a purple tinged sky with storm clouds and three cows, with a icon of a planet on fire in the corner
The beef and dairy sector is keen to promote a different way to count methane emissions (Image: The Spinoff/Shanti Mathias)

ScienceJune 5, 2025

Changing our methane standards could set a ‘dangerous precedent’, scientists warn

Contributing writer
a purple tinged sky with storm clouds and three cows, with a icon of a planet on fire in the corner
The beef and dairy sector is keen to promote a different way to count methane emissions (Image: The Spinoff/Shanti Mathias)

A group of scientists from around the world is urging the New Zealand government to ignore a methane report it commissioned that ‘redefines the goal of climate action’. Shanti Mathias explains. 

I hear there’s an open letter. What’s that about? 

Twenty-six climate scientists have signed an open letter urging the government not to adopt a standard that would limit the amount of methane reduction New Zealand needs to achieve to reach its climate target. 

A review of New Zealand’s methane targets, conducted in 2024 by a government-appointed group separate from the independent Climate Change Commission, looked at the goal of “no additional warming”. The open letter says that “no additional warming” is a goal that “ignores scientific evidence” and could jeopardise New Zealand’s ability to achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement. 

What does ‘no additional warming’ mean? 

This term is a way to avoid responsibility, says the open letter. “It redefines the goal of climate action as simply stabilising the warming impact of emissions from any given source at current levels – rather than seeking to ‘minimise all greenhouse gas emissions’ and their contribution to global warming.”

The concept of “no additional warming” is supported by agricultural lobby groups like Beef and Lamb and Federated Farmers. It would mean that methane emissions could be kept at current levels, as long as they don’t increase; essentially an endorsement of the current amount of climate change. “It’s kind of like saying ‘I’m pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river and it’s killing life. If I go and pour 90 barrels of pollution in, I should get credit for it,” Paul Behrens, a professor at Oxford University and signatory of the letter, told the Financial Times. 

Farming lobby groups are pushing for the government of Ireland to adopt a similar approach, which scientists have also criticised. 

an outline of New Zealand with a huge cloud of smoke behit it
Image: Tina Tiller

Why are New Zealand and Ireland being singled out? 

Both countries have large agriculture sectors which produce a lot of dairy and beef for export, and have very high per-capita methane emissions. The vast majority of methane emissions come from agriculture; more than 85% in New Zealand, from grass-eating animals like cows and sheep burping it out as they digest their food. Methane made up 28.9% of Ireland’s emissions in 2022 and 43.5% of New Zealand’s emissions in 2020. By comparison, methane is about 12% of the United States’ emissions. 

Drew Shindel, an American professor who chaired the UN Environmental Programmes 2021 global methane assessment, told RNZ that the “no additional warming” target set a “dangerous precedent”. If New Zealand and Ireland adopted this standard and were followed by other countries, methane emissions wouldn’t be reduced fast enough to meet Paris Agreement targets that are already in jeopardy. 

Methane is a particularly dangerous source of emissions. While it stays in the atmosphere for less time than carbon dioxide, it causes 80 times as much heating, and causes that heating almost immediately – meaning that if methane continues to be emitted, its dangerous warming effects will continue, too. As a recognition of its more short-lived nature, the amount of methane New Zealand needs to reduce by 2050 is a separate goal to carbon emissions reductions. By 2050, New Zealand is aiming to have net-zero carbon dioxide emissions and a 24% to 47% reduction of methane. By 2030, New Zealand is aiming to have a 10% reduction of methane from 2017 levels. 

black and white friesan cows in a sunny field in front of a conical mountain with a little white snowcap
Dairy cows in front of Mt Taranaki (Photo: Getty Images)

How have New Zealand politicians reacted to this call to reduce methane? 

Fairly predictably. Christopher Luxon, to whom the letter was addressed, said that the scientists, whom he described as “worthies”, “might want to direct their focus and their letters to other countries”. He told RNZ “I’ll stack New Zealand’s record up against any other country on the planet Earth around our methane emissions,” saying that if New Zealand limited dairy or beef production, those emissions would be produced elsewhere by countries with less environmental efficiency. 

Chlӧe Swarbrick, co-leader of the Green Party, said that the “no additional warming” measure could damage New Zealand’s reputation and threaten its exports. “It’s really clear that Christopher Luxon has to end any further speculation that his government is on the climate denial bandwagon, they have wasted a year playing around with this mythical notion of ‘no additional warming’ and now international alarm bells are ringing,” she said. 

Following the report of the methane panel last year, Cabinet will decide whether to adopt a different methane target. 

More Reading

    Is New Zealand on track to meet its climate targets otherwise? 

    No. Current policies rely on tree planting and a carbon capture and storage project in the Kapuni gas field, which currently seems completely unviable. The second emissions reduction plan, released last year, put the net zero 2050 target out of reach with domestic targets, meaning New Zealand will likely have to buy millions of dollars of international carbon credits. The organisation Climate Action Tracker rates New Zealand’s progress as “highly insufficient” with current policies headed towards heating of more than four degrees Celsius. Changes to climate finance in the recent budget also mean that New Zealand is not doing its part to support less well-off countries adapt to a warmer planet and reduce their emissions.

    ‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’
    Toby Manhire
    — Editor-at-large
    Keep going!
    a split screen showing the game interface on one side and a flooded river on the other
    The Niwa game is many people’s reality as flooding around Aotearoa is exacerbated by climate change. (Image: Shanti Mathias/screenshot)

    ScienceMay 22, 2025

    Ever wondered what you would do if your town flooded? There’s a game for that

    Contributing writer
    a split screen showing the game interface on one side and a flooded river on the other
    The Niwa game is many people’s reality as flooding around Aotearoa is exacerbated by climate change. (Image: Shanti Mathias/screenshot)

    A new game from NIWA uses research into flooding and economics to play out a version of our climate changed future.

    Only 3.2% of The Spinoff’s readership supports us financially. We need to grow that to 4% this year to keep creating the work you love. Sign up to be a member today.

    As the climate warms, the chance of severe floods or storm surges increases. It’s like rolling a dice, where the dice is increasingly weighted to water sloshing through gardens, into houses and over farms. New Zealand’s coastal communities are particularly vulnerable: as sea level rises, groundwater levels will rise too. The threat of water from the sky above, the sea beyond, the ground beneath, and the streams and rivers that run through communities. 

    The challenges for people living and working near the coast are enormous. It’s important to understand, in detail, what climate change will mean for people living near the coast in Aotearoa. Where is water rising fastest? What role can adaptations like stopbanks or wetland restoration play? How will people respond when they’re asked to make hard choices? 

    Niwa’s  Future Coasts Aotearoa five-year research project is focused on coastal lowlands. It has produced groundwater maps, examined the impact of waterlogging on ecosystems and looked at different options for adaptation to “unstoppable sea level rise”. But for the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders living on coastal lowlands, that research can be hard to get your head around, so the research group has produced a game. 

    a cartoony image of a town with a mouse selecting an option to pay for a nature based solution to protect from flooding. The characters has 500000 dollars in her bank account
    The game asks characters to make choices to protect their homes, or the wider community. (Image: Screenshot)

    In the game, the dice roll of natural disasters is literal. Each round represents 10 years, and ends with a dice roll for a storm surge, of varying severity, and a flood. You can play as a dairy farmer, a townsperson or a kaumatua. Each role has different options: it’s a lot easier for the dairy farmers to sell their farms and move, as they have more capital. The kaumatua can’t sell at all, but must consider moving buildings or urupā to protect them from the inevitable floods. 

    “There are so many places around New Zealand that this scenario could apply to – like, we saw the destruction of stopbanks after Cyclone Gabrielle,” says Scott Stephens, the chief scientist for coasts and estuaries at Niwa. Developing the game drew on Future Coasts research, but also involved economists and social scientists, and was tested by local councils, who are often at the forefront of climate adaptation. 

    As in real life, there are different options for adapting to the rising waters, too. Nature-based solutions, like restoring wetlands or planting natives, can limit the damage of a flood. Stop banks and sea walls offer more protection, but if the flood is too big, they’re totally destroyed and have to be rebuilt.

    a cartoony image showing red and yellow flood zones and brown flooded water; a flood has happened in the game and characters will now have to deal with it
    As the game continues, the likelihood of rolling a severe flood or storm surge increases. (Image: screenshot)

    I played the game several times, occupying a couple of the different roles, to get a sense of the mechanism. The feeling of unfairness started to haunt me. When I was a townsperson, it wasn’t my fault that my house got flooded, twice, and I ended up having to move in with relatives! It wasn’t my fault that the new house I bought was in a flood prone location, because it was all I could afford! When I was a dairy farmer, I was frustrated at the lost income after having to repair my farm. It went underwater and became worthless. I became self interested: I focused on spending money moving my house and raising my floor level first, before investing in flood protection that could benefit the whole community. 

    It only takes about 10 minutes to play eight rounds, representing 80 years, and it’s worth doing. The cartoon-style art is approachable, the mechanism simple and the reality the game represents is absolutely terrifying. “Sea level rise is like this bulldozer: it keeps coming in and it’s not going to stop,” says Stephens. “This is the kind of thing we’re going to see happening more in the future.” This happens visually in the game. By the second half, representing a time 40 years in the future, part of the coastal town has disappeared under water, and the odds of severe floods and cyclones increase. 

    It’s one thing to know that sea level rise is happening; it’s another to realise that your grand plans to do more to protect your community are being ruined by another flood. The game makes the stakes for individuals more obvious. There is a personal cost to a climate hazard which can endure long past when a flood or storm surge actually happens. “The choices you make are long lasting, you don’t have as much time as you might think,” Stephens says.

    More Reading

    I realised as I played the game that to maximise my chances of being able to stay in the town, it was best to invest in flood protection and to move my house as soon as possible. “There’s a temptation with the economics,” Stephens says. “At first you think ‘what if I do nothing and just keep the money,’ but you learn something as you keep playing, that it’s better to spend money first.” 

    While the game uses a simplified hazard map, many councils have produced detailed hazard maps of flood prone areas. These have financial consequences, too: insurers use them to determine premiums in some areas – especially because climate change minister Simon Watts is yet to release a national adaptation framework for the country. For many people, the Future Coasts game is something they’re already living. 

    The conclusions might be dispiriting, especially because so many communities in Aotearoa have already been devastated by floods exacerbated by climate change in the last decade. But there’s a hopeful aspect, too. “We have choices,” says Stephens. “You can do things differently [as an individual] and there are community wide solutions.”