Methane arising from agriculture and the fossil fuel industry is a notorious greenhouse gas, contributing significantly to global warming. While it breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere – unlike carbon dioxide – it is a serious threat to climate stabilisation. The quicker it is reduced, the more global average temperatures can be cut.
Much can be done to reduce methane releases in oil and gas production, but it is much more challenging in agriculture. Livestock exporting countries like Ireland and New Zealand are supporting a new approach to classifying methane which is gaining political traction. This is based around achieving national “temperature neutrality”, also known as “no additional warming”.
The Government has yet to take a formal position on the concept. Significantly it got the backing of the Climate Change Advisory Council, its key advisory body. It chose to interpret Ireland’s legally-binding climate neutrality obligations in terms of temperature neutrality – rather than the more onerous target of “net zero emissions”.
An international study, published in the Environmental Research Letters journal this week, has questioned this approach. It says that it “grandfathers high emissions from wealthy, livestock-exporting nations”, shifts the burden of cutting emissions to others, and limits space for lower-income countries to grow food systems. The approach fails on food security grounds, with trade data showing most exports serve high-income markets. This risks locking in inequality and misses “a critical opportunity to reduce peak warming”.
READ MORE
The most concerning finding was highlighted by lead researcher Dr Colm Duffy of the University of Galway: “If every country adopted a temperature neutrality target, we’d seriously jeopardise the Paris agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees.”
The Government is in a bind on this. How methane is regarded in policy terms has big implications for carbon budgets up to 2040, which must be signed off on soon.
Climatologist Prof John Sweeney has argued that the shift, which reduces the required emissions reduction target, is not aligned with scientific recommendations and could hinder Ireland’s ability to meet its climate goals. The study emphasises that governments must set targets that are internationally credible and farmers need to be supported within a national framework, rather than targeted for blame.
The bottom line is that Ireland will not meet the global climate challenge by redefining climate targets. Ireland has yet to deliver an honest appraisal of what a genuinely climate-neutral, sustainable and resilient agricultural sector could look like in coming decades. Avoiding this issue would amount to backsliding on vital climate action.
