Menu

agriculture

Agrivoltaic farming — growing crops in the protected shadows of solar panels — can help meet Canada’s food and energy needs. (Alexis Pascaris, AgriSolar), Author provided

, , ,

Image: Agrivoltaic farming — growing crops in the protected shadows of solar panels — can help meet Canada’s food and energy needs. (Alexis Pascaris, AgriSolar), Author provided.

NOTE: the following article about Canada is featured here as it proves background information that on systems that could be used in Aotearo. See also:

Author: Joshua M. Pearce, John M. Thompson Chair in Information Technology and Innovation and Professor, Western University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. __________________________________________________________________________________

How shading crops with solar panels can improve farming, lower food costs and reduce emissions

If you have lived in a home with a trampoline in the backyard, you may have observed the unreasonably tall grass growing under it. This is because many crops, including these grasses, actually grow better when protected from the sun, to an extent.

And while the grass under your trampoline grows by itself, researchers in the field of solar photovoltaic technology — made up of solar cells that convert sunlight directly into electricity — have been working on shading large crop lands with solar panels — on purpose.

This practice of growing crops in the protected shadows of solar panels is called agrivoltaic farming. And it is happening right here in Canada.

Such agrivoltaic farming can help meet Canada’s food and energy needs and reduce its fossil fuel reliance and greenhouse gas emissions in the future.


When shade equals protection

Our recently published paper found that Canada has an enormous agrivoltaic potential as it is a global agricultural powerhouse — with Canadian-produced food export goals set at $75 billion by 2025.

A diagram showing the benefits of agrivoltaic farming
Agrivoltaics provide numerous services including renewable electricity generation, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, increased crop yield, plant protection and so on. (U. Jamil, A. Bonnington, J.M. Pearce), Author provided



Many crops grown here, including corn, lettuce, potatoes, tomatoes, wheat and pasture grass have already been proven to increase with agrivoltaics.

Studies from all over the world have shown crop yields increase when the crops are partially shaded with solar panels. These yield increases are possible because of the microclimate created underneath the solar panels that conserves water and protects plants from excess sun, wind, hail and soil erosion. This makes more food per acre, and could help bring down food prices.

And as the costs of solar energy plummet, nations across the world are installing agrivoltaic systems and offsetting the burning of fossil fuels by profitably producing more renewable energy.


Solar farming is now globally trending

The agricultural industries in Europe, Asia and the United States have been aggressively expanding their agrivoltaic farms with wide public support.

In Europe, solar panels are put over different types of crops, including fruit trees. Meanwhile, in China, agrivoltaics is used to reverse desertification which is literally using solar panels to green former deserts.

In the U.S., social science studies have shown the photovoltaic industry, farmers and the general public are enthusiastically looking forward to the implementation of such projects.

Surveys of the rural U.S., from Michigan to Texas, show 81.8 per cent of respondents would be more likely to support solar development in their community if it integrated farming. Rural residents generally like the idea of maintaining agricultural jobs, increased revenue from the sale of energy and the fact that it could provide a continued source of income. They believe it can act as a buffer against inflation and bad growing seasons.


It’s time to expand Canadian solar farms

In Canada, agrivoltaics has primarily been applied to conventional solar farms and used by shepherds and their sheep. While the shepherds get paid to cut the grass on solar farms, the sheep use the grass and pastures under the solar panels for shade and grazing. Sheep-based agrivoltaics is found throughout Canada.

A map showing parts of Canada with high solar flux.
A map showing the agrivoltaic potential in Canada. The colours indicate the solar flux (amount of solar energy per unit area) in the areas that are currently farmed. (U. Jamil, A. Bonnington, JM Pearce), Author provided


The life cycle analysis of agrivoltaics, which assesses its impact from its conception to use, found that these solar-covered farms emit 69.3 per cent less greenhouse gases and demand 82.9 per cent less fossil energy compared to separate food farms and solar farms-based production.

This is great, but to remain competitive with other major agriculture producers, Canada needs to start large-scale agriculture in the shadow of solar panels. This will enable the production of numerous crops that have been known to increase yield when covered.

This would include vegetables like broccoli, celery, peppers, lettuce, spinach and tomatoes as well as field crops like potatoes, corn and wheat.

Seriously embracing agrivoltaics in Canada would completely drop fossil fuel use. Less than one per cent of Canadian land would be sufficient to support over 25 per cent of the country’s electrical energy needs using this system.

This in turn can help the nation honour its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the non-emitting share of electricity generation to 90 per cent by 2030.


Agrivoltaic solar farms outstrip electricity demand

The potential of agrivoltaic-based solar energy production in Canada far outstrips current electric demand. This solar energy can be used to electrify and decarbonize transportation and heating, expand economic opportunities by powering the burgeoning computing sector and export green electricity to the U.S. to help eliminate their dependence on fossil fuels as well.

