I’ve been struggling to write something coherent about the sectoral targets and the journey farming must go on to fulfil its obligations.

There are a couple of reasons for this, I think.

The first is simply having the time to think clearly. As often happens when a big farming story breaks, the news team on the Irish Farmers Journal are asked to contribute to the analysis and debate on local and national media.

And ultimately you are answering the questions you are asked, which may predominantly cover one aspect of the issue.

And a lot of the questions since Thursday have focused on the nature of the debate around emissions.

Why are farmers defensive and angry? Why did farming get “special treatment” with a lower target in percentage terms than other sectors?

I think there is a connection between the two questions.

Farmers are upset at the presentation of farming as “industrial”, with pejorative phrases like “big dairy” thrown around.

The IFA and other farm organisations are presented by some as an almost sinister force with a hidden agenda.

Of course, this cuts both ways. Some of the things farmers have said about An Taisce and individual commentators have been less than constructive.

It’s always better to play the ball than the player, I find.

In answer to why the target is 25%, it looks to me like a compromise between opposing forces.

A political compromise between the coalition partners, an economic compromise in terms of how radical the surgery to family farms should be, and a recognition that food production is a sector that is important to humanity.

To those who say every sector should have to meet the upper limit of their target range, the question back might be what was the point in having target ranges at all?

It increasingly seems apparent that the ranges were a political fudge.

On the plus side, it has probably allowed time for some conditioning in the thinking of farmers, and those in other sectors, in terms understanding the realities of what was coming when the narrow targets were confirmed.

The negative side of the initial establishment of target ranges was that the debate around agriculture’s target has become very divisive and polarised.

But we have now our target, we must accept it and work to meet it.

One political fudge remains

One thing that hasn’t been much discussed is that farming doesn’t just have one target to work towards, it actually has two.

Alongside the 25% reduction for agriculture, the burden for achieving the 38-57% reduction for land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) falls mostly on farmers.

You might well ask why there is still such a broad target range. That’s because the Government decided it didn’t have enough information to set a target.

Baseline measuring is under way, but it will be another 18 months before the Government sets a target.

This is concerning for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there is a significant chance that this Government won’t survive until early 2024. We could have this target set by an entirely different cabinet to the one that set the other five targets.

Secondly, we will have only six years to achieve reductions of at least 40% in LULUCF emissions. That means half the 2018-2030 timespan will have elapsed.

You could say it’s time wasted. The less time we have, the more likely that radical solutions will be required.

And the really bad news is that the burden will fall on a small percentage of our farmers, the ones who farm on peatland.

As I outlined on Countrywide on RTE Radio 1 on Saturday morning, only 8% of farmland is emitting carbon. Nine in every 10 hectares is trapping carbon.

Unfortunately, the 8% is emitting an awful lot of carbon - about 20tCO2/ha, according to Teagasc research.

And the solution to reducing emissions from this land may not be compatible with it continuing to operate as farmland.

I discussed this last April in one of these columns in more detail.

For those of you who feel you have committed enough to read this far without delving into a second long read, suffice it to say I got my figures wrong, inadvertently, on Countrywide.

The 8% of land that is peatland emits 9m tonnes of carbon, the remaining land traps 2m tonnes. I quoted figures of 11m tonnes of emissions and 9m tonnes of carbon.

However, the essential maths remains the same; the emissions from this small land base are hugely problematic.

Remember, current emissions from agriculture are about 23m tonnes CO2. Our target is to reduce this to 17.25million tonnes CO2.

The emissions from this 350,000ha of peatland exceed all the reductions we will achieve even if we hit our target.

We need to know immediately how much of this land is owned by Bord Na Mona and Coillte, and how much of it is privately owned farmland.

A huge burden is going to fall on the owners of that farmland, and they will need massive support.

Not just direct financial support, for the implications for the social fabric of life in the most affected areas will be very significant.

The longer we fail to grasp this particular nettle, the more it will sting when we do.

Emissions reduction means herd reduction

A reduction in the national herd is now inevitable. There is simply no other way we can meet our emissions reduction target.

Both Minister for the Environment Eamon Ryan and Minister for Agriculture Charlie McConalogue have been firm on the commitment that any reduction will be voluntary.

I’m taking that to mean that a line cut of some type on cow numbers will not be imposed.

There is an expectation on the part of the farm organisations that any reduction will be voluntary and incentivised by supports.

There is a proposal that this take the form of a voluntary cessation scheme.

This needs to be quickly put in place if it is to happen. The earlier we reduce numbers the more quickly and easily we meet our target.

In addition, its introduction will allay the fears of farmers that there’s going to be “herd reduction by stealth”.

How do we conduct the conversation now?

The science around climate change is settled. It is the defining issue of our time - the very future of humanity and the living planet is on the line. No one should underestimate the scale of the challenge in minimising global warming.

However, that does not mean that we cannot continue to debate issues like how we count carbon and how we measure carbon.

The EU is still wrestling with the creation of a standardised model for these basic tools.

It is legitimate to raise the issue of biogenic methane and the evolving understanding of its impact on global warming. That is not climate denial, and to paint it as such is disingenuous.

Farmers are also entitled to highlight that some sectors are being allowed to offset emissions, whereas farming is required to bring its sectoral footprint down by real reductions in gross emissions.

In many cases, those offsets will be created from actions undertaken on farmland.

If we are really moving to carbon neutrality in 2050, that is a worthwhile conversation.

The best way farmers can prosecute these conversations is by accepting the sectoral target we have been given, and working honestly toward meeting it.

In doing that, the accusations that farmers are trying to undermine the climate agenda through special pleading are undermined.

Political reaction

Finally, a word about the range of political reaction. Frankly, some of it has been poor.

Michael Collins, the Cork South West Independent TD, said that farming should have been given a sectoral target of 0%.

That is not a credible standpoint, unless you believe that climate change is a hoax.

His constituency colleague, Holly Cairns, tweeted that the 25% target was “shameful”.

That’s about as helpful as Collins’s contribution, in my opinion.

How anyone can describe a target of a one-quarter reduction in emissions in only eight years as “shameful” is beyond me.

Cairns followed up by saying that farming will face a cliff-edge because the Government is “delaying the inevitable”.

I think that really underestimates the scale of change that farming must undergo in less than a decade.

Much of the work we will do may well create pathways for the further future sharp reductions in carbon emissions required from farming in the 2030s and 2040s as we move towards carbon neutrality, as a sector and as a society.

That is the ultimate goal. The 2030 target is nothing more than a staging post on that journey.

Well before 2030, we will have to agree a target for 2035 and perhaps 2040, and begin to take the steps toward those other targets even as we meet the initial 2030 25% target.

For that reason, it might be better if we stop talking about whether 25% is enough, too much or too little.

Instead, we could all focus on rolling up our sleeves and meeting our target.

I am confident we will meet our target. I’m less confident about the LULUCF target.

It may be the bigger challenge and be more divisive and unfair as it seems it will require a huge sacrifice from a relatively small group of farmers and landowners.