Category: Climate politics

NZ emissions trading scheme announced

NzetsDetails 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.

The not-so-lucky country

Australia-Bondi-BeachThe New South Wales government has decided that Sydney’s current water restricions are going to be permanent, because climate change projections suggest long term reductions in rainfall [Daily Telegraph(AU), ABC]. Meanwhile, CSIRO has released a report suggesting that three of the city’s great beaches could be lost to sea level rise. The Daily Telegraph reports:

[Waverley mayor George] Newhouse launched a climate-change marker today at North Bondi Children’s Pool, which he said was forecast to be under water by 2030. The marker indicates to beach visitors the predicted water height by 2100. “At Bondi, Tamarama and Bronte, we will just lose the whole beach and at other beaches like Collaroy and Narrabeen (in Sydney’s north) we will see houses falling into the water,

“Global warming heroes” ride on

CowFederated Farmers president Charlie Pedersen (our second Pedersen of the day — see ice post below) uses the opportunity of an opinion column in the Herald today to run his NZ farmers are “global warming heroes” PR once more round the block.

Surely it would be better for the global environment if these inefficient food producers scaled back their food production, and instead bought more food from New Zealand. It seems obvious that increasing greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand to produce more food is, overall, a better way to curb climate change. The whole world would be better off. So the next time you hear someone having a go at New Zealand farmers stuffing up the climate, challenge it. Remember, compared with subsidised, inefficient farmers in most other countries, New Zealand farmers are climate change heroes.

Charlie gets the basics of his argument right: food miles are a blunt tool, NZ farmers are — in world terms — relatively low-carbon producers of food, but his main point is both subtle and debatable. Buying NZ farm produce instead of more local, but higher carbon food would result in a net reduction in global emissions — if it were likely to happen. It isn’t. The “local food” movement (evidenced by the huge growth in farmer’s markets around the world) is about more than just carbon emissions. Consumers buy local because they like to support their local producers, and celebrate fresh seasonal produce. It’s a food and lifestyle movement, not a green ideology. It’s not going away, and whether our farmers like it or not, NZ is not local to anywhere other than itself.

The “subsidised, inefficient farmers” Charlie’s busily bagging will respond by reducing their carbon footprints, and improving their international carbon competitiveness. Our farmers need to be proactive, and do the same if they want to maintain their sales in export markets. It’s a commercial necessity. Sitting on your carbon laurels is not good policy.

Emissions plan due Thursday

The government’s emissions trading scheme will be announced on Thursday. The Herald reports:

Helen Clark indicated farmers would get a reprieve on when they would join in because of the difficulties in reducing methane emissions from stock. Bringing various industries into the scheme would be staggered. “I don’t want to reveal the sequence, but clearly there’s different capacity to cope with the challenges. And agriculture’s challenge is clearly the biggest because we don’t have the answer on how to drop pastoral greenhouse gas emissions,