An EV getting charged
This solar energy from agrivoltaic farms can be used to electrify and decarbonize transportation and heating. (Shutterstock)


Electricity produced by agrivoltaic farms can also be stored by charging electric vehicles as well as hydrogen production, thus benefiting transportation. Solar can already profitably meet Ontario households’ heating requirements by replacing natural gas furnaces with solar-powered heat pumps.

Lastly, any extra agrivoltaic electricity could be used to power computing facilities and cryptocurrency miners at profit and possibly be exported to the U.S. to help them clean up their much dirtier grid. This would help increase our trade surplus as well as the health and environmental benefits of decreasing the American pollution that wafts across the border.


When benefits outweigh the costs

Despite the numerous benefits of agrivoltaic farming, there are some barriers to its distribution in Canada. There are well-intentioned regulations that are holding these farms back.

In Ontario for example, you cannot install solar in the Greenbelt because of the law to protect farms. Similar issues arise in Alberta on Crown Land.

In the old days that made sense. We did not want to repeat the U.S. fiasco of raising food prices for energy crops. Now we know that with agrivoltaics we can get more food while using solar technology to make electricity.

The other main issue holding agrivoltaics back is capital costs. Agrivoltaics has a much higher capital cost per acre than farmers are accustomed to, but the revenue is much higher. So even though it is profitable it is difficult for farmers to implement large agrivoltaic systems on their own.

This means we need new methods of financing, new partnerships and new business models to help Canada take advantage of the strategic benefits of agrivoltaics for our farmers and the country.The Conversation

Mycorrhizal fungi growing with a plant root by Yoshihiro Kobae

, , , , , ,

Image: Mycorrhizal fungi growing with a plant root Dr Yoshihiro Kobae.


This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Authors: Adam Frew, Lecturer and ARC DECRA Fellow, Western Sydney University; Carlos Aguilar-Trigueros, Postdoctoral fellow, Western Sydney University; Jeff Powell, Professor and ARC Future Fellow, Western Sydney University, and Natascha Weinberger, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Western Sydney University

Beneath our feet, remarkable networks of fungal filaments stretch out in all directions. These mycorrhizal fungi live in partnership with plants, offering nutrients, water and protection from pests in exchange for carbon-rich sugars.

Now, new research shows this single group of fungi may quietly be playing a bigger role in storing carbon than we thought.

How much bigger? These microscopic filaments take up the equivalent of more than a third (36%) of the world’s annual carbon emissions from fossil fuels – every year.

As we search for ways to slow or stop the climate crisis, we often look to familiar solutions: cutting fossil fuel use, switching to renewables and restoring forests. This research shows we need to look down too, into our soils.

This shows how mycorrhizal fungi (fine white filaments) connect to plant root systems (yellow) and out into the soil. Scivit/Wikipedia


This fungi-plant partnership is 400 million years old

Mycorrhizal fungi are hard to spot, but their effects are startling. They thread networks of microscopic filaments through the soil and into the roots of almost every plant on earth.

But this is no hostile takeover. They’ve been partnering with plants for more than 400 million years. The length of these complex relationships has given them a vital role in our ecosystems.

Sometimes fungi take more than they give. But often, these are relationships of mutual benefit. Through their network, the fungi transport essential nutrients and water to plants, and can even boost their resistance to pests and disease.

In return, plants pump sugars and fat made by photosynthesis in their leaves down through their roots to the fungi. These compounds are rich in carbon, taken from the atmosphere.

How do these fungi fit into the carbon cycle?

On land, the natural carbon cycle involves a delicate balance. Plants take CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, while other organisms emit it back into the atmosphere.



Carbon is captured by plants through photosynthesis, some of this carbon then goes into the networks of mycorrhizal fungi. These fungi also will release some of this carbon as CO₂ and as compounds into the soil. Adam Frew/Author provided using BioRender

Now we know the carbon transfer from plants to mycorrhizal fungi isn’t a side note – it’s a substantial part of this equation.

By analysing almost 200 datasets, the researchers estimate the world’s plants are transferring a staggering 3.58 billion tonnes of carbon per year to this underground network. That’s the same as 13.12 billion tonnes of CO₂ – more than a third of the world’s 36.3 billion tonnes of CO₂ emitted yearly by burning fossil fuels.

To be clear, fungal carbon doesn’t present a climate solution by itself. It’s a missing piece in the carbon cycle puzzle.

We still have big gaps in data from particular ecosystems and geographic regions. For instance, this study didn’t have any data of this kind from Australia or Southeast Asia – because it doesn’t yet exist.

Microscope image of plant roots that have been stained to show the mycorrhizal fungal inside the root of a plant.
This image shows mycorrhizal fungi (blue) growing inside plant roots, where they obtain carbon and provide plants with access to resources such as nutrients. Adam Frew


What does this mean for the climate?

