by Jeanette Fitzsimons
Today I questioned the Government about its 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the agriculture sector. The Government has claimed in the past that this MOU prevents it from bringing agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) prior to 2013, however, the answers to my questions revealed a different situation altogether:
1. I asked if it had been reviewed as required in clause 12.2. The answer was: No, it will be reviewed after climate change legislation is in place. Now, if the MOU prevents the ETS bringing in agriculture early, isn’t a circular argument to then say that the ETS process prevents the MOU being reviewed?
2. The Minister then acknowledged that the original MOU target of 20% was last year reduced to 10% by the industry without agreement in writing of both parties as required in 12.3. He did correctly note that the target is in the “Background” section rather than the “The Parties agree that” section, but fact remains that the sector is not on track to meet these targets (which are intensity targets anyway)
3. The Minister confirmed that the MOU itself does not prevent the Government bringing agriculture in early – that Government policy is in the “Background” section too and is a political choice, not an agreement with the sector. Even National is now saying some agricultural emissions should come in earlier in their minority report on the ETS Bill.
4. The Minister agreed that clause 1.2 of the MOU – “there are currently no proven, practical and cost effective farm practices and technologies to reduce agricultural emissionâ€? – is no longer correct. Nowadays there are many, especially for nitrous oxide.
5. But when asked if he would therefore consider terminating the MOU and bring agriculture into the ETS early, the answer was no, despite the evidence above. Even dairy cows are more reasonable than that.
Published in Parliament by Jeanette Fitzsimons on Wed, June 18th, 2008
Tags: agriculture, climate change, cows, dairy, emissions, emissions trading, ETS, Frog, frogblog, green, MoU, new zealand, NOx, party
More posts by Jeanette Fitzsimons | more about Jeanette Fitzsimons
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
For completeness, please also note that the Minister pointed out that the agricultural sector is being extremely cooperative and working on measures to reduce emissions. All the technologies to reduce agricultural emission you refer to have been developed voluntarily by the industry, and many are already being implemented, again voluntarily. He also pointed out that agriculture will be partially brought into the scheme as soon as transport and energy are brought in, as the sector is a large user of energy and transport.
Reducing agricultural emissions is much more difficult than from other sectors, as you are trying to improve the efficiency of already highly efficient natural processes. Not counting transport and electricity, the two main areas of emission are nitrous oxide from soils and methane from ruminants. There is no way of reducing methane emissions significantly yet (the main hope, vaccines, having failed to date). The nitrification inhibitors that are available to reduce nitrous oxide emissions are good technology that work well, and are already being adopted voluntarily by the industry. However they are only cost-effective on intensive farms at present, and the effectiveness in different situations is still being researched, so the total amount of emissions they can reduce is limited.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Please note that in my last post I don’t intend to support the government’s position, rather stand up for the agricultural industry. As far as I can see the ETS won’t work (by which I mean it won’t reduce global GHG emissions but will cost a lot to do nothing), don’t vote for it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The ‘voluntary’ actions by some sections of the Agriculture industry is only enlightened self interest as they can see the writing on the wall and so have started to act. Unfortunately there are many who will only come to the party kicking and screaming, but too late. Strict regulation will be far less pleasant and more costly for everyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bigblukiwi, The same argument applies to any “voluntary” approach, in fact it is the foundation of market-based approaches. No different from the appraoch taken with household and private vehicle emissions reductions. Note how oil breaking the $100 barrel barrier has shifted more people from cars to public transport in one year than was acheived with seven years of increased petrol tax subsidies to public transport. The right amount of self-interest is a great motivator.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said Kevyn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Straight Furrow this week has run an excellent whole page “Opinion Piece” by a Robin Grieve, Agricultural Tutor and consultant, called “Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Balance”.
He too is asking who is doing the research to establish the extent to which pasture is a carbon sink? – and if the answer is no one, then why not?
HIs figures suggest that each cow is actually a sink to the tune of 15 – 19kgs when its whole cycle is taken into account – and that is ignoring any effect of pasture as a sink. (NOTE: the acknowledged margins of error in these estimates is huge. 50% or so.)
He also asks how much of the carbon in the cow pat is absorbed into the soil (credit to the cow) and how much goes to atmosphere?
He also makes the point that any breakdown of vegetation produces NO2 so why tax only the farmer. What about biofuel production, native bush, wetlands and composting.
HIs key argument is that until we know the answer to these and related questions NO carbon tax or trading scheme can be fair.
And given that our ruminants produce food which we export why shouldn’t the overseas consumers pay the tax (just as we are going to with oil) rather than the producers? The Arab states don ‘t pay the tax on their oil. We are going to at the pump.
Country Wide and Straight Furrow are now asking the right questions.
The strength of this line of argument is that they are not challenging the IPCC or climate science in general – they are asking questions about their own environment and challenging the selective treatment of their industry.
We should be aware that if our total Agricultural land use is a sink or even neutral then we would possibly have no problem to solve and there would be no political capital to be gained from “taking urgent action” against our most productive sector that also happens to help feed the world. Are we really prepared to turn our agricultural sector into election year voting fodder?
Here is the URL.
