In Stuff’s new column looking at climate change, Olivia Wannan looks at the impact of Fonterra’s recently announced goal to green its milk.

We also look at the build-up to the UN summit at the end of the month, a curious court case and some hope-provoking research.

After an election that seemingly hit the brakes on farmers taking climate action, Fonterra just gave it a rev up.

The three parties that make up the new government don’t think farmers should be incentivised to cut emissions any time soon.

But while coalition talks stretched out last week, an announcement from Fonterra made it clear its milk suppliers will be expected to make a green shift before 2030.

By using methane-cutting tech, planting trees and using gold-standard farming techniques, Fonterra thinks it can cut the average emissions of its milk by 22%.

Add in that the country has stopped chopping down forest to make dairy farms, and the co-op estimates a litre of its milk will be 30% greener by the end of the decade.

Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford​ said his members had a range of responses to the announcement. He was glad to see Fonterra listened to feedback.

“It’s good to have a target in place.”

Previous attempts to incentivise farmers to cut emissions weren’t well received.

In 2019, the Labour Government cut a deal with the agriculture sector, allowing them to design a scheme to help meet the country’s greenhouse-cutting targets.

Under the Zero Carbon Act, the country must cut methane at least 10% by 2030 and 24-47% by 2050. Nitrous oxide needs to reach net-zero by mid-century.

The partners – representatives such as Federated Farmers and Dairy NZ, alongside Māori agri leaders – presented a system where farmers paid fees on emissions but received discounts for green behaviours.

The Government largely backed the plan, but not completely. Farming groups then turned against the policy.

Asked if Fonterra’s announcement made it politically easier to charge farmers a fee, Langford said: “If we can achieve the goals without emissions pricing, that’s the best result for everyone.”

Federated Farmers and other farming bodies have also lobbied for less stringent methane goals.

Although the election may have eased the political appetite to curb farming emissions, pressure from major customers remains.

Large companies that buy New Zealand’s exported milk powder, such as Nestlé and Danone, have set carbon-cutting targets and want their suppliers to move in the same direction.

For that reason, Fonterra’s Charlotte Rutherford said of the 30% objective: “We need to deliver this regardless of anything.”

Fonterra can seem synonymous with dairy farming, yet its influence extends to just over one-third of the country’s entire agricultural sector.

Smaller dairy companies account for roughly 20% of all milk produced.

Of these, Synlait had previously unveiled a farm target: again a 30% cut in emissions, but to be achieved two years earlier than Fonterra, by 2028.

According to a recent dairy report, Synlait oversees roughly 3.5% of national milk supplies.

Other dairy processors, including Open Country Dairy (8%) and Oceania Dairy (4.5%), haven’t announced a similar goal. (Langford will keep an eye on whether they follow in Fonterra’s footsteps.)

Then there’s sheep-and-beef farms, contributing nearly 43% of agricultural emissions.

Meat Industry Association chief executive Sirma Karapeeva​ said global customers, particularly in Europe and North America, are also keen for lower-impact meat – though this can make Kiwi products attractive.

“Some processors will be outlining emissions targets for their farmers over the coming years, but… our farmers have fewer viable mitigation tools.”

Can 10% be done?

Let’s say Fonterra and Synlait farmers alone take action before 2030.

(They wouldn’t be starting at zero, though.)

They’d get a little help from the waste sector, which also produces methane when organic rubbish rots. Experts have estimated landfills will, by 2030, capture and burn a lot more methane.

There’s no Government incentive to directly reduce farming emissions yet, though a couple of others are indirectly pushing down.

Freshwater policies – for example, a cap on the amount of nitrogen fertiliser – are projected to reduce the number of livestock the land can support, and how much methane gets burped.

Farms on the market are being snapped up by foresters – who can make great profits by selling Emissions Trading Scheme carbon credits to polluters – meaning methane-belching livestock is being replaced by carbon-sucking trees.

To that, the Labour Government planned to charge farmers fees on their emissions from 2025.

All up, the Ministry for the Environment estimated these “existing measures” could cut national methane emissions 8.4% by the end of the decade.

