Latest news with #PaulBehrens
The Spinoff
5 days ago
- 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
7 days ago
- 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.
Express Tribune
21-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
Chocolate industry faces mounting supply threats from global warming: Report warns
Listen to article Climate breakdown and biodiversity loss are exposing the European Union to mounting risks in its food supply chains, with cocoa imports at the heart of what experts have called a 'chocolate crisis,' a new report said on Tuesday. The analysis by UK-based consultancy Foresight Transitions found that more than two-thirds of key food imports into the EU in 2023 came from countries ill-prepared for climate change. The study mapped Eurostat trade data against environmental readiness scores from the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index and biodiversity rankings from the UK's Natural History Museum. It identified six key commodities – cocoa, coffee, soy, rice, wheat and maize – as particularly vulnerable. Cocoa stood out as the most exposed. The EU sourced nearly 97% of its cocoa imports from countries with poor climate preparedness and 77% from nations with degraded biodiversity. 'These aren't just abstract threats,' said Camilla Hyslop, lead author of the report. 'They are already affecting prices, availability, and jobs — and it's only getting worse.' Most cocoa comes from West African nations, where rising temperatures, unpredictable rains, and biodiversity decline are combining to stress farming systems. The report argued that large chocolate manufacturers should invest in climate adaptation and biodiversity protection — not just as a sustainability effort, but as a risk management strategy. 'This is not an act of altruism,' the report noted, 'but a vital derisking exercise.' Ensuring fair prices for farmers, it added, would allow investment in climate resilience on the ground. EU maize and wheat imports were also heavily reliant on countries with medium to low environmental readiness, according to the study. Maize was especially vulnerable, with 90% of imports coming from countries with poor climate scores. Environmental experts warn the trend undermines the EU's assumption of food security. 'This paints an extremely worrying picture,' said Paul Behrens, a food systems expert at the University of Oxford. 'The EU likes to think of itself as self-sufficient, but the data show deep dependencies on fragile ecosystems abroad.' The report, commissioned by the European Climate Foundation, also flagged concerns around coffee, soy and rice. Uganda, for example, which supplied 10% of the EU's coffee last year, scored low on climate readiness and biodiversity intactness. Ugandan coffee farmer advocate Joseph Nkandu called for increased access to international climate finance to help smallholders cope with erratic weather patterns. 'The weather in Uganda is no longer predictable,' he said. 'Our coffee bushes are suffering from prolonged dry spells and unseasonal rains.' Oxford researcher Marco Springmann, who was not involved in the report, said deeper reform of food systems was needed. 'Resilience isn't just about stabilising current supply chains,' he said. 'We also need to move away from overreliance on crops like soy, which are primarily used to feed livestock.'
Forbes
10-04-2025
- Science
- Forbes
The Way We Eat Is About To Change—Whether We Like It Or Not
'This transition is going to happen one way or another,' said Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor at the University of Oxford. Behrens studies food systems at the Oxford Martin School, where his research focuses on modeling how producers and consumers interact through trade, and how structural reforms might increase the resilience of global food supply chains. Speaking this week at the 2025 Oxford LEAP Conference, Behrens described growing pressures on food systems worldwide. Agriculture is a primary driver of several forms of environmental degradation, including greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and nitrogen pollution. At the same time, food production is increasingly exposed to the effects of extreme weather, economic shocks, and resource constraints. Evidence of these pressures continues to accumulate. Earlier this year, flooding in Australia submerged an area larger than the United Kingdom. Queensland, which produces almost half of Australia's cattle, reported major livestock losses. These examples illustrate a wider pattern. Economic assessments at the global scale, including a working paper published by the International Monetary Fund warning about the inflationary effects of climate induced droughts on food prices and a study in the scientific journal Communications Earth & Environment estimating that under global temperature increases projected for 2035 we should expect annual food inflation of 0.92%-3.23%. Beyond episodic shocks, longer-term structural risks are also becoming clearer. A 2019 study in the journal Agricultural Systems found that the probability of simultaneous crop failures in key agricultural regions increases sharply under 1.5°C and 2°C warming scenarios. Such disruptions, when they affect multiple breadbasket regions at once, pose a growing challenge to the stability of global food trade. In response to these trends, Behrens argued that a shift toward more plant-based diets is not simply advisable, but likely inevitable. This view is grounded not in consumer preference, but in biophysical constraints and economic modeling. As land, water, and energy demands tighten—and as climate disruptions multiply—resource-intensive food systems may simply become unviable at scale. Analyses such as the EAT-Lancet Commission report suggest that dietary shifts can significantly reduce environmental impacts. Work from Behrens' team adds that such transitions also reduce the land, labor, and capital intensity of food production. These factors matter economically: many producers operate with high levels of debt and depend on infrastructure that is increasingly exposed to climate risk—conditions that make the system more sensitive to disruption. He also emphasized the importance of 'policy sequencing'—a strategy in which reforms are introduced incrementally, each lowering the barriers to the next. Examples might include revising agricultural subsidies, adjusting procurement policies, or investing in climate-resilient food infrastructure. According to Behrens, whether dietary change arrives through deliberate reform or reactive disruption remains to be seen, but it is inevitable. The structural pressures are well-documented, and their effects are already visible in both physical and economic terms. Managing this transition, Behrens suggested, will likely require a long-term policy approach that emphasizes resilience, equity, and risk reduction. From a policy perspective, one implication is clear: failure to anticipate these risks may leave decision-makers with fewer—and more costly—options in the future.
