Emissions of greenhouse gases from the agricultural sector are high for two main reasons.

Firstly, the measurement is based on production rather than consumption. Since Ireland is a big exporter, emissions arising from food consumption elsewhere get counted as Irish emissions.

For other sectors, measurement is based on consumption rather than production, so exporting sectors are not debited with high emissions in the same way.

Separately, the measurement of farm emissions is complex because of the predominance of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Climate scientists believe that methane does not persist in the atmosphere as other gases do and that allowance should be made for this feature. Some further believe that if proper allowance was made, the figures for agriculture would be lower.

The way the two issues are dealt with will determine the impact of the planned carbon reduction targets on Irish farming

Both the production versus consumption issue and the methane measurement issue, are explicitly alluded to in the text of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021, published two weeks ago. The way the two issues are dealt with will determine the impact of the planned carbon reduction targets on Irish farming.

The overall architecture of the new climate legislation is incomplete, in that it is concerned exclusively with targets – consideration of actual policy instruments will come later. The targets (a 51% reduction in 2018 emissions, as measured, by 2031) are ambitious.

Emission reductions at this pace have proved impossible to achieve in the past.

The bill contains no procedures, for example penalties, for under-achievement and the stage has been set for disputes about target-setting and responsibility and consequences should targets not be met.

The top-down approach will see five-year emission budgets for each sector to be delivered by Government ministers, with a role also for local authorities

Since there has been no commitment on policy action, such as new taxes and charges on emissions or public investment budgets for what needs to be done, there is every chance that targets will be exceeded, at least in the early years.

The top-down approach will see five-year emission budgets for each sector to be delivered by Government ministers, with a role also for local authorities. There are 15 Government departments with cabinet ministers at the helm, as well as 31 local authorities, to give a minimum of 46 units charged with implementation.

Some departments oversee multiple agencies, so the total of implementing bodies could be more than 46.

Carbon leakage

The bill as drafted contains a requirement in section six that ministers and Government have regard, in framing specific targets, to “the risk of substantial and unreasonable carbon leakage as a consequence of measures implemented by the State to pursue the national climate objective.”

The source of this difficulty is the attribution of some emissions to territories by production rather than by consumption

The phrase ‘carbon leakage’ refers to the fact that emissions restraint in one country can see the benefit lost through higher production in some other territory that has ineffective policies. Since the earth has just one atmosphere, there is no net gain. The source of this difficulty is the attribution of some emissions to territories by production rather than by consumption. A common system of taxes and charges at the consumer end on high-emission products would avoid this problem, but there is little prospect of international agreement. Carbon leakage is a serious headache for exporters of food products – nothing is gained if output is displaced elsewhere, possibly to countries with lower carbon-efficiency in production.

The same section in the bill alludes to the methane measurement issue. It states that ministers and Government should have regard to ‘the special economic and social role of agriculture, including with regard to the distinct characteristics of biogenic methane’.

These are two ‘get-out’ clauses which make it possible to address the potentially huge reductions that would be required in Ireland’s agricultural emissions as measured.

The Irish Government should explore what latitude may exist to bring methane measurement better in line with the science, if indeed it is exaggerating emissions from livestock farming

If biogenic methane is truly responsible for a lower portion of emissions than is implied by the current measurement convention of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a matter for the scientists, then the measurement procedure should be modified by international agreement. The EU follows the IPCC methodology and there must be some agreed global measurement to deal with what is a global climate challenge. The Irish Government should explore what latitude may exist to bring methane measurement better in line with the science, if indeed it is exaggerating emissions from livestock farming.

The carbon leakage issue is also important and extends beyond agriculture. Both the European Commission and the US government have been considering plans to adjust border taxes (tariffs) to reflect unfair import competition from countries with weak climate policies. Green campaigners have long argued that European and American emissions have simply been outsourced to China in certain sectors.

One way to address carbon leakage would be to change the measurement system. If a country consumes steel, wherever it was produced, the emissions travel with the steel and should be debited to the importing country. It would change the picture for Ireland if the same logic applied to cheese and butter.