Prior to September, neither party had any policy in place that
would actually have made any credible difference. And we
desperately need something. Because despite our clean green image,
New Zealand ranks ninth worst for increasing emissions among the
developed countries signed up to the Kyoto Protocol and our
greenhouse gas emissions per capita are in the top 12 countries
worldwide. With such a wealth of renewable energy options open to
us, and plenty of other opportunities to reduce our emissions, New
Zealand should be tracking much better when it comes to our
environmental impact.
And when it comes to other international issues, we tend to
punch well above our weight, given the size and economic clout of
our country. We're in a good position to be at the forefront of
global efforts to tackle climate change, and we should be leading
by example. If we expect other countries to make the cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions needed to address climate change, we first
need change in our own back yard.
ALL SIZZLE NO SAUSAGE
In mid August we took our message about the need for more action
to parliament, and hosted an "All Sizzle No Sausage' BBQ on the
lawn outside the Beehive, complete with Helen Clark and John
Key-embossed aprons and napkins. The aim was to highlight the
difference between political rhetoric on climate change and
substantial solutions to the problem. We also erected a billboard
in central Wellington with the words 'Climate change waits for no
politician. We need real action NOW". Our aim was to make it clear
that both major parties had set inadequate goals which sounded
good, but would achieve little. The BBQ was a great success, with
both the Climate Change Minister David Parker, and National's
Environment Spokesman Nick Smith making an appearance and doing
their best to defend their party's record.
SO WHAT’S THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT DOING?
The Labour-led government has recently announced a number of
climate-related policies; the main one being its emissions trading
scheme. In a nutshell, the scheme attaches a cost to carbon
emissions, so that over time, all emitters will have to pay for
their polluting activities. One trading permit will cover one tonne
of carbon emitted. At the moment, the Government is envisaging that
about 200 large emitters will initially fall under the scheme, but
every business will be exposed to the price on carbon in some way,
be it through air travel, vehicle and energy costs etc. The hope is
that large emitters won't WANT to pay extra to emit greenhouse
gases, so will take measures to reduce emissions. But this is by no
means a given. Read on….
That the government has announced a scheme at all is great
news. A price on greenhouse gas emissions is a crucial element of
any climate policy package and is a step in the right direction.
And the very existence of the scheme, and a price on carbon, sends
a signal to people that we can't continue as we have been, with
little regard for environmental costs.
But the scheme itself suffers severe shortcomings. It's not
coupled with an overall emissions reduction target for New Zealand,
meaning there's no guarantee it will actually lead to the emission
reductions we need. At workshops around the country to explain the
ETS, government officials have been surprisingly frank about the
fact that the scheme's objective is NOT to reduce New Zealand's
emissions, but to "meet our international obligations". There is no
reason an emissions trading scheme couldn't do both, but this would
require bold action from the government, rather than the softly
softly approach it has elected to take.
Also, despite the fact that it's responsible for almost half of
all New Zealand's emissions, agriculture is exempted from the
scheme until 2013. Leading scientists agree we have at most eight
years to act to avoid catastrophic climate change; in terms of
agriculture, the government has just agreed to waste five of them.
Meanwhile the late entry of the agriculture sector is in effect a
massive subsidy because the taxpayer must pay the financial cost of
agricultural emissions via penalties under the Kyoto Protocol. Even
when agriculture IS introduced in five years time, the sector will
be heavily assisted because the government will give it most of its
permits for free. The number of free permits allocated to the
sector will drop with each ensuing year, but for those first few
years, the government's chosen allocation method equates to yet
another subsidy.
The agriculture sector argues the only way for it to reduce its
emissions is to reduce production. No true. One third of
agriculture's emissions come from nitrous oxide from fertilizers
and solutions to this problem already exist. As for the remaining
emissions from methane, the sector needs to focus on research and
development of techniques to reduce these. It's pretty simple
really - agriculture must start taking responsibility for reducing
its emissions and where it can't, it should pay, like everyone
else.
To be effective and fair, all sectors and greenhouse gases
should be included in the ETS from the outset, polluting industries
must not be subsidised with free permits to pollute and emission
permits should be auctioned and the revenue generated invested in
equipping New Zealand to more effectively address climate
change.
The Government also recently released its Energy Strategy and
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. Both are a step in the
right direction and contain some very commendable goals, such as 90
per cent of New Zealand's electricity from renewable energy sources
by 2025 and the halving of domestic transport emissions per capita
by 2040. The strategies and goals show the Government has moved a
long way towards the Greenpeace vision of using clean energy to
tackle climate change. But what we're missing are details about how
these goals will be achieved. We look forward to seeing them.
WHERE DOES NATIONAL STAND?
The National Party claims to take climate change seriously, and
it is publicly backing the ETS. Also to its credit it has set an
overall emissions reduction target, which is more than can be said
for Labour. It has pledged to achieve a 50% reduction in carbon
equivalent net emissions, as compared to 1990 levels, by 2050.
Unfortunately this target won't go anywhere near what's needed to
fix the problem - the target is set too low to avoid dangerous
levels of climate change and to date we're yet to see a plan from
National on how the target would actually be reached. In order to
avoid dangerous levels of climate change, the New Zealand and other
developed countries need to achieve at least a 30% reduction in our
greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 80-90% reduction by 2050
from 1990 levels.
Furthermore, John Key's (and indeed the National Party's)
opposition to Kyoto is well known, and he recently sided with John
Howard and George Bush over climate change and the Protocol. Bush
and Howard are serial climate change deniers who've fought tooth
and nail to avoid taking any responsibility or signing up to
Kyoto.
Make no mistake - Kyoto is absolutely essential if we're to
tackle climate change on a global scale. It's not perfect, but it's
the best tool we've got and it must be strengthened not
undermined.
WHAT NEXT? WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NOW?
In December, governments from across the world will gather in
Bali to start determining what the Kyoto Protocol will look like
post-2012 (when the first commitment period ends). These
international climate talks will be crucial. They will shape the
ambition, content, process and timetable for the negotiation of the
next stage of Kyoto, including the setting of mandatory global
emission reduction targets.
These targets will make or break New Zealand's Emissions Trading
Scheme. If they're strong, then the global price of greenhouse gas
emissions (ie- the price that everyone who's signed up to Kyoto is
paying for what they pollute) will reflect that. If the price to
pollute is high, this will incentivise investment in cleaner energy
generation, transport fuels and agricultural practices that are
included in the New Zealand scheme. It is this redirection of
investment that will bring about actual emissions reductions within
New Zealand.. If the price is not sufficiently high, then it will
be cheaper for the polluters to continue to pollute than to change
their practices. In which case the scheme will have failed to
achieve emissions reductions within New Zealand.
The New Zealand Government must set these targets firmly at
home, then push for the same level of commitment from other
countries at Bali.