We already know mycorrhizal fungi help soils retain carbon by releasing specific chemical compounds. These compounds contain carbon and nitrogen. Once in the soil, these compounds can be used by other soil microorganisms, such as bacteria. When this happens it helps to form a highly stable soil carbon store that is more resistant to breakdown, and this store can accumulate more than four times faster in the presence of mycorrhizal fungi.

When these fungi die, they leave behind “necromass” – a complex scaffold of dead organic material which can be stored in soil, and often inside clumps of soil particles. The carbon inside these clumps can stay in the soil for close to a decade without being released back to the atmosphere.

In fact, other studies suggest this fungal necromass might contribute more to the carbon content of soil than living fungi.

But these fungi also naturally cause carbon to escape back to the atmosphere by decomposing organic matter or changing water and nutrient availability, which influences how other organisms decompose. Mycorrhizal fungi also release some carbon back into the atmosphere, though the rate this happens depends on many factors.

What does this mean for climate change? While atmospheric CO₂ concentrations keep rising, it doesn’t necessarily mean fungi are storing more of it. Recent research in an Australian woodland found higher atmospheric CO₂ did see more carbon sent below the ground. But this carbon wasn’t stored for long periods.

To date, mycorrhizal fungi have been poorly represented in global carbon cycle models. They aren’t often considered when assessing which species are at risk of extinction or promoting successful restorations.

We need more research to better understand the role of mycorrhizal fungi in the carbon cycle across different ecosystems, including in agriculture. Dylan de Jonge/Unsplash


Protecting our fungal networks

When we cut down forests or clear land, we not only disrupt life above the ground, but underground as well. We need to safeguard these hidden fungal networks which give our plants resilience – and play a key role in the carbon cycle.

As we better understand how these fungi work and what we’re doing to them, we can also develop farming methods which better preserve them and their carbon.

As global and Australian initiatives continue to map the diversity of mycorrhizal fungi, scientists are working to understand what shapes these communities and their roles.

We’ve long overlooked these vital lifeforms. But as we learn more about how fungi and plants cooperate and store carbon, it’s well past time for that to change. The Conversation

Nitrogen fertliser, being added to bare earth, Canterbury, adding to climate change as it converts to nitrous oxide

, , , , , , , , , ,


By: Anita Wreford, Lincoln University, New Zealand; John Tobias Saunders, Lincoln University, New Zealand, and Meike Guenther, Lincoln University, New Zealand

 Republished in full from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. See the original article: April 12, 2023


The recent report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscores the urgency of emissions reductions. For Aotearoa New Zealand, where 50% of emissions come from agriculture in the form of methane and nitrous oxide, this means the primary sector must be part of the response.

New Zealand is indeed the first country to investigate introducing a price on agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

The most recent pricing proposals would require farmers to pay a levy on their agricultural emissions. To begin with, only 5% of emissions would be priced, with proposals to reduce the 95% free allocation gradually over time.

Much of the existing modelling shows emissions could be cut by up to 10% by reducing the intensity of production, often through lowering animal numbers and fertiliser use. This doesn’t necessarily mean lower profitability. With good pasture management, farmers may be able to reduce stocking rates and increase profits.

But Aotearoa is already one of the most efficient producers of meat and dairy products globally. If we reduce emissions here, will that not simply lead to other, less efficient countries picking up the lost production, while our farmers pay the price?

This idea is known as “carbon leakage” and is often used as an argument against any domestic policy that could result in reduced agricultural production. The issue is important as New Zealand depends heavily on agricultural exports. In 2022, of all merchandise trade, 65% were agricultural commodities.

Understanding whether carbon leakage will occur or not is a complex task. Here, we look at what evidence we have and insights from agricultural trade modelling.

New Zealand modelling

It’s difficult to know exactly what might happen in agriculture, as emissions pricing on agricultural products has not yet been used elsewhere. There is no historical evidence to draw on.

International modelling studies present a mixed picture of the likelihood of leakage: an OECD study estimated 34% of agricultural emissions would be leaked, mostly to developing countries.

Recent modelling for New Zealand examines a series of scenarios of domestic pricing on its own as well as international pricing. The results show that for the current proposal where only 5% of emissions are priced to begin with, with a 1% increase each year, New Zealand’s production of meat and dairy products could decline by 2050.

The effect on dairy producers would be a loss of returns of under 1%, while meat producers would face a 6% decline. Some of the production would be taken up by other countries, but the overall volume would be lower than in the baseline situation, where no emissions pricing existed.

