The New Zealand government may have to spend billions buying carbon credits overseas to meet its climate targets, according to a report by the Treasury and the Ministry for the Environment.
The Climate Economic and Fiscal Assessment 2023 report, published this month, looked at how climate change will affect New Zealand's economy and finances.
It found NZ would “almost certainly” need offshore carbon mitigation to meet its climate commitments, which could cost anywhere between $3.3 billion to $23.7 billion.
These costs were a “significant fiscal risk” which could absorb between 3.9% to 28% of all new operating expenditure in the next seven government budgets.
In the Paris Climate Agreement, NZ promised to reduce its net emissions to 50% below 2005 gross levels by 2030 and will have to use both domestic and offshore mitigation to achieve that goal.
“For all scenarios considered, our analysis estimates this cost to be multiple billions over the period 2024 to 2030,” the Treasury and the Environment Ministry said in the report.
This was estimated to cost somewhere between $7.7 billion and $9.9 billion, even in a scenario where the cost of carbon credits aligned with the current price in well-established markets.
The average carbon price in these markets was about $95 per tonne, compared to NZ units which have recently been trading at about $60.
However, the bill could be much larger or smaller in different scenarios included in the report.
The International Energy Association (IEA) has estimated a carbon price for emerging economies at about $41 per tonne, which would mean a cost to NZ of between $3.3 billion and $4.2 billion.
On the other end of the sale, the IEA also estimated a price of $227 per tonne for advanced economies in a scenario of “advanced global climate action”.
This would translate into a cost of between $18.3 billion and $23.7 billion.
Not a sure thing
The report said these estimates should be treated as “illustrative”, and not as forecasts or projections, as they rely on assumptions about a highly uncertain future.
“The intent of the analysis is to demonstrate the broad size of the potential fiscal cost of the purchase of given volumes of offshore mitigation to achieve New Zealand’s NDC1”.
NDC1 refers to the first Nationally Determined Contribution, or how much NZ promised to reduce emissions between 2021 and 2030 in the Paris Climate Accord.
“Domestic policy decisions will materially influence the amount of domestic mitigation New Zealand is able to achieve and at what cost. This will have important implications for what volume of offshore mitigation New Zealand may look to procure to achieve its NDC1”.
The estimates are spread across a $20 billion range with different future carbon prices being the key variable.
These costs range from anywhere between 3.9% to 28% of the new operating expenditure that will be made available through government budgets from 2024 to 2030.
“However, the source of funding for these costs is subject to future policy decisions; comparison to the operating allowances is used here to provide a sense of scale,” the report said.
The size of the cost of offshore mitigation will depend on whether NZ achieves or exceeds its domestic emissions budgets, and also on the price paid for international offsets.
“The future price of international reductions is unknown, reflecting that many markets are at early stages or yet to be developed”.
The report said it was clear the “size and breadth of the economic and fiscal costs of climate change” on the country would be large and have significant implications for its fiscal position.
“The physical impact of climate change and the choices the country makes to transition to a low-emissions future will affect every aspect of the economy and society for generations”.
82 Comments
whats the money for - More COP Junkets
Benefit to NZ - debt and more costs/ taxes/ Inflation for you.
Ramifications - JAmes Shaw will cry, then get angry, then tell Kiwis/Government to step up some more $$$
Meanwhile the big polluters will keep on polluting in an hour what we pollute in a decade.!!!
Tell the world that because of there inaction, we can not meet our old politician's commitments (they are not in power any more), as we are having to pay for reconstruction from global warming activity (cyclones etc) that these country's manufacturing apparatus have produced.
There has been no inaction. Because of fossil fuels the world is safer, people know when to avoid 'normal' weather events (cyclones). Global activity has dramatically increased (fossil fuel use) some in the wrong areas, so move. It will be inaction (no fossil fuels) that kills people.
There has been no inaction. Because of fossil fuels the world is safer, people know when to avoid 'normal' weather events (cyclones). Global activity has dramatically increased (fossil fuel use) some in the wrong areas, so move. It will be inaction (no fossil fuels) that kills people.
Classic humans. We are no different to the student who procrastinates, does nothing until the night before the exam, then pays someone halfway across the world to do it for them online.
Nothing gained, only excuses to continue acting in exactly the same way as they always have.
Doing nothing has been great for global greening. What's not to like?
For $600 million a year we could be "carbon zero" tomorrow. Just do that and spend the difference on hospitals rather than local, expensive, carbon bludgers.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/natural-disasters?facet=none&Disas…
We could always decarbonise our economy at a much faster pace, which would mean importing tens of billions of dollars more worth of EVs, electric boilers, heat pumps, wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, inverters, transformers, HV/MV/DC cables, etc.
In either scenario, our trade deficit ballooning to new highs is the most likely outcome.
To be honest, I would vote for anyone who could present a viable 10 - 15 year plan for the transition off oil. Yes, that will involve some heavy investment up front, and a trade deficit to match, but it should be more than feasible to navigate from here to a country with clean air, water and an improved quality of life,
I will vote for anyone who could present a viable 0 - 10 year plan to drill for oil, gas and coal and extract these resources, to provide cheap energy (power plants, etc), to the people. Heavy investment that pays quickly unlike your un-sustainables that will further NZ's debt problem.
