More on inhibition

Brian Fallow provided a good overview of the politics and reality of dealing with agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in yesterday’s Herald:

In the context of a dairy boom the arguments for exempting agriculture is likely to fall on ears if not entirely deaf, at least hard of hearing. The dairy sector, after all, would not be asked to physically reduce its emissions to some level. It would only have to take financial responsibility for any increase in emissions above that level. If it is cheaper to buy emissions reductions that have occurred elsewhere or offsets from forest sinks, well, that is exactly what a trading regime is for. It is intended to achieve emissions reductions at least cost, and reflects the fact that the atmosphere does not care where the reduction occurs. More cows, in short, may just mean more trees. Or biogas digesters. Or biodiesel from algae on effluent ponds.

Never mind the farts, it’s the fert that matters

The Sustainability Council of NZ has just published the wittily titled report A Convenient Untruth [PDF], which finds that half of NZ’s Kyoto liabilities might be met if farmers used nitrification inhibitors – substances that markedly reduce the output of potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide from farm fertiliser use. From the media statement:

Emission reductions available from the dairy industry are large in relative terms and can be achieved quickly. After seventeen years of targets without measures to achieve them, and a lack of time to get serious emissions reductions from many other options, the availability of a cornucopia of cheap and rapidly adoptable agricultural options is a remarkable break.

Herald report here.

Meanwhile, David Parker expects government policy to reduce NZ’s Kyoto commitment by 50 per cent. In the absence of policy, do we take that on trust?

Aussie carbon trading: big bikkies for grandad?

John Howard’s Task Group on Emissions Trading has produced its report [PDF]. It concludes that an emissions trading regime is the way forward for Australia, but fails to suggest targets. It’s a very useful overview of how carbon trading mechanisms might be made to work, but has clearly been hamstrung by the current political realities in Australia. It remains to be seen how John Howard, with his noted aversion to targets for greenhouse gas reductions will handle setting up a trading scheme if re-elected – or how he will be able to ignore section 7.2.1.

Adopting a credible long-term aspirational goal for national emissions reduction is critical. It sets the framework for Australia’s overall abatement efforts. Such a goal could be described in terms of the percentage reduction in emissions from a particular point in time, or in terms of the maximum number of tonnes of CO2-e that Australia is aiming to emit by a particular year.

Some Aussie press coverage here and here. Science Alert commentary here. The Australian Stock Exchange is slavering at the bit.

The scope for handouts to industry through grandfathering, as has effectively happened in Europe, is huge. BBC Radio 4’s File On Four claims that the EU’s carbon trading scheme has increased electricity bills, given a windfall to power companies and failed to cut greenhouse gases:

Power generators received their allowances free of charge but were allowed to reflect the value of those in increased prices to customers, as if the companies had actually had to buy the allowances. Energywatch believes this increased electricity bills by about 7% in 2005. And according to one government estimate, that delivered windfall profits of up to £1.3bn to the generators in that year – higher than environmental campaigners had claimed last year.

No Right Turn has an interesting post on how this problem might be addressed in NZ, warning that badly set up emissions trading schemes amount to taxpayer handouts to emitters.

National sets climate goal: 50 in 50

As outlined by Colin James last week, John Key has announced that National will now support Kyoto, and legislate to achieve a 50 percent cut in emissions by 2050. Speaking at National’s Northern Regional Conference in Whangarei, Key said:

“I will set the achievable emission reduction target for New Zealand. Here it is: A 50 percent reduction in carbon-equivalent net emissions, as compared to 1990 levels, by 2050. In shorthand: A 50 percent cut by 2050. 50 by 50. If I am Prime Minister of New Zealand I will write this target into law.

NZ emissions scheme to include all sectors and all gases

The government has announced that it will make up its mind on a domestic emissions trading scheme by September. Quoted in the Herald, climate change minister David Parker said:

“We are looking for a design that will be economy-wide, and include all sectors, and all gases.