The Climate Change Commission has warned the Government will have to increase the pace of its emission reductions to achieve the next emissions budget and has recommended 19 policies to help.
These include reforming the emissions trading scheme (ETS), fast-tracking renewable energy developments, retrofitting buildings, improving public transport, and putting a price on agricultural emissions.
The Commission, which provides independent advice on how to achieve the country’s climate change objectives, has released its draft advice for the 2026 to 2030 emissions budget.
Commission Chairman Rod Carr said the headline message was that New Zealand needed to “pick up the pace” of gross emissions reductions.
“We must ensure we are reducing our gross emissions from all sources as much as possible, rather than solely relying on offsetting our climate pollution. Storing carbon should be focused on offsetting emissions from activities that are really hard to decarbonise”.
Current policies were encouraging an over-reliance on sequestration from pine forests, which could threaten the gross emission reductions required to stay net-zero beyond 2025.
In short, he was concerned pine trees storing tonnes of carbon could “burn down, blow down, or die" and unravel climate progress.
Not fit for purpose
To fix this problem, the Commission has called for an overhaul of the ETS, which it said was “not fit to drive gross emissions reductions” over the next two budget periods.
The ETS currently treats gross emissions reductions and forestry sequestration as direct equivalents. One tonne of removal allows one tonne of emissions.
However, establishing and growing pine forests costs somewhere between $25 and $50 per tonne of carbon, while reducing emissions at their source can cost upwards of $100.
This means a lot of pine forests will be planted before it becomes economic for businesses to pursue gross emission reductions.
The Ministry for the Environment has estimated roughly four million hectares of land could be profitably converted into forestry at $50 per tonne of carbon.
Currently policy settings could see vast swathes of the country covered in pine trees, and very little actual reduction in gross emissions.
The scheme needs to be redesigned to create different incentives for forestry and net reductions from businesses.
Changing the rules of the scheme could create uncertainty, disrupt participants' emission reduction plans, and possibly even delay climate action.
However, the Commission believes the only real alternative would be to allow the ETS to become a forestry scheme, explicitly aimed at reducing net emissions, while pursuing decarbonisation through other policies.
This could result in taxpayers bearing higher costs for reductions, just ones that are less visible than in a market-based scheme.
While the Commission was only designed to give strategic advice on the general direction of policy, it did outline some potential options for amending the scheme.
These included limiting the number of forestry units that emitters can surrender to meet their obligations, introducing the minimum emissions price via a levy, limiting the new area of forest land that can be registered in the scheme, or moving forestry into its own separate mechanism.
Each of these come with complexities and would need more detailed policy work. The Ministry for the Environment has begun looking at whether the scheme's settings need to be changed.
Gross targets
The Commission has recommended the Government commit to a specific level of gross emission reductions in the second and third budget periods, in addition to the existing net targets.
How much reduction should come from emissions sources and from forestry should be communicated more clearly to guide both policy development and investment decisions.
The draft advice also suggests advancing agricultural emission pricing to capture a broader range of emission reducing practices.
It encouraged higher density, mixed-used zoning rules, investing in public and active transport infrastructure, and retrofitting buildings to create less emissions.
The Government should complete cycleway networks by 2030 and rapid transport networks by 2035 in large cities.
It also called for renewable electricity developments to be accelerated in order to meet increased demand for energy as the economy decarbonized.
68 Comments
Hilarious.
Who would have thought that a low density population that doesn't make advanced technology required for gross emissions reduction, and is very far away from the places that do, would find it cheaper to plant trees on its abundant land than to import expensive foreign technology?
The market is working as intended. Rod Carr doesn't believe in markets, or want to acknowledge that New Zealand is not France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, the UK etc....
The loudest societal group about Climate, the teenagers, are also the most hypocritical. They dont make any changes to their own lifestyles. Yet if someone points that out to them, that person is being mean to the teenager and should show more understanding. The teenager blames their parents for making them do the activity, since they are only kids and have to do what they're told.
Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan ‘ridiculed’ teenage climate activist, BSA finds - NZ Herald
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/heather-du-plessis-allan-ridiculed-teenag…
You need to stick to real media. She's a lightweight on the model of John Laws.
Yes, teenagers are living indulgent - and temporarily so - lives. But we developed that self-indulgent lifestyle, and lied to them (and ourselves) about the impact on future inheritors of the planet.
Don't blame them; blame yourself. I apologized to my two offspring, more than 15 years ago - on behalf of mine.
Think about it.
