Less than a decade after the red meat industry promised to reach net-zero emissions by 2030, it has abandoned the goal claiming it is not possible.
A review conducted by the Red Meat Advisory Council (RMAC) found it was not achievable to meet the ambitious 2030 net-zero target announced by Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) in 2017 and adopted in 2019.
Independent chair, Red Meat Advisory Council, John McKillop, said it was partly due to a better understanding of emissions reduction and a realisation they were not on track to reach the target.
“We just, quite frankly, realised we’re not going to get to carbon neutral by 2030,” he said.
“There’s no point in continuing on blindly having a target that we know we’re not going to reach.”
Livestock contributes about 11 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to the national greenhouse gas inventory.
Mr McKillop said dropping the target would not impact any research and development programs.
“We’ll still be trying to reduce our emissions as much as we can, but the focus will now be on emissions intensity rather than the absolute number of tonnes of carbon emitted,” he said.
New methodology proposed
The Red Meat Advisory Council will request Meat and Livestock Australia complete modelling on emissions intensity, which it estimates will take a year before any new five- and 10-year targets are set for the industry.
Pressed on whether this reversal would receive any backlash from consumers or key export markets, Mr McKillop was resolute.
“No, I don’t think so. I think you could look at it and say, ‘Well, that was a really ambitious target. You got 78 per cent of the way there, five years out from it,'” he said.
“As long as that research keeps evolving and that extension keeps getting adopted, then I think we’re well and truly on the way to leading the world in terms of climate change from livestock production.”
Livestock contributes about 11 per cent of Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to the national greenhouse gas inventory. (ABC News: Robert Koenig-Luck)
Federal government ‘disappointed’
In a statement, a federal government spokesperson said the industry would be required to continue to reduce emissions.
“The Albanese Labor government has supported the red meat industry in its ambitious goal to be carbon neutral by 2030,” they said.
“While the decision by industry to step away from this aspiration is disappointing, this does not change the need for Australian agriculture to continue to contribute to the economy-wide 2035 targets and the net-zero by 2050 goal, which will require all sectors across agriculture to make meaningful emissions reductions.”
Farmers have mixed views
Romy Carey, CEO of the NT Cattlemen’s Association, told the NT Country Hour the change should not be viewed as a backward step.
Romy Carey says the move is “a bit of a strategic realignment”, rather than a backward step. (Supplied)
“The original CN30 plan wasn’t grounded in a workable industry-wide plan,” she said.
“I think it’s the right call to correct the course. We need policies based on evidence — not just aspiration.”
“I don’t think it’s a step backwards but a bit of a strategic realignment.”
However, Farmers for Climate Action CEO Natalie Collard said any change to emissions methodology must have integrity and be widely accepted.
“We understand RMAC dropping the carbon-neutral by 2030 target because most farmers won’t achieve net-zero emissions by then,” she said.
“However, we’re a science-based organisation, so we can’t pretend ‘climate neutral’ and ‘GWP*’ [global warming potential] is a credible science.”
“We have never had to greenwash. Why would we start now?
“This methodology has never been modelled … and it would also mean that a sheep would have higher emissions intensity than a cow, simply because of the lower weight. It just doesn’t make sense.”
Caitlin Webb backs the red meat industry’s plan to walk away from ambitions to reach net zero by 2030. (ABC Rural: Emily Middleton)
Caitlin Webb from VC Reid Livestock said the news was a relief for farmers, and the initial target might not have been practical.
“I think it’s good; it takes a lot of stress off the farmers,” she said.
“I think we can reduce [emissions], but I don’t think we can ever really achieve net zero working with livestock.”
