Climate Change Commission reports and global studies show little reason to conclude that reducing New Zealand's agricultural output is certain to lead to increased global climate emissions.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon and political commentator Matthew Hooton last week both made versions of the claim that the environment would be worse off if New Zealand's international customers turn to dirtier producers offshore.

"Every time there is one less cow in New Zealand and one more in the US, the world gets just that little bit hotter," Hooton wrote.

The issue is (somewhat unfortunately) known as "leakage".

It basically describes whether interventions to reduce emissions, for example making farmers pay for the climate gases they emit, will cause farmers to lose market share to international competitors who don't face similar measures.

On Tuesday, the government released for consultation its plan to price agricultural emissions, which has prompted pushback from farmers with sheep and beef producers particularly hard hit, but it has also irked environmentalists.

Agricultural consultant Will Wilson claims the government's logic behind setting prices for farm-level emissions is flawed.

He recently outlined his thoughts in two podcasts on BuzzWorthy. The first of which can be viewed here and the second one here.

Will Wilson says the Government should price "net emissions" by the sector rather than "gross emissions".

Agricultural consultant Will Wilson on the latest 'Future Buzz' podcast. Photo: Buzzworthy.

The Climate Change Commission released a report on the issue earlier this year which canvassed a number of studies done in New Zealand and overseas.

It found that globally "there is little evidence that emissions leakage is a material issue in sectors covered by different emissions pricing systems and climate policies".

Ultimately, it said the risk could be addressed and it was not a reason to shy away from reducing emissions.

-Additional reporting by Hamish Cardwell/RNZ.