We were inundated with questions when Rod Oram appeared on Newsroom Pro Talks, so we promised to try to answer more of them in writing. Oram is joined by Marc Daalder, Professor Janet Stephenson, conservationist Lynley Hargreaves, and farming and building industry leaders Sam McIvor and Andrew Eagles to tackle the tough ones.
How does accelerated house-building clash with reducing emissions? Does over-fertilisation contribute to nitrogen emissions? What mechanisms will ensure COP26 is not just a feel-good talk fest, and countries are accountable for meeting their pledges?
These are the questions our readers have been asking – and we will do our best to answer them.
Are you feeling hopeful from your time at COP26? Why, or why not? – Louise Bayne
Rod Oram: Regardless of what countries achieve or not, here in the formal negotiations, civil society in all its wide manifestations is far more engaged than ever before. That’s driving a lot of change, and pushing governments to do more. It’s very hard to compare one country with another. But my sense is we’re behind the curve on that in Aotearoa.
What have you heard about increased investment in biodiversity protection and nature based solutions as a low cost, low risk approach to climate resilience and carbon mitigation? – Suze Keith
RO: While there has been a flurry of accords announced, plus some sizeable chunks of money committed, it’ll take a while to asses the value of those. Crucially, though, those still look like adjuncts, or worse after-thoughts, rather than central to our climate response. My Nov 9 Newsroom story has comments from Johan Rockstom on that.
Lynley Hargreaves, Forest & Bird: New Zealand has some fabulous opportunities in this area that aren’t currently being adequately investigated, let alone funded. Retiring marginal land and replanting indigenous forests reduces erosion as well as sequestering carbon. Restoring wetlands buffers us from extreme rainfall as well as storing carbon. Allowing room for rivers allows wide riverbeds to absorb flood flows. But tackling climate change in this way requires a whole-of-government approach which, currently, is lacking.
READ MORE:
* James Shaw given key task in COP26 transparency work-stream
* New Zealand goes from innovator to hand-wringer on climate
* NZ’s fossil fuels investments: When COP26 promises are made to be broken
* Appeal looms for Big 7 polluters climate case
What is the conversation around horticultural sector responsibility to adapt? Dairy farming always get mentioned but the tilling and use of chemicals in horticultural sector has a huge contribution to make to emission reduction and carbon draw down. You mention jobs for nature are being discussed. What does this actually mean? – Sarah Smuts-Kennedy
RO: Apologies, Sarah, I haven’t had a chance to pick up anything on horticulture so far. But the key focus on agriculture in all forms is on far greater sustainability – so it’s likely horticulture will be very much part of that. Methane from rice paddies, for example, is a massive problem. Still, it’s dairy and beef that are attracting the biggest focus.
What’s it like outside the conference venue? Is there a big protest presence and what are they doing? – Simon Wilson
RO: Friday (young people) and Saturday (all-comers) were big days, both linked to global action on the same days. Around the COP campus outer security fence there are a few small groups of protesters (for instance, from particularly despotic countries). I’ve come across a couple of examples where the protestors were UK-residents from those countries, because they said if fellow citizens back home managed to make it to COP they’d be jailed on their return (or worse).
Also around the perimeter are some of the usual ones (like organ harvesting in China) and lots of lone prophets, each with their own particular obsession. No sign yet of any XR or Insulate action – and I’d expect them instead to demonstrate elsewhere. But I might be very wrong on that in the closing days.
What are the burning topics in relation to food at this COP? – Mamakan Oustrup Laureijs
RO: In a word, the whole global food system is on the table. Lots of people putting it there, from the World Economic Forum to the EAT Forum, Lancet and a whole slew of others. This is about making food systems healthier for people (in nutrition terms), healthier for the planet (as a driver of ecosystem restoration rather than deterioration).
Has there been any talk of over-fertilisation world-wide, especially in relation to nitrogen input levels to land? As we know, excess ends up in waterways as nitrates, and nitrous oxide to the atmosphere which has nearly 300 times the heat trap capacity of carbon dioxide? – Anna Mayne
RO: Those are very real issues and I’m sure they’re discussed, but I haven’t personally picked up on them.