Another joke from Wellington
Firstly - the CCC is not independent advice
The desire to drag farmers into the emissions scheme is economic suicide - and runs contrary to what UN recommends - if we are following their advice
Pine forests for carbon sequestration are a joke and the scheme should be scrapped - its such a bad idea on a number of levels. Bad for agriculture, bad for local communities, bad for our BOP and is really the classic kick the can down the road action
'The desire to drag farmers into the emissions scheme is economic suicide'
Have you read any - any - of the links I've put up over the years? Or do you think the Limits to Growth are bollocks (with reasoning and references please)?
At this point in the human trajectory, 'economic' is irrelevant.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/
But I'm guessing you won't bother?
Yes, we have patiently looked at the same Malthusian links you put up from the Club of Rome newsletters.
Some of us however see things differently...
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/nordhaus/biographical/
Yet Simon-Ehrlich bet still stands in the former's favour.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2015/09/29/the-simon-ehrlich-wager-25-years-on/
In time, the ‘Malthusian trap’ came to describe the belief that population growth is absolutely limited by finite resources; that because there is only so much to share, a smaller population will be inherently better off; that technological or social innovations can at best delay the unsustainable character of population growth; and that because of projected future ills a range of – sometimes drastic – preventive policy interventions are justified in the present. This jeremiad was repeatedly brought to the fore over the past two centuries under the feather, pen, typewriter or keyboard of some (often highly credentialed) concerned individuals. And almost invariably, each time scores of public intellectuals, activists, bureaucrats, politicians, academic journal editors, private foundation and granting agency officials echoed, promoted, funded or implemented restrictive policies in the name of preventing the children of careless lemmings from jumping over the societal cliff.
Along the way, however, dissenting voices questioned the severity of the ‘population problem’ and made the case that free individuals were not only mouths to feed, but also arms to work and brains to develop new and better ways of doing things. The more people around, they argued, the more likely something good was going to happen. As the physicist Robert Zubrin asks, who, between Louis Pasteur or Thomas Edison, should not have been born in order to improve the lot of mankind? (4) Besides, because new ideas are born out of the combination of existing ideas, processes and things, the supply of new beneficial technologies will not only never run out, but will expand exponentially.
Of course, optimistic analysts conceded, humanity is always confronted by various challenges, but in the long run technological progress has a pretty good record of creating lesser problems than those that existed before. As a result, we now live in a world where every indicator of human wellbeing, from life expectancy, income per capita, hunger, and infant mortality to child labour and education, has improved dramatically over the past two centuries. And, even more amazingly, despite the fact that there now over seven times more (and much wealthier) people than two centuries ago, we live on a planet that is increasingly green and clean; where in many if not most places, wildlife is much more abundant than in the recent and even more distant past (5).
Population catastrophists, however, constantly remind us of Hegel’s alleged observation that ‘If theory and facts disagree, so much the worse for the facts’. This is especially true in current discussions of humanity’s increased consumption of coal, petroleum and natural gas over the past two centuries, where alleged problems always trump real benefits. After all, nobody would argue that this consumption made possible the development of large-scale, reliable and affordable long-distance transportation, which in turn paved the way to better and more affordable nutrition by concentrating food production in the most suitable locations. Or that kerosene, heavy oil and natural gas displaced poor quality biomass fuels such as firewood and dung, which filled houses with soot, particles, carbon monoxide and toxic chemicals. Or that cars, trucks and tractors removed the need for work animals (and their attending food consumption), while helping address the diseases associated with their excrement and carcasses. Or that refined petroleum products further reduced harvesting pressures on wild resources such as whales (whale oil, perfume base), trees (lumber and firewood), birds (feathers) and other wildlife (ivory, furs, skin), thus helping preserve biodiversity.
One overall result of these developments – plus the fact that plants benefit from increased carbon-dioxide emissions – is that nature, in the form of growing forests and increased wildlife, has made a significant comeback in advanced economies (6). And yet, pretty much the only thing one hears today from activists who take these beneficial advances for granted is something along the lines of: ‘ever-increasing production and use of fossil fuels will, over time, kill billions of us and irreversibly change all life on the planet’. Of course, the fact that there were barely one billion human beings around when fossil-fuel use took off and the very notion that ‘billions’ of us might die is entirely contingent on their widespread use is completely lost on eco-warriors.
Yet, even granting the seemingly more reasonable premise that hydrocarbons are incorrectly priced because of all the negative (or unaccounted for) climate externalities they generate is problematic. After all, reducing our consumption of fossil fuels will not make bad weather and extreme natural events go away. In the end, the greater wealth generated by fossil fuels (eg, better infrastructure, advanced-warning systems, long-distance transportation) remains our best insurance policy against whatever nature may throw our way.
A lot of words
One simple question:
What will your 'wealth' buy?
The answer, is 'processed parts of the planet' (there is no source of anything else).
Where Simon was stupid - and it was stupid - was in assuming continuity of the un-continuable. You can only do that, by avoiding accounting for depletion, degradation and entropy.
Another description for that, is: Chosen ignorance. Good luck with that, and with looking future generations in the face.
It's funny how the government and Greens blames farmers for river pollution yet ignore the biggest polluters... the Councils.
Street run off, industrial waste entering rivers, building in flood zones allowance, sewer overflow when it rains etc etc etc?
All councils are guilty of poor management of water contamination. Every time it rains in Auckland, the beaches are contaminated and where is that Muppet Shaw?... bagging Farmers!
In most cases city run-off is at the end of a rivers course - not poured in over the entire length. Waikato for example. The river leaves Lake Taupo pristine and by the time it arrives at Hamilton it is a green mess, full of all manner of rural run -off, such as nitrogen, phosphorous, cadmium, arsenic sediment and pathogens.
So basically it's rooted before it gets to Hamilton - mostly due to farming.
Nice try though.
Bull shite! Run of from every road in every bay on the Auckland coast runs directly to the sea. That is why there isa a " fish sign," on every drain grill
Rivers are a different story. They are getting cleaned up but the thru city ones are polluted by industry and are not so well policed.
WRC say water quality is fine for swimming before Hamilton. Hamilton City is the turning point between safe and unsafe. The Waipa Rivers adds a lot of sediment after it joins the Waikato.
A major factor contributing to poor water quality is the 8 hydro dams that impede water flow.
@Shaft. Incorrect correlation. The MASSIVE difference between Councils and farmers being that Councils are required to invest in and maintain wastewater treatment systems, which typically work well except after major storm events.
Some farms, which produce wastewater equivalent to a city with several thousand inhabitants have SFA in place to treat it.
Common sense says nobody should ever frolick at a beach after a major storm - Nature does not dilute runoff and treated wastewater that quickly.
PDK your response reflects the supercilious behaviour of a cult convert - maybe you need to get out more
If the solution to a global problem is required there is no point in penalising NZ farmers if the net global response will be negative - which is highly likely. It is also bordering on corruption to tax someone to change their behaviour when a solution is not yet available, never mind that a country with a large and growing BOP problem wont be in any state to assist with change to how we will live in future
and change in what we do is required - and yes its underway
I get out more than you - depend on it.
Your next part is assumption-skewed. 'NZ farmers' assumes 'BAU from your POV'. Sorry, but that is unsustainable; your 'business model' (now there's a wee spider's web, philosophically) is the process of turning many calories of a finite resource - oil - into food calories. It's so inefficient, we'd be better finding a way to eat the oil directly, but even that would only stave off the inevitable.
You have to move to a non-FF food-production model; not because of 'Climate', but because FF are leaving you.
Don't say you weren't warned... :)
Bad for agriculture, bad for local communities, bad for our BOP and is really the classic kick the can down the road action
Wrong.
https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/rural-news/rural-general-news/forest-r…
It is a 'kick the can down the road' action, but that is known. We need to reduce emissions fundamentally, sequestering carbon is simply to buy time while that large ship gets turned around.
Do some homework, perhaps?
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
(try the 4th one of the 'animated series')
Humanity is facing a multi-faceted problem. That problem was facilitated by capitalism, individualism, growth-pursuit. It has resulted in overpopulation, over-consumption and over-pollution.
You cannot solve those concurrent issues, without leadership and rules and - obviously - enforcement.
I guess there will always be a minority who put themselves first....
The minority is the people who vote Green.
The majority are the non Green voters
If kiwis passionately believed in climate change wouldn't they voters Green?
Nope! Because they believe in jobs, education, health, petrol powered cars, airline travel, plastics associated with health care, cosmetics, I phones, ... way before they believe NZ can make major polutters STOP BUILDING COAL POWERED POWER STATION'S. ... or eliminated our .02% without costing NZ billions
IF THE MAJORITY BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE THEN they are all talk and no action!
You missed the turn-off - think you were shouting too much and didn't see the sign...
The climate is indeed being human-forced. Agriculture wouldn't be needed if there weren't humans...
But addressing the climate forcing, alone, won't solve things:
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
Which makes all the 'not I, said the Little Red Hen' types, look doubly-adrift.
My partner and I chose from 2, 1 and 0, 38 years ago. We knew enough, away back then. Your 'kill' comment is a straw-man one; used to deny my comment in your head - very obvious.
At this stage, a one-child policy is the best way forward - somewhere between total cessation and 'even more'. Remember that we are 6-7 billion overshot (as a species, ecologically) NOW!
Owning isn't the point - rationing the petrol is the point. That's a 20-years-ago debate; TEQ's are where that went.
We will fight over 'what's left' of the planet. We are now. That's what Lebensraum fur herrenvolk was all about.
