New 'Ag Climatise' strategy for agriculture does not go far enough

My analysis of the new Department of Agriculture’s Ag Climatise roadmap for the sector, as reported by Kevin O’ Sullivan in the Irish Times

Last week, the Department of Agriculture released ‘Ag Climatise’, a new strategy claiming to set out a pathway for “climate neutral” agriculture. On the surface this seems like a deeply ambitious policy. But it clearly is not consistent with the Paris Agreement.

The agriculture sector is responsible for 35% of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions. Cows emit methane, a potent greenhouse gas with a very strong global warming impact. Globally, methane from agriculture and fossil fuels has been responsible for the two-fifths of the one degree of global temperature rise that has already taken place as a result of human activities. Ireland is the fourth highest per-capita emitter of methane from agriculture in the world, and emissions are 15% higher since 2011, driven by dairy output and the abolition of milk quotas.

Surely the government’s new “roadmap for climate neutrality” for agriculture will at a minimum reverse this recent rise in emissions? It doesn’t.

Far from consistent with the Programme for Government climate target

Ag Climatise seeks to merely stabilise methane emissions. In other words, at some undefined point, methane emissions are to stop growing further. Small net reductions in the sector’s overall emissions are planned by reducing emissions of nitrogen, which is responsible for around a third of emissions from the sector, by around one-fifth. This means the strategy is not only far from consistent with the Programme for Government target of halving overall greenhouse gases by 2030, but appears to be actually less ambitious than the previous government’s Climate Action Plan, which targets a 10-15% reduction in emissions from agriculture by 2030.

The new roadmap acknowledges that cuts in methane will be required in the long-term, but relies on innovations in breeding, technology and feed additives to achieve this, rather than reducing production. However, each dairy cow is now emitting 15% more methane than in 1990, so it is not clear how these innovations will succeed.

Such a lack of ambition for emissions reductions in agriculture will mean other sectors, namely transport and heat, will have to compensate with more drastic emissions cuts. Is it fair to push the extra burden from agriculture onto people, to enable an expansion of beef and dairy exports?

The strategy does admit that it is not consistent with the Programme for Government target of halving overall greenhouse gases by 2030, a 7% annual decline in emissions, and therefore will need to be a living document.

But this begs the question: Why publish a strategy for the agriculture sector not compatible with the Programme for Government target, which tells farmers that their sector is climate neutral?

In its 2020 Annual Review, the Climate Change Advisory Council pointed out that increasing beef and dairy production would not benefit Irish society when we take into account the resulting pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency’s recent “State of the Environment” report highlighted the huge environmental pressures that arise from our agricultural system. Further, the Council believes that the risk of carbon leakage does not vindicate our strategy for agriculture, even though it is commonly used to justify continued expansion.

This week also saw the publication of the United Nations Environment Programme’s Gap Report, whose findings on global progress on tackling climate change are bleak. Despite many countries making ambitious pledges and targets for the distant future, greenhouse gases continue to rise. The savings we will see in 2020 from the Covid-19 pandemic will be negligible to the climate.

If Ireland relay wants to pursue an ambitious climate target and meaningfully transform into a sustainable society, we need to move away from long-term pledges and start making realistic and truly transformative actions across all sectors.

Ireland’s agricultural system is unsustainable

A newly-proposed accounting metric for greenhouse gas emissions known as GWP* is being used to claim that stabilised methane emissions are “climate neutral”, but there is no global scientific or political consensus that this is the correct interpretation. With rising methane emissions, which is the case globally and in Ireland, this metric shows that we are under-counting the warming impact of methane. However, for falling methane emissions, the opposite is the case.

There are no easy solutions or get-out-of-jail free cards. Ireland’s agricultural system, which relies on producing the most carbon-intensive foods, is highly unsustainable. To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, which was adopted five years ago, and to avert the worst impacts of climate change, deep cuts in global methane emissions are required, which will likely require making diets more sustainable as well as transforming food production systems.

New Zealand, which is the country with the highest per-capita emissions of methane from agriculture, has acknowledged this by setting target for methane into law, requiring a 10% cut in emissions by 2030 and 24-47% cut by 2050, along with a “net zero” target for CO2.

If Ireland truly wants to do its part to tackle climate change, we need to do the same and set a clear target for reducing methane emissions into the new Climate Bill, which is now being reviewed by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Climate Change.

Matthew Quinn

December 31, 2020 at 12:24 AM

Sorry but you seem to make out gwp* was made by climate deniers and big business with dodgy science. When chief author is dr myles allen who was co author of ippc report on keeping below 2’c which many climate decisions have been made on the back of and isn’t currently on the council. Bbc credit him as physicist behind net zero and currently professor at Oxford. So he is most certainly someone with greater understanding of the subject and is reliable . He describes a constant herd with .3% decrease per annum as having no global warming impact. The department says stable methane which i imagine is satble herd in order to achieve what is set out by dr allen. In laymans terms he describes a constant herd as a closed coal factory once had a warming effect whenever that was but no longer does. Looking at it from a practical point of view an adoption of this would mean that if we were increased by 5% lets say it would mean that most of the herd would be in a constant and we could them identify where the increase are coming from and cull them or offset it for example. This metric would also state that Herd had a cooling effect if you understand (only drop of 20k to get us in line for 2020)You make it out to be this is highly controversial but people such as dr allen, michelle cain, in irish context Chairman of irish climate change council john fitzgearld, philip obrien epa and former member of climate council gerry boyle. None of whom say this is dodgy science. I assume you refer to Irish Farmers Journal as the ones who make it out to be get out of jail card but in their article they reiterate we must not be increasing herd. What ive said in the previously could be put down to jargon or misinterpretation which can happen and is only in minor details.You make no attempt in your article to offer any alternatives ,solutions. No mention of mixed species sward, stabiliser breeds, silvopasture, amp grazing and to look deeper than 30cm horizons for soil. Look up white oak pastures or niels olsen to show how farms can and have been scientifically proven to be carbon negative and in the case of white oak pastures out preforming other protein sources comfortably. If an 18 year old with only a junior cert can see an abundance of solutions surely someone with a doctorate in the field could. This attitude of showing fault but no practical solution wont solve anything

