Wayne Langford: Federated Farmers President says lower Methane targets are scientific, not idealistic

Assurance for farmers with the latest methane target update. 

The Government's set the 2050 targets to 14 to 24-percent below 2017 levels - which is 24 to 47-percent lower than the previous. 

Federated Farmers President Wayne Langford told Mike Hosking they'd been advocating for lower, but this at least gives farmers a clear direction of travel. 

He says the numbers are scientific rather than idealistic, which is good for farmers. 

Langford says it's measurable, and they're on track to achieve it.

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Big news for our climate targets as the government sets
the twenty fifty methane numbers at fourteen to twenty four percent,
which is down from twenty four to forty seven. When Langage,
the president of Fed Farmers and is with us Wayne Morning, Morning, Mike,
while we're on the numbers business. Out of ten, it's
perfect one, it's a disaster. What's your number?

Speaker 2 (00:17):
Oh, this sitting somewhere around seven or eight.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Right, so it could be better, but you're not reasonably happy.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Well, I know we were advocating for fourteen percent, but
I can understand why the government's had to stay around
twenty four percent. So there is a bit of a
range there. But I'll tell you what it does. That
gives us a real clear direction of travel when it's
that's good for farmers to have that.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
How much of this is about politics versus how much
of it's an actual number or arrange that can be tangibly,
realistically achieved and therefore theoretically do something good for the planet.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Well, I think that's the best thing about this is
that's actually a scientific number that's got to start. They
were heading towards compared to the dealistic targets that were
previously in place. So that's good for farmers, it's good
for everyone. It's something that we can miror and we
are currently measuring and we know that we're on track
to achieve, so ultimately, I think this is in a

(01:07):
much better play.

Speaker 1 (01:08):
It still plays into the business. Even if we achieve
the target, fantastic. How does the world benefit? I mean,
this is the New Zealand First enact argument, isn't it.
There will be lots of countries that don't even get
close to the target. The world isn't going to measurably
improve in any way, shape or form no matter what
we do. So therefore, how much do you want to
punish your farmer for?

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Yeah, and that's what it leads into, and what I
guess what it's also saying is that, hey, we're really
on track to achieve this. We're on a track for
farmers to not add to warming at all, which is
what they're asking us for. If we can do that,
if we can stay with un A makes the target
and still keep our markets and everything else, then hasn't
had a good thing? And I think that's what this
announcement is reflecting, and it's what we've been advocating for

(01:46):
for quite some time.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
The Prime Minister always runs the free trade argument that
these free trade deals these days have this you've got
to be doing your bit for Paris line and do
we still fit in comfortably in the trade In other words,
you're not being affected adverse by thiss.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
We explored ninety five percent of our milk products. We
explored ninety percent of our red mat products. We are
hugely dependent on trade and what a consumer or a
customer overseas it's asking for. And so if this is
currently what they're asking for, hey, we've got to live
up to that and that's what some of these agreements
are about. But at the same time, we can't be
going broke. I mean, we've been down We've been down

(02:24):
many rural towns in New Zealand we've seen empty storefronts.
I know you're going to have the teachers on the
showy that today tomorrow probably asking for more money. Where
do you think that comes from? That comes from the
agricultural sector. And we've got to make sure that we're
humming and not driving ourselves broke because having some idealistic
target won won't achieve that.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
Do you think you've got the country on board because
the Greens and the labor disagree with you and they
disagree with this decision. Therefore it's potentially an election argument,
isn't it.

Speaker 2 (02:50):
Yeah, quite disappointing probably that that's the case, because they
should be in favor of this ranger. I mean that's
what there was an independent scientific panel that went and
reviewed this. That's what they came out with, should been
and in align with that. To say to have them
come out kind of a reughle against it or saying
that our markets will be worried, well, if the market
to worry, then let the market take care of that.

(03:12):
You know how processes want to say, how you need
to do this or need to do that, then yeah,
we'll get amongst it. But setting an idealistic target that
no one can achieve that will destroy roural communities, that's
not what it's about.

Speaker 1 (03:23):
Good stuff, Wayne, appreciate it, Wayne landforst who's the presented
of fed Farmers. There was a suggestion over the weekend
that New Zealand first would pull the trigger of the
agree to disagree part of it because they're particularly agreed
with what's going on. So they didn't because I think
we might have got them across the line.

Speaker 2 (03:37):
For more from the mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to
news talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio.