He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN ) is a proposed pricing scheme for livestock emissions.
This is a four-part series explaining the big four mistakes it makes and what it needs to do to fix these.
Part 1 HWEN misunderstands the science of methane in particular what net zero methane means See previous post https://farmcarbon.co.nz/what-he-waka-eke-noa-has-got-wrong-part-1/
Part 2 HWEN works on the premise that farmers have to pay for methane emissions without examining alternatives See previous post https://farmcarbon.co.nz/what-he-waka-eke-noa-has-got-wrong-part-2/
Part 3 HWEN does not allow for the IPCC scenario the Government adopted to set its emission reduction targets which does not require nitrous oxide to reduce in the manner HWEN does
Part 4 HWEN promotes its pricing scheme as better for farmers than the ETS and that either the ETS or HWEN are needed to satisfy overseas markets. HWEN’s conclusions are questionable and we examine these.
Part 3 HWEN does not allow for the IPCC scenario the Government adopted to set its emission reduction targets which does not require nitrous oxide to reduce in the manner HWEN does
HWEN is proposing pricing schemes which will allow the Government to achieve its emission reduction targets. These targets are for methane a 10% reduction by 2030 and a 24-47% reduction by 2050, and for nitrous oxide a 100% reduction by 2050.
Now HWEN was about developing a pricing scheme and not about revisiting the targets but there was still ample opportunity for it to promote the relevant science and its incompatibility with the targets when developing the scheme. For example, had HWEN understood the science of methane a little better it would have been able to have included and justified an option that priced methane, as per the Government’s request, but one that involved paying farmers for any reduction. (see part 1)
This methane target was not set because methane needs to reduce by this amount to prevent causing further warming because it doesn’t, and everyone acknowledges this. The target was set because according to one of many IPCC pathway scenarios that is what is needed to allow CO2 emissions to continue for longer.
What are these scenarios?
The IPCC developed a range of scenarios they called pathways which show various levels of emission reductions for different gases over different time frames that are all supposedly compatible with 1.5 degrees of warming. The four scenarios had methane targets ranging between it increasing by 2% and decreasing by 69% by 2050. For nitrous oxide the range was it increasing by 39% to reducing by 26% by 2050. No scenario had it reducing by 100%.
All scenarios had CO2 reducing by close to 100% by 2050, but the big difference was in the 2030 targets. They ranged from increasing by 4% to decreasing by 58%. The other difference was the lower emission reduction scenarios had what they call higher overshoots which meant that if followed there would need to be some technological development to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The scenarios were also based on a number of assumptions about how the world would be in 2050. How many people, what technologies would be available etc
Our Government chose as its methane emission target the interquartile range (median) of all these scenarios which is a reduction of 24 to 47%. Perhaps that is fair enough as far as stabs in the dark go, if it is understood that these methane reductions are only needed to offset CO2 emissions which cannot be reduced quickly enough. What is not appropriate though is for the Government to set an emission reduction target for nitrous oxide of -100% when the same interquartile range of scenarios for nitrous oxide is between an increase of 3% and a decrease of 26%. So why does our government set a target of -100%?
The IPCC is quite clear that these scenarios are not supposed to be used to set national emission reduction targets in the first place but having done this for methane it is indefensible that the Government does not apply the same method to nitrous oxide. These scenarios are like a recipe for what is needed to achieve 1.5 degrees, it is not pick and mix your emission reductions.
HWEN was not about revisiting the targets, so it could not do that, but what it could have and should have done was used its proposed pricing scheme to reflect the science. We have a split gas approach which is great if it is understood and used properly. What HWEN had the opportunity to do was to propose a system that priced methane, as per the Government agreement, and then used the science to justify why that price should be what is paid to farmers to compensate them for offsetting CO2 emissions in the same way foresters are paid. For nitrous oxide the IPCC acknowledges there is no scenario where it can be reduced by very much at all, let alone by 100%, so such a target is just pie in the sky stuff. HWEN had an opportunity to reflect this by suggesting and justifying a very low price for farmers to pay for nitrous oxide because it is not very reducible, as acknowledged by the IPCC. It had ample opportunity to reflect the reality and advocate for farmers by saying that while the Government target is a reduction of 100%, the IPCC acknowledges that it is not likely to be achieved and not desirable to achieve it, as long as we have human beings needing protein and no way to reduce these emissions significantly, and so a lower price is in the best interests of humanity, until such time as the technology exists.
HWEN had the opportunity to comply with the Government requirements and advocate for farmers at the same time. It did not do that sadly.