Both the Green Party and Labour have been critical of the decision.
The Greens said the Government was kicking the “climate action can down the road”.
Here, three experts give their reactions.
Shaun Awatere (Ngāti Porou), kaihautū research impact leader, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research
“In December 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held its 21st climate change convention in Paris, resulting in a global agreement to limit average temperature rise to 2C above pre-industrial levels.
“New Zealand ratified the Paris Agreement in October 2016 and submitted its nationally determined contribution, outlining plans to reduce emissions primarily through the Emission Trading Scheme.”
Awatere said supporting the Framework Convention was a “moral imperative” to ensure environmental sustainability, global equity, intergenerational justice, support for a global common good, and the protection of human rights.
“However, the exclusion of major polluters like agribusiness, responsible for 49 per cent of New Zealand’s emissions, is an abrogation of New Zealand’s international responsibilities and commitment to reducing emissions.”
He said international consumers expected companies to actively engage in corporate social responsibility initiatives focused on reducing emissions, such as setting and meeting science-based targets for greenhouse gas reductions.
“At the same time, consumers are increasingly expecting transparency about the carbon footprint of products, including detailed information on emissions generated throughout the supply chain and production process.”
Consumers also expected brands to lead in advocacy for broader industry changes that supported emission reductions and sustainability goals, he said.
“In doing so, New Zealand companies can realise the opportunities from enhancing brand loyalty and appeal, as more international consumers prioritise environmental responsibility in their purchasing decisions.
“This is an essential approach to take, especially given the importance of agribusiness to New Zealand’s export markets, like dairy, which makes up approximately 23 per cent of New Zealand’s total exports.”
Dr Sebastian Gehricke, director, Climate and Energy Finance Group; senior lecturer, finance, University of Otago, Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka
”Agriculture, making up about half of our national emissions, has never been included in the ETS, so this is really just a stop in plans to price agricultural emissions,” Gehricke said.
These emissions were meant to be priced in their own scheme or enter the Emissions Trading Scheme by 2025, he said.
“Really, what is happening now is just avoiding the pricing of these emissions.”
Gehricke said the National Party had previously stated the Emissions Trading Scheme was its single policy tool to fight climate change, “yet they are not enabling it to be that tool, by fixing the issues in the ETS”.
“Further, if half our emissions remain outside of the ETS and are not priced, how can this tool impact those emissions at all?”
He said he’d heard the referral to New Zealand farms being the most carbon emission efficient in the world “many times”.
“First question one should ask to understand this is, where do those numbers come from? Who funded the research? And if you look at the limitations of the research, would we draw the same conclusions?
“Even if we are ‘some of the most carbon efficient’, we are still emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases as a country.”
He said if the Government wanted to avoid farms being “shut down”, a more effective mechanism might be removing exotic forests from the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Gehricke agreed with disestablishing He Waka Eke Noa proposals because they were “inadequate and far from ambitious”, but not if agricultural emissions were not to be priced at all.
”Starting fresh after so many years of delay is preposterous.”
He questioned whether more research and development were needed or “actual changes and incentives”.
“This seems to focus fully on technocratic, unproven technologies, much like carbon capture and storage in other sectors,” he said.
“Where is the support for sustainable and high-value approaches such as regenerative agriculture, permaculture, organic farming etc?
“Do we care only about GDP? Or actual citizen wellbeing and outcomes?”
Dr Robyn Dynes, senior scientist, AgResearch
“The Government’s announcement that it will be engaging directly with the pastoral industry on the methane issue through its new Pastoral Sector Group is a positive one,” Dynes said.
“As reviews of current methane targets are worked through, farmers will be looking for certainty on what is going to be expected of them.”
Dynes said it was crucial that any regulation to reduce on-farm methane emissions was workable and had buy-in from the farmers who would need to comply with and report on it.
“Emissions pricing, as has been previously proposed, is one potential approach, but if farmers do not have access to effective and affordable tools to reduce their emissions, and have no other choice than to reduce stock numbers, then that has real impacts for rural communities around New Zealand, and the country as a whole.”
While carbon sequestration was one potential avenue to offset methane emissions, there was an ongoing challenge around the data and cost-effective ways to measure and monitor that sequestration, she said.
“The further investment by the Government into research and development is also welcome, as we know there is some highly promising research happening on the likes of low-methane genetics, methane-reducing vaccines and feed supplements, and modified/alternative pastures to reduce emissions from livestock.”
Dynes while this research took time and investment, in some cases increased funding could help accelerate the research and bring products to the market faster.
“While methane-reducing products are coming to market overseas, and products like DSM’s 3-NOP have received approval by New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority, there is still a challenge to design products that will work in our pasture-based grazing systems.”