If it does not work (very long) just Google under Robin Grieve and Greenhouse.
http://straightfurrow.farmonline.co.nz/news/nationalrural/agribusiness -and-general/general/opinion-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-balance/78897 9.aspx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Robin Grieve (as linked by Owen McShane) said in Straight Furrow: Each day, she emits, as a byproduct, 300 to 500gms of methane. Methane breaks down to CO2 and water after eight to 10 years, so the methane a cow emits does not add to the methane in the atmosphere, it simply replaces it. The methane becomes CO2, which becomes grass which the cow eats. It all goes around and around, so there should be no tax to pay.
This is a fallacious argument, Owen. While the methane does eventually break down to CO2 and water in the atmosphere, it is, as Robin says, over a significant period of time.
Assuming Robin’s higher figure of 500g of methane emitted per day the cow will, over 10 years, emit about 1.78 tonnes of methane. However, at the end of that 10 years, only a small percentage of it will have been oxidised to CO2 and water.
Robin’s maths would work only if the cow emitted 1.78 tonnes of methane in the first day of that 10 years and none in the remaining 3651 days – a very strange cow indeed [and one that I hope no-one's working to genetically engineer]!
Given that methane has a global warming potential of 25 over a 100 year period, and 72 over a 20 year period (compared with 1 for the the equivalent CO2 removed from the atmosphere by the photosynthesis process in the grasses eaten by the cow), and that, as I have shown above, the methane is emitted significantly faster than it is broken down) it is a nonsense to say “It all goes around and around, so there should be no tax to pay.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, and lets have a chat about nitrous oxide too, Owen.
Firstly, its chemical formula is N2O, not NO2. Funnily enough, I saw the guys on Mythbusters make this same mistake as you a week or so ago when they were experimenting with a nitrous oxide and salami fueled rocket. NO2 – nitrogen dioxide – is of environmental concern too (nitric acid rain), but its dipole moment is such that it is not a greenhouse gas.
More importantly, you state “He also makes the point that any breakdown of vegetation produces NO2 (sic) so why tax only the farmer.”
True, Owen, nitrous oxide emission from the breakdown of vegetation by bacteria has been going on for aeons. The point is, that its atmospheric concentration is increasing and that this increase is due to human activity.
Animal waste handling and the use of nitrogenous fertilisers both stimulate naturally occurring bacteria to produce more nitrous oxide.
The livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide. Industrial sources make up only about 20% of all anthropogenic sources, and include the production of nylon and nitric acid, and the burning of fossil fuel in internal combustion engines.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry about the N2O – we get so used to writing CO2 in this context that it is an easy typo to make.
Are you really sure that the increase in atmospheric N2O is due to human activity?
Are you equally sure that the stabilisation of methane concentration (some say reduction) is equally due to human activity (or inactivity).
We know so little about these exchanges and all Robin is doing is asking questions which deserve to be answered.
What worries me the most is that both Rennies essays in Country-Wide and Grieve’s remind us that many of these exchanges have been determined by negotiation of the protocol – not by actual research on the ground – and we are now told that they must remain in place until the next round of negotiation.
Some recent Massey research suggests that actual N2O emissions in NZ are only half those assumed by the Europeans. I do not like “negotiated science”.
Surely facts should prevail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Owen and Toad:
A few points on N2O:
- Actual emissions vary widely between soil type, season and land managment. On some soils actual emissions will be far below IPCC predictions, on others it can be more. It is difficult to say what the actual emissions from a particular soil will be. It is still more difficult to figure out accurately what the emissions are from an entire country. This is an inexact science.
- There are methods by which N2O emissions can be reduced, specifically with nitrification inhibitors. But it is even more difficult to figure out exactly how much N2O can be reduced over the entire country if these are used, as the effect can vary significantly again.
- Then, if you can figure both of these out, there is currently no way to incorporate nitrification inhibitors into the national emissions calculations, so it would be difficult to actually claim the reductions under Kyoto.
This is an extremely complicated area. It is frustrating that politicians feel they can put actual figures on stuff like this and make policies based on these figures. The science is still under heavy development as we speak. I fully agree with Owen’s concern about “negotiated science”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis, I’m not proposing we run headlong down the path of nitrification inhibitors.
I’m not sure if the research has shown any adverse effects – as you well know from GE, we Greens prefer to be cautious about new technologies with potentially hazardous impacts. But I do know that nitrification inhibitors work, so should be in the options that should be considered if they don’t have toxic or polluting effects themselves.
Other options for reducing N2O emissions include:
Maximisation of conversion to organic production by encouraging best organic practice.
Research into the most appropriate fertiliser management practices to ensure the most efficient use of nitrogen-based fertilisers.
Research into the economic feasibility of wide implementation of “alternative” technologies such as soil re-mineralisation and bio-intensive farming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just got your theory that my argument is fallacious because a cow will emit 1.78 tonnes of methane before any of it breaks down after 8 or 10years Your argument assumes that no methane will breakdown to CO2 in the next 8 years. A very strange atmosphere indeed. Methane is breaking down all the time that is why a cow does not add to the store of methane she simply replaces it. A cow is physically incapable of increasing greenhouse gases, all she emits came from the atmosphere it is a cycle. This is in contrast to you driving your car and emitting CO2 and methane out your exhaust pipe that was before that trapped under the ground. The car exhaust increases greenhaouse gases in the atmosphere a cow does not. It works like this -cow belches methane- methane breaks down to CO2 and water- CO2 and water are absorbed by grass as it grows-cow eats grass-cow belches methane- and so it goes around and around and now the government want to clip the ticket each time it goes around and that will make them a lot of money and that is what it is all about money money money and nothing to do with saving the planet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)