AVOIDING A PARIS HANGOVER DOWN UNDERThe new international climate regime and New

Zealand agriculture

OUTLINEA. AssumptionsB. Background: the UNFCCC regime 1992-2015C. The Paris AgreementD. What Paris means for New Zealand primary

industryE. Response pathways

(A) ASSUMPTIONS1. That mainstream climate science is correct2. That governments will ratify the Paris Climate

Agreement

(1) MAINSTREAM CLIMATE SCIENCE IS CORRECT

1. Climate change is real (It’s a thing).2. Climate change is anthropogenic (We’re causing

it).3. Climate change is harmful (It will be bad for people

and businesses).

THE SCIENCE

1. Mean global temperatures have warmed by 1ºC (Hawkins).

2. Atmospheric CO2 is now consistently above 400ppm.

3. One tonne of methane has 21 times the warming impact over 100 years as one tonne of CO2 (UNFCCC).

4. We are looking at 2.7-3.5ºC warming this century (Hare et al).

(2) GOVERNMENTS WILL RATIFY THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

Donald Trump last week threatened that, if elected, he will “a

minimum […] be renegotiating” the Paris deal, but:

1. 175 states signed last month and 15 have ratified;

2. We need 55 countries representing 55% of emissions to

ratify;

3. Negotiations continued last week and this, and the word on

the ground is that it’ll probably enter force this year.

(B) THE UNFCCC FROM 1992-2009

1. Rio 1992: The Convention

2. Berlin Mandate and Kyoto Protocol

3. Bali Action Plan and Copenhagen

4. Durban Mandate and Paris

(1) THE CONVENTION (1992)

The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of

equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating

climate change and the adverse effects thereof.

- UNFCCC, art 3(1)

(2) BERLIN TO KYOTO (1995-1997)

‘In the developed world only two people ride in a car, and yet you want us to give up riding on a bus.’- Lead Chinese negotiator, COP 3 in Kyoto, 1997

• Berlin mandate imposed strict firewall of differentiation• Carried over into Kyoto Protocol• So, the US refused to ratify Kyoto - and it only entered

force in 2005

(3) BALI TO COPENHAGEN (2007-2009)

1. With the US outside Kyoto, by 2006 most states recognised a need for something more.

2. In 2007, negotiations started on a new climate deal, due to be concluded in Copenhagen in 2009.

COPENHAGEN

Oh dear.

(4) THE DURBAN RESET: APPLICABLE TO ALL

• New process launched.• Three key points:

1. an agreement ‘with legal force’2. ‘under the Convention applicable to all

Parties’3. to be agreed in 2015 and implemented from

2020

FROM DURBAN TO PARIS• By 2013, the architecture of a new climate deal was

in place.• It would be a mixture of bottom up targets and top

down review structures.

(INTENDED) NATIONALLY DETERMINED

CONTRIBUTIONS• Bottom up commitments made by all states throughout

2015.

• New Zealand offered a 30% cut by 2030 from 2005 levels,

or 11% off 1990 levels (Hare et al described as

“inadequate”).

• Percentage targeted submitted ranged from 9% to 100%+.

(C) THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

• Agreed last December, signed in April.• Aims to limit warming to “well below 2ºC” and aim for 1.5ºC

(art 2).• Nationally determined mitigation targets to be reviewed

every five years:• “Facilitative dialogue” in 2018 (Decision, cl 20).• “Global stocktake” of mitigation commitments

scheduled for 2023 (art 14).• Wide range of (less relevant) finance and adaptation

mechanisms.

THE REVIEWS ARE KEY

• Current targets have moved us ~1ºC closer to goal.

• But we’ll have blown our 2ºC emissions budget by 2036 (New Scientist) unless we ramp up ambition.

• Climate Interactive and Climate Action Tracker both present mitigation pathways for 1.5ºC and 2ºC.

• Possible, but challenging.

(D) WHAT PARIS MEANS FOR NZ PRIMARY INDUSTRY

• Agriculture accounts for around 50% of our emissions

(~18% globally per UN FAO).

• New Zealand is currently reviewing our emissions trading

scheme.

• Agriculture is outside the review.

PARIS TARGET CANNOT BE MET WITHOUT AGRICULTURE

• New Zealand is already under pressure to lift its mitigation target.

• University of Vermont study (17 May 2016):• need to cut global farming emissions by one

gigaton per year from 2030 to meet 2ºC goal; and

• Current agricultural reduction targets are 21-40% of that needed for 2ºC goal.

WE WILL BE UNDER PRESSURE IN 2018, THEN

2023, THEN…• Based on current targets, New Zealand’s per

capita emissions are projected to exceed the US’s within the decade.

• Negotiating blocs have also shifted, leaving New Zealand more distant from traditional allies.

• Therefore, New Zealand can expect real pressure in the 2018 review.

(E) RESPONSE PATHWAYS

New Zealand primary industry can respond four ways:

1. Develop new technologies;

2. Renegotiate methane’s role;

3. Cut high emissions production; or

4. Do nothing.

(1) TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

• There is some promising research into new grass varieties etc to lower dairy emissions.

• Government established the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre in 2010.

• Government committed NZ$5.4 million per annum to Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, public-private partnership.

“Between 1990 and 2011 these improvements have led to an 18 per cent decrease in emissions from dairy cattle per kilogram of milk solid; a 23

per cent reduction in sheep emissions per kilogram of lamb and mutton; and a 27 per cent reduction in non-dairy (beef) emissions per kilogram of

beef.” – NZ to UNFCCC, 2014

(2) RENEGOTIATE METHANE’S ROLE

• New Zealand hosted a side event in Paris, proposing that we should renegotiate the Kyoto Protocol mix of gases to place focus on carbon dioxide.

• Based on 2015 study by Niel Bowerman (Oxford), David

Frame (Victoria) and others.

• But cold reception in Paris.

(3) CUT PRODUCTION

• Unlikely to be popular with industry and government.

• Comes at economic cost.

• May face overseas pressure to do so.

(4) DO NOTHING

• Our Paris targets are non-binding, so we could ignore

them or rely solely on international emissions trading to

meet them.

• But this will be diplomatically compromising, and may

ultimately restrict our access to some markets.

MIXTURE OF APPROACHES NEEDED

• There’s no one silver bullet.• This is a hard challenge, and one that all sectors

need to be involved in – especially agriculture.