IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mtu/wpaper/16_17.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cows, Sheep and Science: A Scientific Perspective on Biological Emissions from Agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Michele Hollis

    (Freelance)

  • Cecile de Klein

    (AgResearch)

  • Dave Frame

    (Victoria University of Wellington)

  • Mike Harvey

    (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research)

  • Martin Manning

    (Victoria University of Wellington)

  • Andy Reisinger

    (New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre)

  • Suzi Kerr

    (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research)

  • Anna Robinson

    (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research)

Abstract

Biological emissions from agriculture (methane and nitrous oxide) make up almost half New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions, so their importance relative to carbon dioxide is of particular policy interest. Motu Economic and Public Policy Research brought together a group of New Zealand climate change and agriculture specialists to respond to questions posed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the science. The paper finds that the overriding need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is scientifically uncontentious. For the climate to stabilise, net carbon dioxide emissions must ultimately be cut to zero. There is debate about whether, when and how much action to take on other gases. Some scientists advocate a comprehensive multi-gas approach, arguing that will be more cost-effective. It may already be too late to limit warming to two degrees without mitigating agricultural greenhouse gases. Others advocate a focus on carbon dioxide or on all long-lived gases (including nitrous oxide), with concerted mitigation of methane (a short-lived gas) only once carbon dioxide emissions are falling sustainably towards zero. There is support for ‘easy wins’ on all gases, but it is unclear how easy it is for New Zealand to reduce total nitrous oxide and methane emissions while maintaining production. The report summarises current and emerging options, and discusses methods to calculate methane and nitrous oxide emissions at the paddock, farm, regional and national scale. Finally, the report considers metrics used for comparison between gases, focusing on Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Temperture change Potential (GTP). The authors reached a consensus that the ‘right’ value depends on the policy goal and could change substantially over time; and if the main policy goal is to cost-effectively limit global average warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels, then the value of methane should be less than the GWP100 value of 28 until global carbon dioxide emissions have begun to decline steadily towards zero. There is no agreement beyond this on the best value to use; the arguments reflect judgments about politics, economics, and the intersection of policy and science.

Suggested Citation

  • Michele Hollis & Cecile de Klein & Dave Frame & Mike Harvey & Martin Manning & Andy Reisinger & Suzi Kerr & Anna Robinson, 2016. "Cows, Sheep and Science: A Scientific Perspective on Biological Emissions from Agriculture," Working Papers 16_17, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:mtu:wpaper:16_17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://motu-www.motu.org.nz/wpapers/16_17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zach Dorner & Suzi Kerr, 2015. "Methane and Metrics: From global climate policy to the NZ farm," Working Papers 15_11, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    2. Niel H. A. Bowerman & David J. Frame & Chris Huntingford & Jason A. Lowe & Stephen M. Smith & Myles R. Allen, 2013. "The role of short-lived climate pollutants in meeting temperature goals," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 3(12), pages 1021-1024, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Song Gao, 2015. "Managing short-lived climate forcers in curbing climate change: an atmospheric chemistry synopsis," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(2), pages 130-137, June.
    2. Fernández-Amador, Octavio & Francois, Joseph F. & Oberdabernig, Doris A. & Tomberger, Patrick, 2020. "The methane footprint of nations: Stylized facts from a global panel dataset," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    3. Levente Timar, 2016. "Does money grow on trees? Mitigation under climate policy in a heterogeneous sheep-beef sector," Working Papers 16_09, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    4. Stefan Åström & Daniel J. A. Johansson, 2019. "The choice of climate metric is of limited importance when ranking options for abatement of near-term climate forcers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 154(3), pages 401-416, June.
    5. Seshadri, Ashwin K., 2015. "Economic tradeoffs in mitigation, due to different atmospheric lifetimes of CO2 and black carbon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 47-57.
    6. Suzi Kerr, 2016. "Agricultural Emissions Mitigation in New Zealand: Answers to Questions from the Parliamentary Commisioner for the Environment," Working Papers 16_16, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agriculture; emissions; science;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mtu:wpaper:16_17. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Maxine Watene (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/motuenz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.