In 2019, Norwegian agriculture took part in a voluntary climate agreement with the state where the intention is to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. Or in absolute terms: Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture must be reduced by 5 million CO2 equivalents by 2030. But the target is a long way off, and in the last two years the distance has only grown larger. For agriculture, there was an increase in emissions in 2021 of 1.2 per cent compared to 2020. The increase is mainly due to more dairy and lactating cows, and an increase in mineral fertiliser. This is shown by new figures from Statistics Norway. At the same time, the climate cooperation between the Farmers’ Association and the Small Farmers’ Association has cracked. The core of the dispute is the so-called climate calculator, which the Småbrukarlaget no longer wants to participate in. – I want to prioritize that the farmer gets as good finances as other groups. Until then, climate work will not receive increased priority, announced the new leader of the Small Farmers’ Association, Tor Jacob Solberg, in October. In 2019, agriculture joined a voluntary climate agreement to cut emissions by 20 percent. Olaug Bollestad (KrF) was then Minister of Agriculture. Photo: Vidar Ruud / NTB – Today, climate policy is an “elective subject” in agriculture. Storting representative for the Liberal Party, Alfred Bjørlo, understands that emission reductions in agriculture take time and that measures are expensive, but wishes for a “more forward-looking industry”. Quite concretely, he calls for two things: An immediate “track report” from agriculture on how things stand with the emission reductions they have committed to by 2030. A binding agreement with Norwegian agriculture, where they are no longer “on the side” of Norwegian climate policy, but is an integral part of the overall climate policy. – Today, climate policy is an “elective” for Norwegian agriculture. The time has come for it to become a compulsory subject, and for agriculture to come in as a self-evident part of climate change, says Bjørlo. CO₂ in the atmosphere measured in parts per million particles (ppm)460 parts per million particles (ppm)? Click for an explanation of parts per million, abbreviated ppmGo to news’s Climate Status Why is the graph so wavy? This is about seasons. In summer, the amount of CO₂ decreases because plants and trees absorb CO₂ from the air. In winter, the plants die, the CO₂ escapes and the graph rises. Since there are more plants and trees in the northern hemisphere, the seasons here control the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. What is the problem with a lot of CO₂ in the atmosphere? The greenhouse effect makes the earth livable, but more greenhouse gases, such as CO₂, increase this effect and make the earth warmer . The graph starts in 1960 because this was the year when the world began to measure CO₂ systematically. It happened on Mauna Loa in Hawaii and the curve shows the measurements from there. Before the world became industrialized there was around 280 ppm CO₂ in the atmosphere (year 1700). The researchers found that out by analyzing ice core samples. Will there be less CO₂ in the atmosphere if emissions are cut? No, not immediately. If we cut emissions, the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere will only increase more slowly. The reduction in emissions must be large and last for a long time before we can see an effect. Imagine that the atmosphere is a bathtub and the greenhouse gases are the water you fill in. Even if you turn off the tap, the bathtub will not run out of water. This is the case with greenhouse gases and CO₂. It takes a long time for CO₂ to break down in the atmosphere. This is the reason why the experts want technology that sucks out greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, in addition to us cutting emissions. The world’s politicians have decided that they will try to limit the warming of the world to 1.5 degrees, compared to how the temperature was before the industrial revolution. Then we must keep the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere below 430 ppm, according to the UN’s climate panel. Leader of Norway’s Farmers’ Association, Bjørn Gimming, replies that they always report on how the climate work is doing, and that it is important to bear in mind that agriculture is fundamentally different from other industries. – The majority of emissions from agriculture come from a biological process. It is much easier to cut emissions from the cow than to replace a fossil engine with an electric engine. (See the full answer below). – Not everything is captured in the official climate calculation Bjørn Gimming, leader of the Norwegian Farmers’ Association – The increase in emissions from agriculture comes from increased demand for meat and milk due to the pandemic and little cross-border trade, and also a small increase in mineral fertilisers. During the pandemic, more meals were eaten in Norway, and Norwegian farmers then took responsibility and increased production. It shows, among other things, that travel and food imports mean that Norway has a large carbon leak. During the work leading up to the climate agreement and in connection with climate reports in the Storting, emphasis has been placed on the fact that we must avoid carbon leakage. We also have to take into account that food production involves emissions and that it is not a solution to cut so much in Norway that the Norwegian food supply and food preparedness are reduced. Work is carried out systematically to report on the climate work to the industry. Every year, the professional association in agriculture prepares a status report on our work in fulfilling the climate agreement. As a background for this report, all the players in agriculture who have a role in the Norwegian Agriculture Department’s climate plan provide a roadmap for the investment areas for which they are responsible. This report is part of the requirement agriculture has for the agricultural negotiations. In 2023, the accounting group for the climate agreement will provide a major status report for the work on agriculture. One of the basic planks for measuring the effects of climate work in agriculture is the rollout of a climate calculator at farm level, because this also shows how agriculture both cuts emissions and produces more Norwegian food. This is not captured in the official climate calculation. There is a huge mobilization from goods recipients, the financial sector and the Farmers’ Association to use this calculator, because the calculator and climate advice give a good overview of how you can optimize your operations. Climate and Environment Minister Espen Barth Eide (Ap) is traveling to Montreal to participate in the high-level part of the COP15 nature summit later in December. Photo: Truls Alnes Antonsen / news – Anyone who leans forward too much goes on the nose Today is the start of the 15th