A climate expert has claimed the Government's reduced methane targets are 'unambitious'.
The goal for 2050 has been slashed to a range of 14-to-24 percent below 2017 levels - about half the former target.
Agricultural methane emissions won't be taxed.
Victoria University's Nathanael Melia says by investing more into research, New Zealand could have aimed for higher.
"We're using brand new science and brand new thinking to find out what we should do with our unique makeup to do these sorts of things. We're being a leader here and I think the Government could have been a bit more of a leader."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now to the methane targets. The government's new methane targets,
released over the weekend haven't been universally welcomed. Climate scientists
and environmental groups have accused the government of not being
ambitious enough and aiming for a low target target for
political reasons. The government says the fourteen to twenty four
percent range actually has a basis in science. Now, Nathaniel
Mela Milia sorry, is the director of Climate Prescience and
(00:22):
a senior research fellow at Victoria University and is with us. Now, hey, Nathaniel, hello,
he how are you? I'm very well, thank you mate.
Is there good scientific grounding here?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Right? So there is good scientific grounding, but there is
a tach to that question. I can elaborate if.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
You're likely to please do.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Thank you, Becky. So the science that got the numbers
is what's conducted by the independent Methane Panel and those
people that did that, the scientists are involved in the
last and the current IPCC climate reports right internationally trusted
and the internationally leading to scientists. The calculators and models
(01:05):
they used to calculate the numbers are the same that
are used in those high PCC reports. Okay. So the science,
the numbers they got perfectly valid scientifically. Where the politics
and maybe some of the lobbying comes in to it
is twofold. It's what questions you ask and what numbers
(01:26):
you want to use when you come out.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Of that such as such as.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So the very fact that you can ask the question
of maintaining warming levels or no further warming, for me, say,
is a scientific thing. It's because the way methane behaves
compared to carbon dioxide. If I put a molecule of
metha in the atmosphere, it drops out in twelve years.
So you know we've had cow herds for more than
(01:54):
twelve years, so you can you can still emit me
saying and not be producing warming. You can't ask that
same question for carbon dioxide that comes out of our
exhaust because that stays in the atmosphere for a thousand years.
So every molecule of that does for what means okay.
So where so where the interpretation comes in is also
in the results. Right. So the government had a choice
(02:14):
of which results they wanted to choose, and the methan
panel gave them a range of results based on what
the future atmosphere is going to.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Look like, Okay, so and so, would you take issue
then with the fourteen to twenty four percent range and
maybe just stick to twenty four percent, no lower?
Speaker 2 (02:30):
I think I think I would That is what that
is what I would do. I mean, I've championed the
fact that the governments had this review. I've championed fact
that we should be treating methane differently to carbon dioxides,
and especially with our you know, our makeup of greenhouse
gases and our huge dairy search, I think they should
be treated differently because one, it's it's fair to farmers,
(02:51):
it's fair to farming family. It's they're so different in
the way, in the way they live in the atmosphere.
But I think the government has shot itself in the
foot here a bit. I think it could have chosen
tosing that twenty four percent. It could have said, look,
we've got the scientific backing here. It probably wouldn't have
it wouldn't have got as much flatform, you know, the
left leaning side, the environmentalist, and it would have it
(03:12):
probably would have made everyone happy and they could have money.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Well, Theniel, how realistic is it? Because if I'm listening
to farmers who are saying, even achieving fourteen percent the
lower end of the rage, it's actually kind of a
bit of an ask of them, right, So how would
they get to twenty four percent realistically? How would farmers
manage that?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Well? I would like to see the government chucking a
whole heap of money towards farming families. You know, these
guys don't have an easy job. It's not a money
for work their far so money can go into research
into me saying inhibitive.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
But it does, it does, and I love the idea,
but it doesn't solve the problem immediately, does it? So
how do you get the methane down immediately.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
The mean thing down immediately? Yeah, well, these targets are
twenty fifty targets, so so you don't really need to
do things.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Right now, Daniel. But do you believe that even if
we check money in right now, we would have the
science there for twenty fifteen?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yes, I think so. I think the way science are fast,
science is meeting. If you look back twenty years where
we were with science, it's it's amazing. So I have
paced that.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
We can do some core things there, okay, and we can.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
We can fill up the economy with pouring money into innovation.
That's what New Ualan does.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
There also is the reast of the world on board
with treating me so in the way that we do.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
The mess of the world is not in the same
position that we are. I mean that there's most similar
government to ours and environment to us is Ireland, and
we share a lot of conversations with Ireland. They've got
a big kind of agriculture sets and dairyhead We share
a lot of these conversations. And we're on the sharp
end of the sphere here when when we're using brand
new science and brand new thinking to find out what
(04:52):
should we do with our unique makeup to do these
sorts of things. So we haven't really got a lot
of all our countries to compare to and we're being
a leader here, and I think the gouplem could have
been a bit more of a leader in this. I
think it is kind of missed that opportunity, which is
a bit sad.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Nathaniel, it's fascinating to talk to you. Thanks for running
us through. Nathaniel, Melia Victoria University Senior Research Fellow. For
more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news talks.
