A Climate Change commissioner is defending its recommendations to the Government around reducing agricultural emissions .
It comes after Greenpeace claimed the Commission ignored its own advice , which could have cut agricultural emissions by a third or more.
This advice was contained in a report — Eliminating synthetic nitrogen fertiliser on dairy farms — which showed New Zealand could allegedly achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if it eliminated synthetic nitrogen fertiliser.
However, by the time the Commission made its recommendations to the Government, the evidence had changed from being described as "robust" to "limited", Greenpeace claimed.
Commissioner Dr Harry Clark denied on Breakfast on Friday its advice was "softer" and "more equivocal" than it should be.
He said the Commission was "confident" it had done what the Government had asked it to do and its recommendations were "fair, ambitious and equitable".
"We will undoubtedly disappoint some people who would like us to go faster, but we have to balance that, we have to take into account the impact on people.
"If not, how will we take people with us on that journey? And that journey does mean that people have to buy in to the journey and so it is a delicate balance and yet I do not think we have strained away from that internal document which very clearly says if you reduce nitrogen, we can show that there will be a reduction in greenhouse gases."
Clark warned presenter John Campbell needed to be careful of "selective quotes" from its internal report.
"There is robust evidence, but it comes from a limited amount of studies. It’s robust because all of the studies are pointing in the same direction — they point to a reduction in emissions."
He said the phrase "perverse outcome" could also be found in the report, where studies said the elimination of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser on dairy farms could lead to additional feed being made to maintain production, which in the end would not reduce emissions.
"The studies that it [report] quoted are robust, they’re consistent, they’re quite variable in the quantum, but they do point to that."
Russell Norman says it is hard to understand why a "very important tool" was left off the Climate Change Commission's recommendations to Parliament.
Campbell put it to Clark the Commission's continuum of advice to the Government had swayed more to consideration of how much was being asked of farmers rather than on behalf of the climate.
He had this response: "As I said at the start, the Climate Commission has to balance a number of factors. There are also very clear guidelines in the legislation around the reductions needed.
"What we have done ... is set agriculture on a pathway to a lower emissions future. We have said that by 2030 there will be less animals, there will be less nitrogen fertiliser, but we’ve suggested that that can be done without reducing the profitability of farms.
"And we are slightly ahead in our recommendations of what the Government targets are ... any group has to have a sense of balance between removing emissions as quickly as possible, but also making sure that transition is fair and equitable. And I think we have struck that balance."
SHARE ME