UN Conference on Biological Diversity (COP15). The aim is to put in place “a historic agreement” on the same level as the Paris Agreement from 2015. In advance of the meeting, agriculture was pointed to as “one of five key drivers of nature loss”. What is COP15? The UN meeting in Montreal will be the 15th meeting of the Conference on Natural Diversity since the UN Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in 1992, hence the name: COP15. COP27, which was held in Sharm el-Sheikh in November, was the 27th meeting under the UN Climate Convention (UNFCCC). COP27 put climate change in the spotlight, not just biodiversity, although the two areas are closely linked. The climate and biodiversity crisis have for many years been seen as separate issues, with separate solutions. In reality, the two are closely linked, even though these meetings are part of two separate international negotiation processes. Source: fn.no Director of the National Association of the Meat and Poultry Industry, Bjørn-Ola Juul-Hansen, rejects the claim that the agricultural sector is not “leaning forward enough”: – Anyone who leans forward too much will end up on the nose, he says. He points out that agriculture must act within an “eternal perspective”. – Then we have to focus on doing a job. Not to take part in a popularity contest to say the “right” climate change. The voluntary climate agreement for agriculture is currently divided in two: Agriculture is responsible for measures on the farm, while the state is responsible for food waste and food security. – Can’t call the farmers a climate sink Sigrid Margrethe Hoddevik Losnegård, central board member for Nature and Youth – If we’re going to talk about more sustainable agriculture in Norway, we can’t blame the farmers and say that the village is a climate sink. Rather, we must focus on the support the farmers will receive, so that seder farming and other traditional forms of agriculture that are adapted to Norwegian nature can once again be possible to live on. In addition, we have to talk about the threat that is actually the worst for Norwegian nature, which is deconstruction. It is the sum of all interventions in nature that means that we are in the middle of a natural crisis today. In order for Norwegian agriculture and Norwegian nature to survive, one must first map all Norwegian nature, in addition to the municipalities having to advocate for a nature budget and area neutrality. Karoline Andaur, secretary general of the WWF World Nature Fund – We do not think that most farmers are lazy, the farmers notice climate change on the bottom line, when the rain shines with its absence and crops are destroyed. We must give farmers room to make choices that provide greater robustness to cope with a changing climate, and where the need for self-sufficiency will become stronger as the world’s food system is affected by climate change. Many people must contribute to shaping an agricultural policy that gives us a sustainable food system, but that is primarily the responsibility of the politicians. In this system, we must prioritize production methods that are good for nature and the climate, we must promote a sustainable consumption pattern with a more plant-based diet, and we must prevent food waste. For example, we need more support for farmers who increase carbon storage in agriculture, and we need systematic policies to care for and restore bogs. It is natural that the trail report requested by Bjørli is included in the Green Book, which is the government’s annual climate status and plan which should incorporate climate policy better into the budget process. – The climate agreement is ambitious. So ambitious that it is doubtful whether agriculture will be able to fulfill it, says Klaus Mittenzwei. He is a senior researcher at Ruralis (Institute for Rural and Regional Research). In a recently completed research project, the institute has made calculations which show that it costs five times as much to get the same climate benefit in agriculture as in the transport sector. – It is therefore natural that agriculture has lower emissions reduction requirements than transport and the construction industry. If they could still be more forward-leaning? Well, maybe. There is probably a tendency for them to cling a little too much to a climate agreement that they cannot fulfill. – Bjørlo is asleep in the hour Willfred Nordlund, Center Party – Alfred Bjørlo is asleep in the hour if he has not registered that Norwegian agriculture is part of the climate solution. Agriculture has committed to the climate agreement they signed in 2020, which the consistent reporting shows. The Department of Agriculture recently came out with a report on the progress made in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and they will come out with a new report in 3 months. Climate is certainly not an elective for Norwegian agriculture. The next time Bjørlo has to make a statement about agriculture, he should let it be concentrated feed for the cows. Good operation and emission reduction depend to a large extent on continuous improvements. This is an industry that is controlled by the weather, so there will be fluctuations for each individual use from year to year, but the sum will be emission reductions. The Paris Agreement obliges the countries of the world to limit the rise in temperature on earth to less than 2 degrees – preferably 1.5 degrees. The aim is to prevent the heating from causing irreparable damage. Photo: Hanne Wilhelms / news New measurements show a record amount of methane over Norway The head of the Norwegian Nature Conservation Union, Truls Gulowsen, believes that the agreement with agriculture contains too few concrete measures, and is not suitable to ensure that agriculture takes its share of Norway’s climate cuts. – Especially as reduced meat consumption was not included in the agreement. Real restructuring is also needed in agriculture to make Norway climate neutral. Agriculture has a lot to contribute here, through better methods, more forest protection, biogas, solar energy and less use of soya. New measurements in November show a record amount of methane over Norway. Among the biggest emission sources are emissions from wetlands (ditching of bogs) and emissions from ruminants. Bob van Oort is a senior researcher at Cicero (Centre for climate research). He says to news that “many established truths are used in the agricultural sector to avoid changes in production”. – It does not look like the sector is able to invest enough here. It is clear that in some places there are challenges in terms of climate, terrain or soil conditions, but it is also clear that there are more opportunities in production and innovation than the sector is taking advantage of. He adds: – A more forward-leaning agriculture can do much more to reduce emissions. But arrangements must be made for that.
ttn-69
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture are increasing – news Vestland