You mentioned sustainable aviation fuels. From what you’re hearing there, how likely is it that this is going to support the expansion of international aviation as seems to still be expected by our airline, our airports and our tourism industry? Given the urgency of the emissions reductions we need to meet? – Suze Keith
RO: Very long way to go on sustainable aviation fuels – and NZ is running a big strategic risk (lack of supply) if it doesn’t create a big sustainable aviation fuel plant at Marsden Point refinery, using wood waste from northern forests. There’s a consortium that’s trying to get the Government interested (including Air New Zealand and LanzaTech) but the Government is buying Z Energy’s line that it’s much better to ship it in from Neste Oyj’s Singapore SAF plant. Well, demand is going to run far ahead of a supply for a long time, so that’s a bad idea.
The Climate Tracker shows that NZ has recently experienced a sudden and steep increase in importation of cement and steel (for roads and housing). Can you comment on unintended consequences of changes recently announced by the Minister of Housing, supported by National, which removes all resource consent on building houses in terms of emission reduction? – Ruth Bonita
Marc Daalder, senior political reporter: Any big infrastructure programmes will increase emissions in the context of our current, high-carbon way of doing things. That’s why it’s so crucial to ensure that big infrastructure projects (whether housing, commercial building, transport, etc) consider climate impacts. The Government’s Building for Climate Change programme, still in its infancy, will be crucial here.
Andrew Eagles, Green Building Council: The carbon pollution from cement and steel – often called embodied emissions – is huge, and needs significant efforts to tackle, for sure. A few years ago, estimates suggested that if cement was a country, it would be the third largest emitter on the planet, behind only China and the US. Aotearoa does need more homes, but we need to implement key solutions right now, like greater density, for example, and improving the Building Code – which has been rightly internationally criticised by the likes of the International Energy Agency and the OECD.
The legislation the question refers to doesn’t require any action around building quality, making it effectively contrary to the government’s zero carbon targets, and the Climate Change Commission’s urging for low emission, energy efficient, warm, healthy homes.
The Government does have a Building for Climate Change programme, which will change the Building Code and could revolutionise the industry – but it’s being rolled out far too slowly, and should be more ambitious. While we definitely need to be building more homes and enabling higher density living, it only increases the urgency to reduce construction’s carbon footprint.
What mechanisms are in place to ensure COP26 is not just a feel-good talk fest, and that there is accountability to meet countries’ pledges? – Ani Tylee
MD: The Paris Agreement is effectively non-binding, so there’s no formal way to enforce each country’s individually-determined commitments. However, one of the issues being negotiated is the transparency regime. New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister James Shaw is actually heading up the negotiation on this topic.
If countries transparently report their emissions and progress towards their targets, the hope is that pressure from each country’s population and from the international community will keep everyone on track. So these deliberations will go over how to measure emissions from different sources in a standardised manner, how to account for different gases and their impacts on the climate and how to structure emissions reduction goals in ways that can easily be checked and held accountable.
Agriculture industry talks about the GWP100 vs GWP* for accurate measurement. Can you explain this? Also they quote models estimating only a 2-10 percent reduction possible. Why? – Shirley-Ann Mannering
MD: Different greenhouse gases have different impacts on the climate. For the ease of policymaking and comparison, a number of metrics have been devised to compared them. GWP100 attempts to calculate the warming potential of each gas over 100 years, comparing it to CO2. So a tonne of methane will warm the atmosphere 28 times more than a tonne of CO2 will, over 100 years.
In reality, methane mostly leaves the atmosphere or converts to CO2 within a decade or so. While it’s in the atmosphere, it is extremely potent, but then it fades away. If you emit one tonne of methane every decade or so, the net impact on warming won’t increase. But if you emit one tonne of CO2 every decade, eventually that CO2 will build up in the atmosphere to have a greater impact.