This graph shows the displacement of global dairy production in 2050, resulting from a levy on 5% of emissions from 2025, and increasing by 1% annually.
This graph shows the displacement of global dairy production in 2050, resulting from a levy on 5% of emissions from 2025, and increasing by 1% annually. Author provided, CC BY-ND

This shows leakage may occur, with reductions in production of New Zealand dairy products. But global meat and dairy production by 2050 would be considerably lower than without the policy, which would have a positive overall impact on the climate.

As the proportion of emissions that are priced increases, we expect the quantity of meat and dairy produced in New Zealand to decrease. This in turn could increase the volume of leakage. –

More sustainable future diets

It is important to remember that although there is a reduction in meat and dairy production, there is likely to be an increase in the production of other types of food which doesn’t contribute so much to climate change.

A recent study shows how food consumption alone could contribute an additional degree of warming above preindustrial temperatures by 2100. This demonstrates the importance of food choices in addressing climate change.

Many of New Zealand’s trading partners are exploring and beginning to implement their own agricultural emissions-reduction goals and targets. Internationally, there is an increasing focus on the role international trade rules can play in addressing climate change, including border carbon adjustment mechanisms and environmental standards for imports.

In a similar scenario as described above, but where New Zealand’s main competitors also take action, New Zealand may actually see a small increase in production by 2050, despite the domestic pricing policy.

The extent of leakage therefore really depends on how other countries tackle their own emissions. Economy-wide net zero emissions targets are in place for Australia, Chile, European Union countries, the US and the UK by 2050, and for China by 2060.

The opportunity for leakage would be significantly reduced through multilateral agreements or through regional or bilateral commitments within trade agreements.

New Zealand could decide to be a leader and demonstrate to the rest of the world a commitment to reducing emissions from our highest emitting sector. This may result in some leakage initially, but this would likely decline as other countries take similar action.

Or we can wait until other countries begin to take more serious action on agricultural emissions. But in the meantime, emissions reductions will increasingly be driven through finance and private-sector initiatives, for example through access to processing companies, which are progressively requiring emissions reductions throughout their value chains and through lending and finance, where banks are beginning to offer reduced interest rates for sustainable practices.The Conversation

The differences in resources used to grow meat versus cellular agriculture

, , , , , , , ,

Reposted from Coalition Footprint:

In a historic first for the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has certified that Upside Foods chicken made from cell cultures is safe to eat.

Nearly two years after Singapore approved the Good Meat company’s cellular chicken for sale at select restaurants in the Asian foodtech hub, and Supermeat opened a restaurant in Israel serving cultured chicken on its menu, U.S. buyers will soon get the chance to taste a potential future of food for themselves.

California-based Upside Foods is the first company to receive a pre-market safety clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While the pending facility for Upside Foods will need to meet U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and FDA requirements, the agency said it has “no further questions at this time” about the meat’s safety.

Issued on November 16, the approval could open the door for other cultured meat in the U.S. including the FootPrint Coalition-backed salmon biotechnology company WildType.

Cultured meat is made from cell samples taken from animals. It’s different from plant-based meat, like that of popular brands Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat and FPC brands MyForest Foods and Motif FoodWorks.

Using muscle samples, stem cells from animals, and fats animal tissue is “cultivated” from tiny samples into large portions of meat. In Upside’s case, the startup uses chicken’s primary cells of a fertilized egg to create “The fried chicken chicken’s dream about.

Different from plant-based, companies like Upside and Wild Type offer diners the option of real meat without the requirement of animal death or the meat industry’s environmental consequences and contributions to the climate crisis. The meats also have lower risk of contamination from bacteria because they’re not slaughtered. It is still animal meat, which means the target audience isn’t the vegetarians and vegans of the world, but their carnivorous counterparts.

The United Nations estimates the meat industry accounts for nearly a fifth of our total greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the most polluting industries in the world, especially in the US, one of the planet’s most meat-consuming countries.

According to a study published at the University of Oxford, cultivated meat could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 96% compared to conventionally produced meat.

Additionally, switching to cultured meat can cut our water consumption between 82 and 96%, depending on the animal. It can also reduce the quantity of land dedicated to the meat industry, which is the main driver of tropical deforestation and land degradation.

Keep reading:

methane producing machines

, , , , , , , , ,

This is a submission on behalf of the Environmental Defence Society (EDS) on the Government’s Discussion Document Te Tātai utu o nā tukunga: Pricing Agricultural Emissions.

The submission responds to the schedule of questions included in the discussion document, reproduced in full with permission from Gary Taylor Chief Executive, Environmental Defence Society:

Question 1: Do you think modifications are required to the proposed farm-level levy system to ensure it delivers sufficient reductions in gross emissions from the agriculture sector? Please explain.

If farmers are to balk at the proposal as indicated by recent statements from Federated Farmers and others, and widespread non-compliance follows, then implementing a processor-level system would be a practical way forward. It is alarming how some farmers are signalling an unwillingness to comply with the rule of law. The farm-level option (which has benefits in sending price signals to individual famers) may therefore not be workable at least in the short term. Processors could develop their own incentive arrangements for their suppliers and some have experience in doing that already.