Comments

Hannah Daly

January 03, 2021 at 06:04 PM

@Matthew, thanks for your comments. To add a few clarifications, I am absolutely not implying that the science behind GWP* is dodgy, and I’m very familiar with the work and comments of people whose names you list. The fact is that methane from agriculture has been responsible for >35% of Ireland’s global warming impact since 2011, when milk production has been rising (and that’s measured with GWP*). Methane from dairy is most closely related to milk output - emissions per cow have actually grown by 15% since 1990, so the herd size is only part of the matter. Stabilised methane emissions, the target of the Ag Climarise strategy, would mean that CO2 emissions from energy would need to fall by 75% by 2030 to meet the Programme for Government target, which is likely to be reflected in EU law soon. The point of my article is to show that the target of stabilising methane emissions (the Ag Climatise plan) is not consistent with the Government’s climate target, or indeed the Paris Agreement goals (which requires significant drop in CH4).

I’m glad that new technologies you mention are being pursued. There is a very short window to actually achieve reductions in methane emissions and it remains to be seen whether these will actually be taken up and achieve the savings promised. Right now, there are very few incentives for farmers to take these up, which needs to change.

matthew

January 05, 2021 at 02:56 PM

What about methane oxidizing material found in soil. Do you think this will ever be looked at as looking at methane maps shows large concentration of methane coming from western china northern india and russia. all known for their pipelines and coal factories not large herds. then looking at sub saharan countries, new zeland, ireland and northern brazil (now they create a other environmental disaster but looking specifically at methane) these countries all have normal concentrations. would converting methane into co2 and water vapor through masks over their nose which can be applied easily to grazing ruminants help ireland achieve targets? A soil carbon scheme with mixed species sward is as close to silver bullet as you will come by, this can counted against our methane emissions. this will probably be coming into eu carbon credit legislation when a fair accounting method is devised, as is in Australia. accounting our sequestration correctly (which hasnt been done) and improving it is how agriculture read carbon neutrality and should even further as it is the only sector that can. You still dont propose what should be written to achieve targets?

Eugene Hennigan

January 05, 2021 at 11:20 PM

I am sure you are specialists.? But if you ever attended a farmer’s meeting you might be asked some awkward questions, like - How can Ireland keep Moneypoint (coal plant) open or have an electric mix @ 27 % renewable while the U.K. has already managed 33 %.. Ok, farming, a Martian visiting would conclude that the most efficient way to save energy, (or particularly Carbon) would be to allow the country with the best natural advantage produce the product. Ireland / New Zealand - dairy . Brazil - hardwood or tropical stuff. But, within Ireland you must first address “Land Use” . Specifically; if you now have to double down on Methane: breeding - Irish milk yield is abysmally low by international (developed countries) standards. . I note some mention of stock bulls paying the price (but as a result) you end up with 20% of herd empty not a bright idea. Feeding - use Land Use policy to decrease intensity - but here’s the mother of all stupidity if you reduce Nitrogen fertiliser (all the NO molecules) but , as a result import lots of feedstuff, you may simply be “off - shoring “ Carbon to Brazil, which is devastating more forest to grow more soya .! Best case: wait until Israel and New Zealand develop feed additive that actually works to neutralise Methane in ruminants or perhaps the Irish should be on the phone to them .!

January 06, 2021 at 08:59 AM

Hi @Eugene, my specialty is in modelling climate mitigation pathways mainly for the energy sector. Just to add a few clarifications, the ambition for renewable electricity is very high - we are at nearly 40% of electricity from renewables at the moment and the target for 2030 is 70%, a very significant technical challenge which would be daunting to exceed. Every sector (including heat and transport, which make up the bulk of emissions from energy) has ambitious targets - the Climate Action Plan in 2019 lays down a roadmap. However, the government is aiming for even greater ambition for reducing emissions by 2030 than the Climate Action Plan, and the Ag-Climatise plan has not shown how the agriculture sector will contribute to this mitigation effort.

January 09, 2021 at 08:45 AM

You still dont offer any solution are any proposed alternative in your article for which you think would be aligned to programme of government and still fail to say where anyone has said we dont need to lower methane to be in line with gwp* and has called it a get out of jail free card they have called it the opposite

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

New 'Ag Climatise' strategy for agriculture does not go far enough

A stabilised methane emissions pathway is not 'climate neutral'

New 'Ag Climatise' strategy for agriculture does not go far enough

A stabilised methane emissions pathway is not 'climate neutral'

Far from consistent with the Programme for Government climate target

Ireland’s agricultural system is unsustainable

Comments

Matthew Quinn

Hannah Daly

matthew

Eugene Hennigan

Hannah Daly

matthew

Leave a Comment