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Now to the methane targets. The government's new methane targets,
released over the weekend haven't been universally welcomed. Climate scientists
and environmental groups have accused the government of not being
ambitious enough and aiming for a low target target for
political reasons. The government says the fourteen to twenty four
percent range actually has a basis in science. Now, Nathaniel
Mela Milia sorry, is the director of Climate Prescience and
(00:22):
a senior research fellow at Victoria University and is with us. Now, hey, Nathaniel, hello,
he how are you? I'm very well, thank you mate.
Is there good scientific grounding here?
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Right? So there is good scientific grounding, but there is
a tach to that question. I can elaborate if.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
You're likely to please do.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Thank you, Becky. So the science that got the numbers
is what's conducted by the independent Methane Panel and those
people that did that, the scientists are involved in the
last and the current IPCC climate reports right internationally trusted
and the internationally leading to scientists. The calculators and models
(01:05):
they used to calculate the numbers are the same that
are used in those high PCC reports. Okay. So the science,
the numbers they got perfectly valid scientifically. Where the politics
and maybe some of the lobbying comes in to it
is twofold. It's what questions you ask and what numbers
(01:26):
you want to use when you come out.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Of that such as such as.
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So the very fact that you can ask the question
of maintaining warming levels or no further warming, for me, say,
is a scientific thing. It's because the way methane behaves
compared to carbon dioxide. If I put a molecule of
metha in the atmosphere, it drops out in twelve years.
So you know we've had cow herds for more than
(01:54):
twelve years, so you can you can still emit me
saying and not be producing warming. You can't ask that
same question for carbon dioxide that comes out of our
exhaust because that stays in the atmosphere for a thousand years.
So every molecule of that does for what means okay.
So where so where the interpretation comes in is also
in the results. Right. So the government had a choice
(02:14):
of which results they wanted to choose, and the methan
panel gave them a range of results based on what
the future atmosphere is going to.
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Look like, Okay, so and so, would you take issue
then with the fourteen to twenty four percent range and
maybe just stick to twenty four percent, no lower?
Speaker 2 (02:30):
I think I think I would That is what that
is what I would do. I mean, I've championed the
fact that the governments had this review. I've championed fact
that we should be treating methane differently to carbon dioxides,
and especially with our you know, our makeup of greenhouse
gases and our huge dairy search, I think they should
be treated differently because one, it's it's fair to farmers,
(02:51):
it's fair to farming family. It's they're so different in
the way, in the way they live in the atmosphere.
But I think the government has shot itself in the
foot here a bit. I think it could have chosen
tosing that twenty four percent. It could have said, look,
we've got the scientific backing here. It probably wouldn't have
it wouldn't have got as much flatform, you know, the
left leaning side, the environmentalist, and it would have it
(03:12):
probably would have made everyone happy and they could have money.
Speaker 1 (03:16):
Well, Theniel, how realistic is it? Because if I'm listening
to farmers who are saying, even achieving fourteen percent the
lower end of the rage, it's actually kind of a
bit of an ask of them, right, So how would
they get to twenty four percent realistically? How would farmers
manage that?
Speaker 2 (03:30):
Well? I would like to see the government chucking a
whole heap of money towards farming families. You know, these
guys don't have an easy job. It's not a money
for work their far so money can go into research
into me saying inhibitive.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
But it does, it does, and I love the idea,
but it doesn't solve the problem immediately, does it? So
how do you get the methane down immediately.
Speaker 2 (03:52):
The mean thing down immediately? Yeah, well, these targets are
twenty fifty targets, so so you don't really need to
do things.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
Right now, Daniel. But do you believe that even if
we check money in right now, we would have the
science there for twenty fifteen?
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yes, I think so. I think the way science are fast,
science is meeting. If you look back twenty years where
we were with science, it's it's amazing. So I have
paced that.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
We can do some core things there, okay, and we can.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
We can fill up the economy with pouring money into innovation.
That's what New Ualan does.
Speaker 1 (04:23):
There also is the reast of the world on board
with treating me so in the way that we do.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
The mess of the world is not in the same
position that we are. I mean that there's most similar
government to ours and environment to us is Ireland, and
we share a lot of conversations with Ireland. They've got
a big kind of agriculture sets and dairyhead We share
a lot of these conversations. And we're on the sharp
end of the sphere here when when we're using brand
new science and brand new thinking to find out what
(04:52):
should we do with our unique makeup to do these
sorts of things. So we haven't really got a lot
of all our countries to compare to and we're being
a leader here, and I think the gouplem could have
been a bit more of a leader in this. I
think it is kind of missed that opportunity, which is
a bit sad.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
Nathaniel, it's fascinating to talk to you. Thanks for running
us through. Nathaniel, Melia Victoria University Senior Research Fellow. For
more from Hither Duplessy Allen Drive, listen live to news talks.
It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!