Anderson’s message is that although the Paris Agreement was a diplomatic triumph, it relies on speculative utopian technological fixes (bio-energy carbon capture and storage) in the future in order to reconcile the now extremely limited carbon budgets consistent with the desired 2C (and 1.5C) temperature limits with business-as-usual economics and politics. In other words, the Paris Agreement locks out the 2C target.
Why do I mention that? Because I want to run a ‘Kevin Anderson’ ruler over the New Zealand Government’s recently announced ratification of the Paris Agreement. To conduct a bare assessment of New Zealand’s emissions taking account that it is the cumulative emissions that determine warming. I want to ask the question ‘does the New Zealand ratification also lock out any policies for emissions reductions consistent with a fair share of a 2 degrees Celsius carbon budget?’
Geoff Simmons of the Morgan Foundation tells a good story about dodgy uncle Trev, fake bank notes and real moro bars while he fact-checks Paula Bennett on the integrity of the surplus emission units. It’s a real triple-dip!
Geoff Simmons and the Morgan Foundation have done it again! They have just released a sequel to ‘Climate Cheats’, the fantastically-named ‘Who’s the Real Cheat Here? Climate Cheats II: The Dozen Dirty Businesses’.
Simon Johnson (aka Mr February) reviews ‘Climate Cheats II’ and concludes that while it’s about time we had more transparency over Government and corporate shenanigans with emissions trading, we mustn’t forget that these are symptoms of the root problem – the uncapped design of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme.
Newsflash shock horror! The Morgan Foundation and Geoff “Wild-Shirt” Simmons have done it again. They have just released another tell-all critique of corporate emissions trading shenanigans, a sequel to the franchise they launched in April 2016 with the report Climate Cheats. As we know, ‘Cheats I’ outlined this sad course of events:
a ‘flood’ of low-cost and low-integrity Russian and Ukrainian emissions reduction units into the NZ emission unit market
which then crashed the domestic emission unit price
which allowed NZ emitters to meet emissions trading obligations for next to nothing
which allowed the Government to own large numbers of surplus (but dodgy) units
which meant Paula Bennett could claim ‘form over substance’ compliance with climate charge targets out to 2020
not withstanding the real increases in both gross and net NZ emissions of greenhouse gases.
I wonder if Paula Bennett thought she would get a soft jokey interview with that nice young man Jack Tame. She certainly didn’t. Tame takes the interview 110% seriously. He does not smile. He delivers his questions and his interruptions through a taught stone-face. And his questions are good questions.
We perhaps need to remember about a year ago, Jack Tame stood in for Mike Hosking on ‘Mike’s Minute’ and gave us a month of refreshingly different short pieces to camera. In that month, Jack Tame talked about climate change. And he concluded with a minute titled climate tipping points. So Tame takes climate change and climate change policy seriously.
Tame gives Bennett a couple of minutes to gush enthusiastically about the signing of the Paris Agreement. Then he cuts straight to the Morgan Foundation’s Climate Cheats report which alleges that the New Zealand Government was complicit in allowing dubious international carbon credits (Russian and Ukrainian and emission reduction units or ‘ERUs’) into the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.
Simon Johnson looks at ‘fix the ETS’ metaphors and argues that trying to incrementally ‘save’ or ‘fix’ the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme will ensure it remains ineffective in reducing domestic emissions for decades. Politically, its just flogging the dead horse. We don’t have time for a unending institutionalised cultural conflict over ‘fixing the NZETS’ like the one we have had for ‘fixing’ the Resource Management Act.
Other commentators are using a very different framing for the review; that of ‘fixing the NZETS’. For me that raises some fundamental questions. What are the political advantages and disadvantages of the two framings? Where will each framing lead us? Which framing is more ‘science-informed’?