Deborah Alexander (BAgSci Hons) is a supporter of Groundswell NZ and the Methane Science Accord, as well as an Auckland Federated Farmers executive member.

Continued participation in The Paris Accord’s imposes disproportionate costs, regulatory burdens, and perverse land-use incentives on the agricultural sector. These consequences have led to reduced food production, in contradiction of Article 2(b), and considerable long-term loss of productive farmland, without delivering measurable global climate benefits.

The Paris Accord

The primary aim of the Paris Agreement was to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, with a further aspiration to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty. It obligates signatory nations to take action to address climate change. While the agreement establishes binding commitments for countries to prepare and submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), it's important to note that the achievement of those NDCs is not legally binding.

The USA, our second-largest customer, has withdrawn from The Paris Accord, along with Argentina. China (NZ largest client) and India, though signatories, have undeveloped nation status so are not bound by the same requirements and are increasing their coal fired energy sectors.

New Zealand’s agricultural emissions represent just 0.17% of human global emissions, and human emissions are less than 0.2% of all Greenhouse Gases. (Greenhouse gases are H2O vapour, CO2, CH4 (methane), N2O, and O3 (ozone)).

Article 2b of the Paris Agreement specifies that food production should not be compromised—yet policies in New Zealand have led to its decline. New Zealand’s Methane targets are simply an average of four potential models (outcomes) and not on empirical scientific evidence, or warming impact. No Governmental cost benefit has been undertaken to determine if Mitigation/Reduction was a more cost-effective option that simple Adaptation to Climate Events.

Warming from New Zealand’s agricultural emissions is not measurable; reductions yield no measurable global impact.

New Zealand stock number have reduced since the 2017 baseline and all stock except dairy are considerably lower than 2002. Dairy Cattle numbers are up by 14 % since 2002 but are down by 9% on the 2017 baseline. Sheep numbers are down more than 38% since 2002 but only 11% since 2017. Beef numbers are down 19% since 2002 but are up by 1% if the baseline is 2017. Deer numbers are down more than 55% since 2002 but only 11% if the baseline is 2017. Therefore methane is reducing without taxing and without vaccines, or food additives, GE, GMO’s, boluses, etc.

Unfortunately some of the lower stock numbers are as a result of loss of productive land to forestry. Current policies are encouraging extremely expensive funding on vaccines, boluses, genetic, GE and GMO’s. There are no ready for market products despite many years of research. New Zealand’s premium pasture-based protein exports may be undermined by application of these technologies. Traditionally New Zealand Farmers have achieved the highest quality food products globally without the imposition of punitive taxes and regulation.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC scientist, underscores the cyclical nature of methane emissions from livestock:

“It appears to assume that the methane emissions from dairy and meat count, but they do not because they come from carbon dioxide that was already in the atmosphere and was taken up by grass in photosynthesis. Any methane decays on a decade timescale back to carbon dioxide. It is circular.”

This is either neutral or a net sequestration of greenhouse gases, given less than 10% of the CO₂ ingested via grass is emitted as methane.

Outcomes of Exiting The Paris Accord:

Negligible Global Impact: New Zealand’s agricultural emissions represent just 0.17% of global emissions. Exiting the Paris Agreement would result in no measurable effect on global temperature trends, with estimated current warming from NZ ruminants in the order of four-millionths of a degree Celsius per year. This is immeasurable for NZ as a country, let alone at farm level, or by animal. Reducing methane is irrelevant.

End to Perverse Land-Use Incentives: Exiting the agreement would remove carbon credit obligations that currently incentivise the conversion of productive farmland into carbon forestry.

Protection from Future Taxation: Agricultural emissions would no longer be exposed to potential future inclusion in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) or subject to other forms of taxation under future government policy shifts.

Redirecting Funding to Real Needs: Over $1 billion has already been committed to methane-reduction technologies such as boluses, vaccines, and genetic interventions—both domestically and overseas. These funds could instead be directed toward practical on-farm productivity improvements and pressing animal health challenges, such as facial eczema.

Improved Access to Finance: Removing emissions obligations could ease financing constraints, particularly emissions-based interest rate premiums currently applied by some banking institutions.

Economic Gains and Rural Support: Withdrawal could support increased livestock numbers, boost export volumes, generate overseas income, and strengthen rural economies.

Trade Position Maintained: Despite withdrawal, New Zealand can continue to assure trading partners that its agricultural products remain among the most environmentally responsible—featuring the lowest greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram, lowest antibiotic usage, pasture-based systems, high-quality protein, and no government subsidies. Quotas and tariffs are a tool that countries use to protect their own industries. If countries truly believed that there was an actual existential threat from greenhouse gases they would be lifting quotas and tariffs and purchasing our products instead of other countries.

No Legal Requirement to Pay $23 Billion: Claims that New Zealand would face a $23 billion penalty for exiting or failing to meet Paris targets are not supported by any binding legal mechanism.

Reduced Government Expenditure: Exiting the agreement would help curtail further unproductive climate-related spending. To date, taxpayer money has funded initiatives such as:

• $27 million on a satellite measuring oil and gas emissions in the Northern Hemisphere, not ruminant methane;
• $1.3 billion to underdeveloped nations between 2021 and 2025;
• The costs associated with He Waka Eke Noa (HWEN); and
• The time and financial burden on farmers required to calculate emissions with tools that remain inaccurate.

These are but a few examples.

Unsustainable Economic Cost: Analysis by Dr Michael Kelly estimates the cost of reaching Net Zero by 2050 will exceed $550 billion. It will require a workforce equivalent in size to the health sector for 30 years, double the number of electrical engineers currently in the country, and approximately 10% of the global annual production of critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, and neodymium. Simply not achievable.

Prioritise Adaptation Over Mitigation: New Zealand could adopt a more practical and cost-effective approach by focusing on climate adaptation strategies, rather than current mitigation efforts that deliver little in terms of measurable global impact.

‍