Question 2: Are tradeable methane quotas an option the Government should consider further in the future? Why?

There may be benefit in seeing the levy system as a transition to a cap and trade system. This means the levy system should be designed so that such a transition could occur. The cap should be set (and reviewed from time to time) by the Climate Change Commission (Commission) at the level that achieves the reduction targets. If Ministers were to make the decisions, then there should be transparent criteria in place, and they should be advised on the appropriate level by the Commission.

Question 3: Which option do you prefer for pricing agricultural emissions by 2025 and why?

A farm-level levy system, with fertiliser in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), would give individual farmers incentives to reduce emissions and reward those doing so. However, that may be an impractical option given that some farmers seem determined to not cooperate with any system. For that reason, we favour a pragmatic approach where pricing is set at the processor level, which would help avoid non-compliance. Processors could then develop incentives that would apply to their supplier cohort. There are also questions around whether a farm-level system could be developed in time.

Prices should be set either directly by the Commission, or if by Ministers, on the advice of the Commission and subject to transparent criteria.

Fertiliser should come under the ETS which would mean all fertiliser users are captured and the price signal applies across the sector.

Question 4: Do you support the proposed approach for reporting of emissions? Why, and what improvements should be considered?

Broadly yes but further work is needed to simplify the reporting system and ensure the obligations are proportional to the need.

Question 5: Do you support the proposed approach to setting levy prices? Why, and what improvements should be considered?

Price setting cannot be the responsibility of the sector itself. It must be independent and linked to the methane reductions required. As mentioned above, EDS favours this responsibility resting with the independent Commission (analogous to the Reserve Bank on interest rates). But if set by Ministers, then there should be clear decision-making criteria, and they should receive advice from the Commission. Further, the proposed ETS discount rates for long-lived gases are too generous given the persistent delays in bringing the sector into a pricing mechanism.

Question 6: Do you support the proposed approach to revenue recycling? Why, and what improvements should be considered?

Recycling revenue into finding new abatement approaches makes sense in theory, but the problem is that over $100m of public money has gone down that route since the early 2000s, with very little to show for it. If revenue is to go into research it needs to be to entities that offer prospect of deployment of real technologies into the field. Research criteria therefore need to focus on deployment.

The answer to emissions mitigation is to reduce land use intensity. Some compensation for that might also be needed given the farming sector has simply been following the economic signals to date. There is virtue in the model of low-impact pastoral farming with indigenous forestry, and recycling could support that kind of transition.

The big gap in the policy settings, at present, is the lack of strong and effective incentives for indigenous afforestation. Revenue recycling should be used to create such incentives, given the longer term sequestration and biodiversity benefits that would follow.

Further consideration should be given to whether revenue from the levy should also be used to support farmers needing assistance with adaptation crises on the farm (such as droughts and floods).

Question 7: Do you support the proposed approach for incentive payments to encourage additional emissions reductions? Why, and what improvements should be considered?

The price signals should be robust enough to incentivise the emission reductions required. Otherwise the sector is getting disproportional assistance / subsidies from the Government over other sectors.

Question 8: Do you support the proposed approach for recognising carbon sequestration from riparian plantings and management of indigenous vegetation, both in the short and long term? Why, and what improvements should be considered?

Two approaches are required here.

The first is to create a biodiversity incentive payment to support native forest and related plantings or regeneration. The proposed interim approach will achieve that, in part, but biodiversity enhancements need to be considered in the broader context and be designed to encourage and support native forest restoration at landscape scale.

The second is to ban permanent exotic carbon forests in the ETS.

The first approach can help support related government policies such as the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity. The second would prevent widespread monocultures with their attendant adverse landscape impacts and fire and disease risks.

Question 9: Do you support the introduction of an interim processor-level levy in 2025 if the farm-level system is not ready? If not, what alternative would you propose to ensure agricultural emissions pricing starts in 2025?

Yes. In fact we think that should be the way forward in any event.

Question 10: Do you think the proposed system for pricing agricultural emissions is equitable, both within the agriculture sector, and across other sectors, and across New Zealand generally? Why and what changes to the system would be required to make it equitable?

It is time that the sector played its part in mitigating the impacts of climate change. It has got away with too much, for too long, and continuing taxpayer subsidy and support and the proposed incremental nature of the pricing obligations continue that approach. It is inequitable for the primary sector to be relying on others which are paying their way through the ETS.

With respect to Māori landowners, there may be a case for some interim support given they appear to be disproportionately impacted by the proposal. The best way to do that is to create a special category in the ETS for native forest regeneration and establishment that gives a long-term revenue stream as good as or better than permanent exotic carbon forests.

Question 11: In principle, do you think the agricultural sector should pay for any shortfall in its emissions reductions? If so, do you think using levy revenue would be an appropriate mechanism for this?

Yes and that calculation should be made by the Commission.

Question 12: What impacts or implications do you foresee as a result of each of the Government’s proposals in the short and long term?

Unless the Government’s proposals are enacted, we see widespread planting of permanent exotic carbon forests and rural non-compliance with the law. There will be some emission reductions, but the sector will continue to hold out on meeting its fair share, as it has since 2002. The climate will continue to warm with consequent droughts, floods and sea-level rise and farmers will continue to hold out their hands for Government support when impacted.

Question 13: What steps should the Crown be taking to protect relevant iwi and Māori interests, in line with Te Tiriti o Waitangi? How should the Crown support Māori land owners, farmers and growers in a pricing system?

By changing the pricing incentives to favour permanent native forests over permanent exotic ones. Māori landowners have indicated a preference for natives but the pricing incentives are going the wrong way.

Question 14: Do you support the proposed approach for verification, compliance and enforcement? Why, and what improvements should be considered?

Yes.

Question 15: Do you have any other priority issues that you would like to share on the Government’s proposals for addressing agricultural emissions?

The glaring gap is the absence of the right pricing incentives to encourage native forest restoration that would lead to a virtuous mixed land use in which native forests offset some on-farm emissions over time.

Ends.

Radiata pine forest slashed

, , , , , , , , , ,

This is such a compelling press release that it’s worth reprinting in full, here:

“The Environmental Defence Society and Pure Advantage have joined forces to draft a submission on the review of the National Environmental Standards for Plantation Forestry (the Standards). The submission seeks significant tightening of the rules governing exotic forest management in Aotearoa New Zealand.

“Our submission starts with the premise that forest practices here are out of step with the rest of the developed world. There are inadequate controls over sediment, slash and soil stability and the sector needs to lift its environmental performance across all of its activities,” said EDS COO Shay Schlaepfer.

“With that in the mind, the scope of the current review, which is focused on permanent exotic carbon forests, is too narrow and we are calling on Government to undertake a fundamental reset of the regulations.“Our submission points to the following key problems with the present Standards:

  • It fails to effectively address adverse environmental outcomes associated with plantation forestry activities
  • It is unjustifiably and unlawfully permissive for such high risk activities, particularly with regard to afforestation on highly erodible land and clear fell harvesting
  • It fails to adequately recognise and encourage the wider and longer-term intergenerational climate resilience, biodiversity, social, cultural, and economic opportunities associated with indigenous forests
  • It is insufficiently aligned with national objectives and direction in relation to freshwater, coastal, and indigenous biodiversity protection and long-term carbon sequestration.

“Put in simple terms, the current Standards are failing to address significant adverse environmental effects associated with where trees are planted, whattrees are planted, and how forests are managed and harvested. These effects need to be managed for both new so-called permanent carbon forests and plantation forests.

“We contend that the presumption in the current Standards that forestry activities are “permitted” is unworkable, inappropriate, and ineffective at securing environmental protection.

“We are releasing our draft submission to give some guidance to others wishing to see improvements in the way exotic forests are managed. The intention is to file the final submission on the closing date which is 18 November,” said Ms Schlaepfer.

“The draft submission is available here and feedback can be sent to [email protected]

 

, , , , , , , ,

The science is unequivocal. The 12-minute video above succinctly outlines this complex issue. The figures at the bottom of this page are eye-watering…and that’s just from processing meat and dairy.

“From production to transportation packaging use and waste management, based on the most detailed meta analysis of life cycle assessments to date, on average it takes 71kg of CO2 to produce 1kg of beef. For lamb, it’s about 40kg; pigs 12kg; and poultry 10kg.

“Some 26% of greenhouse gasses comes from agriculture. By far the largest share is methane and nitrous oxide from cattle. Methane alone has already caused caused around 24-40% of human-made warming.

“The destruction of forests for farmland not only releases the CO2 that was bound in the flora, it sets free carbon that was stored in the soil and destroys its ability to store it in the future. This aspect accounts for much of the range of emissions in beef.”

This loss continues in Aotearoa (13,000 hectares lost in the past 5 years alone). Then there’s the nitrogen and phosphates added to farms that ends up in waterways, which results in, amongst other things, algae blooms that emit methane when they die:

“Between 1991 and 2019, estimates from sales data of nitrogen applied to land in fertiliser increased from 62,000 to 452,000 tonnes (just over a sixfold increase, 629 percent).

