Government should follow EU line on climate mitigation

Who can you believe on the topic of climate change?

That may be the question many people are asking themselves this week, after arguments broke out over what statistics we should base our climate change mitigation measures on.

People on both sides of these arguments pick the statistics that suit their agenda best.

That does not give members of the public much hope that climate change will be tackled in an even-handed way, as they await the national All-of-Government Climate Action Plan, which will bring huge changes to everyone in the economy and society.

For example, the environmentalists in An Taisce said data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation shows that Ireland is the most carbon-intensive beef producer in Europe, and is Europe’s third-highest for emissions from its dairy sector. An Taisce said this is a “bombshell” for Ireland’s “agri-industrial” sector, which has long argued, using outdated 2004 data, that Irish beef and dairy are among the most efficient in the EU in terms of emissions.

This is a reference to the EU’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) report which showed that Ireland is the most carbon efficient producer in the EU per unit of dairy production, and the fifth-most carbon efficient per kg of beef.

The JRC findings are often quoted by Agriculture Minister Michael Creed.

An Taisce puts its faith instead in the FAO’s Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM).

However, the Government cannot be blamed for putting its faith in EU figures.

After all, it has to work within the EU’s comprehensive package of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which include binding annual greenhouse gas emission targets for member states up to 2030.

It is the EU that sets national emission targets for 2020 (compared to 2005), which are based, not just on estimated national emissions, but partly on national wealth levels. Targets for 2020 range from a 20% reduction for the richest member states to a 20% increase for the poorest. Targets for 2030 range from zero change up to a 40% reduction, compared to 2005.

Not reaching these European carbon reduction targets by 2020 could cost penalties which some estimate as high as €600 million for Ireland.

An Taisce says climate action requires limits on production or on total fertiliser and feed usage.

It has called on the Government to halt agricultural expansion that is “extremely emissions intensive, as well as contributing to biodiversity loss and accelerating water pollution”. That is an extreme view, which seems to leave little room for adjustment, if the knowledge on climate change increases, as it undoubtedly will. It has changed compared to only a few years ago, when the knowledge on climate change included biofuels playing a big role in reducing carbon emissions from transport in the EU. As a result, EU production of biofuels quadrupled to 2.4 million tonnes from 1999 to 2004.

But the Directive (EU) 2015/1513 changed all that. New knowledge led the EU to reduce the risk of indirect land-use change linked with biofuel production. Indirect land-use change occurs when farmland previously used for food or feed crops is used for growing biofuel crops instead.

This has implications for greenhouse gas emissions because it results in increased pressure to use other (unused) land in order to meet the demand for food and feed.

The EU also stopped the move to biofuels because they replace grasslands and forests that typically absorb high levels of carbon.

Biofuels from crops are now limited to 7% of 2020 renewable energy targets.

This change caused disruption to the plans of the EU biofuel industry and farmers.

The European Commission has issued cautionary notices to a number of member states, including Ireland, relating to their failure to fully transpose the EU’s changed biofuel policy into national legislation. In other words, follow the EU line on climate change mitigation, or face infringement proceedings in the Court of Justice of the EU.