In that world, if Fonterra and Synlait farmers found another 1.6% in total, New Zealand would achieve its first-ever methane goal. With the processors aiming to use novel technologies to achieve the targets, that could have been feasible.

But the election made the ministry projections obsolete.

Emissions pricing by 2025 appears off the table. The National Party promised to delay the introduction, though said charges would begin in 2030 “at the latest”. But ACT and NZ First argue Kiwi farmers shouldn’t face any price until their overseas competitors do.

The freshwater policies also face an uncertain future, though may survive in some form. On the other hand, the National Party pledged not to make major tweaks to the Emissions Trading Scheme.

The ministry will issue fresh projections next month, but these will also exclude the incoming Government’s likely policies (and any developments later than July).

Farming groups estimated the freshwater reforms, forestry carbon credits and other forces – excluding an emissions price – might cut agricultural methane 4.4% by 2030.

Even with that baseline, landfill gas capture and a large proportion of dairy farmers embracing methane-cutting tech added together, the 10% goal could still be out of reach.

And pertinently, Fonterra and Synlait’s goals apply, essentially, to each litre of milk (what are known as intensity targets) – not their total footprints. So if they produced significantly more dairy, the companies could meet their 30% greener goal plus increase the level of methane they emit.

That situation would not be much help to the Zero Carbon Act – because this is about the country’s total greenhouse footprint. The cap on methane at 90% of 2017 levels applies no matter how many litres of milk get made.

Climate advisors in court

The Climate Change Commission once again defended its work in court. Last year, climate-concerned lawyers argued the commission breached the law because the carbon-cutting action it recommended wasn’t aligned with the average efforts needed to limit global heating to 1.5C.

The expert body argued it wasn’t required to align – and won. In her ruling for the commission, Judge Mallon did warn the agency’s “presentation of its analysis had the potential to mislead” the public.

Last week, the group of lawyers attempted to convince the panel of three appeal judges that it deserved to win the original case.

The commission maintains that “claims we are not sufficiently ambitious are wrong and misrepresent our advice”.

World preps for global powwow

The UN climate summit – where the 198 countries that promised to cut emissions under the Paris Agreement gather to discuss their (lack of) progress – is swiftly approaching.

In the run-up, UN experts released an update on the shortfall: exactly how much extra work governments would have to do to limit global warming to 1.5C or 2C. To meet 2C, governments would need to meet current goals and find ways to save another 14 billion tonnes of emissions in just seven years.

For 1.5C, the task increases to 22 billion tonnes – that’s the equivalent of nearly four years of pollution from the US.

The US and China are the biggest players at the summit. Diplomats met in advance of the Dubai event. In a joint agreement, the superpowers will pursue a tripling of renewable energy by 2030 – a key milestone energy boffins say is necessary for 1.5C.

While there wasn’t a pledge to phase out fossil fuels, the statement noted an intention to “to accelerate the substitution for coal, oil and gas generation”. The two highest emitters also agreed to build five large carbon-capture plants and take action to curb methane.

Mother Nature offers hope

By sucking up carbon dioxide, forests and other plant life help to offset some of humanity’s pollution. But scientists aren’t really sure what could happen from here. Could vegetation store even more carbon as greenhouse gas levels in the air rise or could the effects of climate change – such as wildfires – mean less is absorbed?

One group of scientists has a positive message: in a new paper, they conclude that trees – such as in the Amazon rainforest and boreal forests of Canada and Russia – have started absorbing more carbon in recent decades. But we’re undercounting this effect, they warn.

The world must still wean itself off fossil fuels as soon as possible, the group stressed. But plantlife could help mop up a little more of the excess while that occurs.

Green shooters

Each time, I’ll close the column by featuring an organisation leaving our world a better place.

To start, I’ll feature Dan and Kereana Butterfield of Kiwi Skips. During their home renovation project, the Southland couple learned all construction waste in the area heads to landfill, although this material can often be recycled.

So, with some help from the Xero Beautiful Business Fund, the Butterfields are creating Southland’s first resource recovery facility to give a second life to building materials.

The duo hope to open the centre by 2025. Metal and glass will be separated and transformed into fresh materials, while wood will be separated and shredded and used to make animal bedding or even biofuel.