“Since our last update of this indicator in April 2019, there was a 5.4 percent increase from 2015 to 2019 in nitrogen applied from fertiliser. In this period, urease inhibitor use increased 48 percent.” – Statistics NZ

And then there’s the palm oil imported to feed our ‘grass fed’ cows:

“A new Greenpeace International report has found evidence of systematic violations by the Indonesian Government regarding plantation and forest release permits in the Papua region. The report also finds that clearing forest for palm plantations in the Papua area could release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, undoing previous climate action. 

“New Zealand is the world’s biggest importer of palm kernel expeller–a product of the palm industry used as supplementary feed for New Zealand’s 6.5 million dairy cows. 

“In 2018, a Greenpeace investigation found that Fonterra’s key supplier of PKE, Wilmar International, has been linked with the mass destruction of rainforest in Papua, Indonesia. In 2020, Fonterra handed over its half of PKE-importing business Agrifeeds to business partnerWilmar International. 

“Greenpeace Aotearoa campaigner Amanda Larsson says the dairy industry’s continued use of PKE is one of myriad ways that intensive dairying is fuelling the climate crisis. 

“Right now, dairying is New Zealand’s biggest climate polluter. We’ve got methane from 6.5 million cows, nitrous oxide from cows and synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, and carbon from the coal used to process milk,” says Larsson.” – Greenpeace April, 2021

Finally, there’s the carbon cost of processing all that meat and dairy. Remember, this is in addtion to the methane, nitrous oxide and CO2 emissions from growing this meat on farms. Fonterra is the worst carbon polluter in the country, emitting a staggering 16.3 million tonnes of eCO2 in 2020 alone. Silver Fern farms emitted 8.3 million tonnes (Table 9 below: from the New Zealand Government EPA report ‘ETS Participant Emissions‘, October 2021, pages 27-30).

So yes, meat and dairy really is that bad for the climate.

Greenhouse gas emissions from Fonterra and other dairy and meat processors New Zealand

More information

hottest days

, , , , , , , , , ,

We need carbon. We need water, too. But like all good things, there can be too much. Too little water and we die of thirst. Too much, we drown. The same with carbon. Too little in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), we go into an Ice Age. Too much, the planet broils. We know this because of the geological evidence and from fundamental laws of physics and chemistry.

How much carbon is there?

There is about 1.85 billion, billion tonnes of carbon on Earth. More than 99% is beneath our feet in soil and rocks including fossil fuels and permafrost. Just 0.2% or 43,500Gt is above the surface. Through natural processes, carbon is constantly in flux. That is, it’s moving between the land, the oceans, and living things (see ‘carbon cycle’ this website). When it’s burned, melted, or respired, it becomes a gas, combining with oxygen to make CO2. Some ends up in the atmosphere*. The rest is absorbed by terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems: forests, grasslands, wetlands, and marine animals and plants that make more than half the oxygen we breathe, and also as carbonic acid (H2CO3) dissolved in ocean and lake waters.

*Calculations at the bottom of this page.


A shift in time

It doesn’t take much CO2 in the atmosphere to warm the planet. Some 18,000 years ago, the concentration of CO2 was 189 ppm (parts per million). Global temperatures were 7-9°C cooler than today, and ice sheets several kilometres thick covered most of Europe and North America.

Over the next 10,000 years, the concentration increased 72ppm, to reach 261ppm. That was enough to warm the planet 6-8°C (Fig 2.).

Fig. 2: The blue line shows globally averaged surface air temperature from 24,000 years ago to the present day, compiled from paleoclimate records with a computer model of the climate system. The horizontal scale has been stretched for the past 1,000 years to show recent changes. Warming begins at the end of the last Glacial around 18,000 years ago, then temperatures stabilize around 9,000 years ago until the last 170 years, when excessive greenhouse gasses triggered rapid warming. (Image: Osman et al /Nature).
Fig. 2: The blue line shows globally averaged surface air temperature from 24,000 years ago to the present day, compiled from paleoclimate records with a computer model of the climate system. The horizontal scale has been stretched for the past 1,000 years to show recent changes. Warming begins at the end of the last Glacial around 18,000 years ago, then temperatures stabilize around 9,000 years ago until the last 170 years, when excessive greenhouse gasses triggered rapid warming. (Image: Osman et al /Nature).
 
By then, some 8,000 year ago, the warming had created a comfortable, and crucially a stable and predictable enough climate to enable humans to plant crops, domesticate livestock, and build civilizations. This land-use change added about 400Gt of CO2 to reach a concentration of 284ppm by the year 1850.
 
Courtesy of our planet’s eccentric orbit around the sun, the Earth was also entering a gradual cooling cycle that would ultimately lead to another Glacial epoch. This orbital obliquity largely compensated for the gradual warming effect of the extra carbon in the atmosphere. Aside from a few small climatic blips caused by volcanoes and the sun’s activity, the global climate remained stable enough for human civilization to reach a technological watershed moment: the Industrial Revolution.
 