This is why methane emissions could theoretically remain flat or decline slowly and we could still limit warming to 1.5 degrees. However, reducing methane emissions rapidly now could slow the pace of warming and give the world time to ramp up CO2 mitigation measures. So there’s still a case for reducing methane emissions, even if it isn’t strictly necessary.
GWP* attempts to grapple with this by treating stock gases (which accumulate) differently from flow gases. However, GWP* is not widely used internationally and the international accounting rules generally indicate we should be using GWP100.
Jenny Cameron, DairyNZ: It’s important to use metrics that accurately show methane’s impact on warming, as addressing warming is the ultimate aim for addressing climate change. When methane emissions are stable, GWP100 overstates the warming impact of methane emissions by three to four times.
Our emissions from dairy have been stable for the last five years in New Zealand, and we are working to maintain that trajectory and keep reducing. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report endorses using metrics such as GWP* for short-lived gases, like biogenic methane.
Sam McIvor, Beef + Lamb NZ: The IPCC stated that if methane is reducing by 0.3 percent per year, this is the same impact on the climate as net zero for carbon dioxide. To achieve the same outcome as net zero for carbon by 2050, then methane only needs to decrease by 10 percent by 2050. If methane is asked to reduce by more than 0.3 percent a year, then methane is being asked to ‘cool’ the planet.
The Government has set a target of a 24-47 percent reduction in methane by 2050. The latest IPCC report makes it clear that this means methane is being asked to cool, while CO2 is able to continue adding additional warming out to 2050. The narrative that agriculture has been let off the hook by the 24-47 percent reduction targets is actually far from the truth.
What role does pest control have in increasing native forest sequestration? – Shirley-Ann Mannering
MD: This is an area that needs more research, but there are indications that pest control ensures new native growth can occur (and isn’t eaten up by, for example, deer or possums).
Lynley Hargreaves, Forest & Bird: Forest & Bird’s report earlier this year suggests that controlling feral browsing pests to the lowest possible level could increase the carbon sequestration of our forests by 8.4 million tonnes of C02 per year. Currently, only a small proportion of our conservation land receives pest control each year.
Deer, goats, and pigs are growing in numbers and spreading out, with nearly a third more conservation land colonised in just eight years. The Climate Commission agrees that New Zealand should be doing more to protect our forests from pests.
Sam McIvor, Beef + Lamb NZ: Active pest control is shown to have a significant positive impact on native forest sequestration rates. There are approximately 1.4 million hectares of native forest on sheep and beef farms and many farmers are currently paying for pest control of this important biodiversity, but get no credit or recognition for this. Additionally, farmers are unable to get any credit under the ETS for that native forest.
Is there any discussion about a degrowth approach to climate change? – Ani Tylee
RO: There are organisations and people pitching that (I can see from the programme) – but I’m picking just no sensible policy makers and (no surprise) business leaders have any desire or belief in degrowth.
Is the Green economy business model and philosophy being represented in undergraduate courses in business, marketing, economics and law? – Robert Galvin
Professor Janet Stephenson, University of Otago: Many undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in NZ universities touch on aspects of sustainability issues, such as papers in environmental economics, environmental law, sustainability in marketing, and sustainable business programmes. Courses like this are starting to become more common in all subject areas. All students, whatever their intended career, should graduate with the knowledge and skills needed to take their part in creating a sustainable future.
How much is excess consumption being recognised as central or is the growth economic mentality prevailing? – Alan Broom
Professor Janet Stephenson, University of Otago: Scientists globally are increasingly vocal about the urgency of the climate crisis (and a raft of other sustainability issues) and identify the fundamental cause as the growth paradigm and excess consumption. We are locked into systems of production and consumption that create extreme wealth for a few, and are causing the destabilisation and destruction of the natural systems on which life and wellbeing depend.
These impacts will be experienced most harshly by those who are less advantaged, and by younger generations and those not yet born. There is an active debate about degrowth as an alternate model.
