Reaction to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) has not been slow coming in, and so far the government seems to have pulled off a remarkable balancing act, gaining at least grudging support from most quarters. Bill English was quick to say that the ETS looked “broadly sound
Category: Climate business
The presenter, the author, and the crank
Marcus Lush rang me up this morning for a chat about the emissions trading scheme on his Radio Live breakfast show (podcast and stream available here). Nice plug for the book, too, but my bit was followed by a “dissenting
NZ emissions trading scheme announced
Details of the government’s planned emissions trading scheme (ETS) have been announced. Scoop has all the government speeches and press releases. I’m reading them at the moment, and will comment more later, but here are some highlights:
- Foresters will receive the full value of carbon credits on new growth (from 1/1/2008) in post-1990 forests.
- Agriculture will not be brought into the scheme until 2013.
- NZ emissions units will be Kyoto-complaint and internationally tradeable (subject to some limits).
- Some units will be allocated free, others auctioned.
- Forestry will be first into the scheme in Jan 2008.
- Transport’s next, in 2009, basically through fuel prices
- Stationery energy (power generation) and heavy industry will enter in 2010, with no free allocation for electricity generators.
- Farmers will get free allocation of units based on 90% of 2005 emissions, but details to be worked out
The government hopes that 90% of power generation will be from renewable sources by 2025. In transport, they want to cut per capita emissions in half by 2040, and encourage the wide use of electric vehicles. Goals for agriculture are more nebulous: to be the world leader in emissions reduction research, and to lead the world in agricultural emissions reductions. In forestry, they would like a net increase of 250,000ha in forest area by 2020.
The government has also released an update on our expected Kyoto deficit – up to 45.5 millions tonnes from 41.2 mT, mainly from increased dairy production. In the absence of any emissions reduction policy, the government projects this could rise to 65mT, but believes the ETS will cut the 2008-12 deficit to 25mT.
My first thought? Politically astute. By getting foresters on board with what amounts to a taxpayer subsidy, they get enough trees planted to offset a large chunk of the Kyoto liability, and buy time to bring agricultural emitters in to the scheme. More later.
Thursday build-up
With only a couple of days to the government’s big emissions trading announcement, the media are getting all excited. Colin James in the Herald grumbles about the lack of consultation and the need to build a consensus outside of Parliament, and then switches tack to suggest that the really important negotiations are to do with what follows Kyoto. Rod Oram in the Sunday Star Times suggests (rather more cogently) why there’s hope of action by the US, Australia and China. The Press, meanwhile, fears that some power companies might make windfall profits under emissions trading (step forward Meridian), and predicts that forestry could be the next big thing.
Shop’n’save
An excellent, thought-provoking article by Mark Lynas in yesterday’s Guardian [UK] examines the greening of the High Street that is transforming British shopping. Lynas points out many of the inconsistencies inherent in green consumerism, and then asks the big question:
At the heart of green consumerism lies a single unanswered question: can ever-increasing resource consumption be truly reconciled with the ecological constraints of a fragile planet?
Tesco supermarket boss Terry Leahy thinks so, and is making his company as green as a supermarket can be, but this doesn’t impress some environmentalists. George Monbiot, ever the master of the pithy phrase, sums it up:
“No political challenge can be met by shopping.