Fossil fuels produce a cleaner air, improved water and a hell of a lot better quality of life.
In the Paris Climate Agreement, NZ promised to reduce its net emissions to 50% below 2005 gross levels by 2030...
I don't understand the premise of this article, a quick google suggests Kiwis have already reducing their emissions substantially:
https://data.worldbank.org/share/widget?end=2019&indicators=EN.ATM.CO2E…
There is a gap between our domestic emissions budget and our international one. The domestic emissions budget is a net ~670 megatonnes, while our international budget is ~570 megatonnes. So if we exactly meet our domestic budget, we'd have to buy ~100 megatonnes of international mitigation to make good on our Paris promise.
But you are right, we'll have to buy less (plausibly none) if we beat our own domestic target. I'm not sure that is likely to happen, however.
We have no show - no one really wants to change.
Even this report shows we need to spend $500 million per annum on new native forests. Well has anyone spoken to the farmers who own the land?? This equates to well over 1 million ha of current farmland to be put into natives by 2050 - just over 25 years away. They say they want natives - not exotics - but the land area they see will be out by a large number of zeros I can assure you to what is needed here.
A. We don't have people to plant it
B. No nurseries can produce the volumes
(Plus 80% will die and be eaten anyway)
The report basically admits we have no idea where to get the overseas offsets, and by the way every other developed country is doing the same - where is this mystical land with boundless offsets they wish to sell cheaply??.
Unless we all reduce our OWN emissions not much will happen - or plant 500,000 ha of permanent exotic trees at a fraction of the cost on erodable farmland and problem solved and slowly change as technology moves - too cheap, doable and achievable.
Potentially $4000+ per citizen, why?
I feel a monkey could come in and explain better economics to our govt at this point.
More spending future generations will have to take on board in inflation and loss of wealth.
Keep it up and we will see a revolution in the next 20 years.
when will someone with authority hold the greens, their supporters and the Govt accountable for this waste.
Nationals policy - we will stop all enviromental expenditure and withdraw from the Climate change accord until such time as China, USA and India have met their targets for three years in a row.
" we are not compromising our economy on 0.02% of the emissions while the world claps our stupidity
only to you. as your people in poverty go broke!
you don't get it do you!...
its like you cleaning your pavement, at great cost to you, while the rest of the street remains dirty... or like you conserving water at home while the councils leak millions of litres a day while charging you for the waste!!!
better a Hosking lone than a Shaw puppett!
The US, UK and a whole host of other first world countries HAVE decreased their emissions over the last decade. NZ has not.
If the US is decreasing emissions why aren't we?
And also, lets take your argument to its logical conclusion because you seem incapable of doing that. Say there is a city in China of 10m, why should the city decrease its emissions when it won't even make a dent in total Chinese emissions. And say there is a suburb in the city, why should they decrease their emissions when it won't even make a dent in the cities?! and say there is a household in the suburb......
I hope I have illustrated that everyone (especially the first world who have a much higher standard of living AND higher emissions per capita than the likes of India) needs to pull their weight, if we all wait for the next guy nothing will change.
Bang on.
I dont get why we are trying to buy our way out. We need to lead by example and all give stuff up and hit the target.
Luxons plan where we refuse to budge until everyone else budges is childish... basically we all burn up together. I would rather we follow the leaders -= USA/UK etc. Which incidentally is likely to lead to a hugh tech productive economy as we invent tech that helps and that can be sold to others who are behind.
@OldSkoolEconomics I think you'd better brush up what Nationals plan actually is before you continue to go around telling everyone what you think it is, misrepresenting it.
It would be hard to miss it, they made announcements on it recently, where they want to get rid of red tape around getting more generation of wind, hydro and geothermal going a lot more.
Seems like a very sensible idea to me, but no doubt Labour and the Greens won't like this beause there will be some touching feeling, feelings hurt by some people type of reason for this no doubt.
Urgh... classic cherry picking, and a twitter link? Geez, get better sources. It's well known that the Antarctica will warm slower than other parts of the world, lots more reflection of solar energy, lots more ice causing temperature inertia. But sea ice extent tells you whats happening in the area around Antarctica and if you don't believe in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that's not my problem.
If you are expecting global warming to be uniform in a chaotic system that has many different areas with different features, then you don't understand the subject.
E bikes require fossil fuel use in production. Maybe the greenies can walk…..oh no that’s for the peasants. We greenies will have nice quiet holidays at our favourite destinations while the plebs cycle everywhere……what I despise most about the greenies is their sheer arrogance. The greenies I know are all loaded, have the toys and can afford to pay whatever the cost is for fake meat. They just want to kick the ladder out from others.
Good.
If it becomes expensive to pollute, people will take that into their decision making.
Also, people will be worse off. Good, less largesse = less emissions.
People seem to forget (or not yet believe) climate change is an existential threat. On current trajectory, our species is gone in 100 years.