To power this revolution, we dug carbon out of the ground and burned it to fuel ever-larger machines, fishing fleets, and massive land use changes to feed ever more people, destroying vast natural ecosystems that once locked away millions of tonnes of carbon. Their burned remains entered the atmosphere as CO2. (Slaughtering countless whales may have added quite a bit, too). In the 100 years from 1850 to 1950 we added, either directly or indirectly, another 450Gt of CO2 to the atmosphere, and so concentrations reached 310ppm.
 
It was about to get worse. Between 1950 and 2000—just 50 years—we added around 1050Gt; more than twice as much as we’d added the previous 7,950 years. Atmospheric CO2 passed 370ppm. Shoveling so much carbon into the atmosphere had postponed the inception of the next Glacial epoch by 100,000 years.
 
The terrestrial and ocean ecosystems that once supported us continued to being burned and bulldozed. And the pace of destruction kept increasing. The ocean, which had been absorbing more than 90% of the extra heat and as much as half the excess CO2, was becoming dangerously acidic. 
 
Twenty-one years later, on 21 April 2021, atmospheric CO2 passed 420ppm* for the first time in several million years. Our planet is now heating up faster than at any time since the comet wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. And the oceans are now absorbing only about 25% of it.
 

*The average for 2021 will be about 417ppm because atmospheric concentrations change between summer (lower) and winter (higher); see the graph below for an explanation.

The carbon budget

When governments signed the 2015 Paris Agreement they did so promising to keep global warming under 1.5°C by staying within a carbon budget. Each nation could choose how they would achieve this by reducing emissions—carbon ‘spending’—and increasing carbon ‘savings’ by planting carbon-absorbing trees. Obviously, to stay within the global budget, every nation had to play its part.

They didn’t. Emissions increased (Fig. 3)

Fig. 3: Emissions 2015-2021 * (projected (Image: co2.earth).
Fig. 3: Emissions 2015-2021 * (projected (Image: co2.earth).
In 2021, the IPCC presented a stark warning. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we’ve added about 2,400Gt of CO2 the atmosphere, around a third of which we added in just the past 20 years. To have a 66% of staying within 1.5°C, starting from January 2020, the world could emit no more than 400Gt of CO2. 
 
Emissions in 2020 were 38Gt. Emissions in 2021 are projected to be around 39Gt (Fig. 3). That leaves around 323Gt in the budget if we’re prepared to live with a 66% chance of keeping temperatures under 1.5°C. Or we can spend another 421Gt to have a 50% chance.
 

And only if one-way climate tipping points, don’t tip.

 

Tipping points are tipping

Scientists had been saying for decades that warming between 1 to 2°C would trigger catastrophic tipping points. At 1.2°C our climate is now already too hot to refreeze the 10,000 cubic metres of ice melting every second from Greenland’s ice sheet. So much freshwater entering the North Atlantic is already changing oceanic currents. This is triggering more tipping points in a cascade effect that will lead to irreversible chain reactions and rapid warming well beyond 3°C. Unless COP26 brings radical and immediate changes, the planet is destined to enter an entirely new ‘hothouse’ state, one we cannot control or reverse. And one hostile to our existence.
 

“The drama here is that one characteristic of tipping points is that once you press the ‘on’ button you cannot stop it; it takes over. It’s too late. It’s not like you could say, ‘Oops, now I realize I didn’t want to melt the Greenland ice cap. Let’s back off.’ Then it’s too late.” – Johan Rockström, Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet (Video 1)

Other tipping points are also pushing the carbon budget to the edge of a potential freefall. This includes vast areas of permafrost—frozen soil that contains an estimated 1,600Gt of carbon, almost twice the amount in the atmosphere today—is melting, disgorging CO2 and the far more potent greenhouse gas, methane into the atmosphere. And the Amazon rainforest, which could potentially releasing 200Gt of carbon into the atmosphere over the next 30 years. That is, by 2050. This process has already begun in south-east Amazonia (Video 2).
 
Earlier this year, the World Meteorological Organization stated that at least one of the next 5 years will be 1.5°C* warmer than pre-Industrial levels. And the chance of this happening is increasing with time.
 
Would you send your kids to school knowing they had just a 66% chance of coming home alive? Or 50% if we emit an extra 21Gt over the budget? And every day, the odds of their survival are getting increasingly worse because emissions are increasing. That’s what the carbon budget means for their futures.
 
Kids have done those simple calculations. And that’s why they’re so angry.
 
*The internal variability in any single year is estimated to be ± 0.25°C, so a single year at 1.5°C could be compensated if the following years are much cooler.
 
Video 1: in ‘Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet’, Sir David Attenborough succinctly explains tipping points. This is a short version of the full documentary of the same name, available on Netflix. 
Video 2: Amazon carbon tipping point

More information

Load More