will have to account for these emissions. Since they supposedly make up half of our emissions profile they can’t be left out. Either the taxpayer foots the bill or we do. Already there are murmurings from suburbia about paying for the ‘dirty farmers’. It is not a case of if, but when livestock enter the ETS.

Many are being lured by the prospect of earning credits from their forestry block. Do not be fooled. This is a pitfall! This will only provide income until the trees reach maturity. The livestock emissions liabilities go on forever at a cost of around $16.50/sheep, $85.50/beef cattle beast and $125/dairy cow at a carbon price of $50/tonne, once the full cost is being charged.(Note: Treasury uses a price of $50/tonne in its calculations for 2013 costs. 

I appreciate all those who have voiced support for the need to remove the ETS. But more is needed. With Nicholas Stern, Rajendra Pachauri, European Governments and even magazines and mobile billboards in NZ calling for reduced, or even nil, meat consumption we need to act. Our producer organisations should be out in the lead in the fight. That they are not is appalling. That they are siding with MAF in the proliferation of propaganda is outrageous. If our industry remains divided in its opposition to the scam that is the ETS it will eventually die. There is a review of the ETS next year. What are you prepared to do to get the government to back up?