Sure technology may save us, but do existential threats deserve a plan b? Not according to most of the above commenters, they're happy to take that risk, to support their current lifestyles.
This is why we need politicians to make 'for the greater good' decisions, because individually, we are selfish - if you think you aren't, ask yourself 'would I have the same view if I was going to be born in year 2100"
Climate change has been a threat for 5 billion years. Politicians are the problem, using their media sponsorship, to induce fear into the masses. In a 100 years humanity will be fine, only you and I will not be there to witness the destruction caused by hideous government policies bought about by corporate influence.
Look chumps, we don't make the rules, the more powerful countries do. If we don't reduce emissions we will be penalised through trade. It's not the Greens that are to blame for anything here. They are trying to help.
I repeat, if we do not pull our weight on emissions reputable international companies will not be allowed to trade with us. End of story.
We knew this 6 or so years ago when our PM described CC as this generations nuclear free moment.
Their party then did next to nothing about it and have recently weakend their rather pitiful actions already. Classic can kicking, eventually we will have to deal with it environmentally and financially, now both at the same time.
Where was the mass funding of green energy options instead of the pitiful funding being given at the moment? (huge GWh of wind farm developments with expiring consents). Where was a mass funding of solar rooftops and transport electrification?
Instead we got mass funding of banks, to drive property prices sky high so they can crash again and leave us all poorer than before. The finance minister and RBNZ all need to take a good hard look at themselves and stop making idiotic decisions that doubly burden NZs future. But they won't, I can see them now, standing in front of the can, pulling their leg back, ready for an almighty kick...
I fundamentally object to sending even one cent of New Zealand money offshore for climate change measures. Truely mad that we would do that. Whoever invented that policy and process suffers bureaucratic policy toxicity.
Any such cash generated should be diverted from going overseas, it should be retained in New Zealand and spent of our own climate measures.
If there were no penalties no countries would be doing anything and we would all burn up - so lets say the UK/USA their part and we dont bother... then in a few years we start to whinge and refuse to pay....
I wouldnt expect much assistance from their governments or citizens when their businesses start to cry foul on imports of our products and up the tariffs. Which is fair
Further they see this as a huge opportunity - they (UK/US/EU) are heavily subsidising and encouraging rapid development and deployment of climate tech. Which they have done the numbers on and know will soon mature and create a massive export opportunity for them. We will again wonder why we arent a leader in another productive high margin tech industry to replace the broken housing ponzi.
Given that man made climate change and global warming are negligible effects - to the point of being rounding errors, then this news truly depressing. Paris accord is non-binding! Also depressing I heard that the Labour government are spending 70 million on mrna vaccine research. As if the mnra vaccine rollout wasnt a complete abject failure! Is there no end to their wasting of public money? We've possibly witnessed the greatest technological innovation this century with the creation of AGI in gpt4 and they're oblivious to that, but wasting money on crap. I dislike this government.
Heck. Such a daunting prospect. We will have to pay someone else overseas to do our heavy lifting or voluntarily reduce our emissions domestically to comply with our 2015 promises in Paris. The latter probably through a reduction in stock numbers and ramping up tree planting to get anywhere near those targets. The USA and UK have large manufacturing bases with which to leverage profits from the transition to new green technologies.What a shame we do not have the same ability. Still probably better to pay our way if we can find a non-corrupt overseas partner to plant on our behalf rather than reduce our overseas income.
Worth reviewing how things went under Kyoto, see in particular the table: "Percentage changes in emissions from the base year (1990 for most countries) for Annex I Parties with Kyoto targets"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
And not forgetting, Canada pulled out when calculating the costs;
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-16165033
Thanks for the link. Do you happen to know what data set is being used to measure and record net CO2e for all parties to the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015? The following link paints a skeptical picture paying a third offshore party to offset our net emissions. Published late last year.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/if-a-tree-falls-in-an-overseas-forest-what-c…
Sorry, no idea where this measurement data comes from - I assume the Parties to the agreement self-report. NZ bought lots of 'dodgy' credits last time around;
What are we missing? Other countries can afford to export emissions credits and have even become net climate positive already. Surely we can do better instead of moaning.
When do we move the conversation frame towards regenerative systems thinking, prosperity without growth and degrowth?
Anyone read Jason Hickel's work or have a perspective on a just transition?
Ditching coal would be the biggest win. We've got the biomass to do it, and could even export it eventually.
Next would be transport, freight onto electrified rail, more effective attractive public transport, and road tolls.
Costs a few billions, payback multi billions.
Definitely a move worth considering, and EECA are working on the supply chain for that.
But I'm looking for the long game too... There's a lot of talk and money going into propping up BAU, but you've got to ask about the investment horizon for these sorts, and whether these props will be a good investment for much more than a couple of years.
As emissions pricing approaches net zero pricing at >$272 a tonne CO2 eq (2018 price plus inflation) we will see new business models and different ways of doing things and meeting needs emerging by necessity.
How do we position to go into this future best prepared, instead of kicking and screaming that it's not fair?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.