Don't use your revulsion to drive rejection via straw-manning; it's an invalid pathway. The better way, is to identify the best card in your pack (there is always one) and play it. Followed by the next-best. Unless you reckon there's a big-picture reason for holding it.... Playing yesterday's cards is a waste of time; 100% guaranteed to be wrong.
There is a US University lecture clip on line (1960's or thereabouts). The Prof explained we three choices -
Population Control
War
Famine/Diseases
..and then points out that we had not chosen popn control, so we are left with two.
It's playing out now, amazing some are too stupid to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiQUnxNEDqk
rabbit-hole problems, methinks....
You're just being ignorant, now.
For a start, try setting aside your assumptions - I eat meat, and I've held a gold card for some years.
The people you are depriving, are the future generations; that is who the young are gluing themselves - but they don't, mostly, know the half of it (nobody has told them).
If you have grandchildren, ask whether they'll approve of your comment in, say, 20 years' time?
Good luck with that.
Mate you are a dead set f wit.
You said. ...
The people you are depriving, are the future generations; that is who the young are gluing themselves - but they don't, mostly, know the half of it (nobody has told them).
Yet, in a previous post, you want to restrict the population.
You want to tell people to stop having kids but want future generations.
Good one 🤪🙄🙄🙄
Illogical.
Who said stop? Restrict and stop are NOT the same thing.
You need a crash course in logic, probably combined with learning to read critically. My better-half was part of a study into critical literacy (Tertiary level, looking at Primary level) which they presented internationally. I learned a lot from being close to that - your comments are classicly illogical from that POV.
You failed the test PDK. This planet is under-populated (we need more health workers...) Over consumption? I cannot even come close to eating what I produce, OK perhaps you do not need that Chinese built deck chair. Pollution has improved with the rising use of fossil fuels, which if we did not have, I doubt you and I would exist.
The issues you bring up have been created by leadership, rules and obviously - enforcement, (the absolutely crazy bureaucracy that rules NZ).
Population growth is the main driver of increased carbon emissions, study finds.
The successful reduction in per capita emissions that occurred in high-income countries [like NZ] was nullified by the parallel increase in population in the same group.
"Developed nations with stable or declining populations should hence quit fighting these trends and instead embrace them. Just as a small population growth in rich countries can drive big emission increases, a population decrease in rich countries could have big emission-related benefits going forward," says [researcher] Giangiacomo Bravo.
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-population-growth-main-driver-carbon.html
Is the climate change commission lobbying in China?
Do you really think NZ cow farts killed the ozone in NZ
What does the ETS fund and how does that pact the root causes? I.e. imported pollution?
Does it fund nuclear power plants in China to replace the coal ones? Or is it just a nice political catch phrase to tax more?
It's what happens when a largely ignorant populace - kept that way by those who benefit (albeit short-term) from the present system - vote.
You get politicians who attempt to pander to those who virtue-signal (CC-only types) and to those who deny/ignore/self-serve. That's all they have to work with.
So they construct something which could never work, because both factions believe we can grow forever.
Unfortunately, we can't.
How's James Shaw working out for you bro?....
Net 0 emissions is something you should consider before you dig a hole to China and let the fog come through
And the population is not ignorant!... They are just sick of the continual virtue signaling from muppets that dramatize CC yet drive cars, eat meat, get thier pills in a plastic container, wear leather shoes from cow hide, drink milk, and buy copious amounts of toxic glue
For the purposes of comparison both between nations and across time periods emissions should be calculated per the land area of the particular nation. The land area is constant whilst the population is often fluid which can give rise to contrary results as someone has pointed out already
"No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat." - Deng Xiaoping.
The more economically painful we make this the less likely we are to achieve the goal. Markets don't work based on our petty preferences, they find the most efficient way to achieve an outcome.
By markets I assume you mean businesses - which is not what it is, eh?
The problem as you have noted is consumption - (over) so correctly - and so the issue is that our leadership is not leading towards a solution
For example the great push to electric vehicles is not assisting one iota with over consumption
and I dont see that famers joining the ETS because of the animals they farm will assist either - but it will allow urban folk to carry on with their existing lifestyle satisfied that problem solved - meanwhile will have put a lot of people offside who are already making significant changes
Perhaps Nudge theory is relevant
Settle down - I merely point out it cannot continue. Yes, it was great - self-indulgence par excellence. But it was based on drawing-down finite and restricted resources, while choosing to avoid mitigating pollution (as per both farmers and city consumers).
Some of us saw that this regime was near collapse, and tried to figure out how to live on a post-consumption, post-degradation, post-polluting way.
The fact that most people are Bernays-style brainwashed and carry on carrying on, doesn't invalidate my posit - it just says there are going to be a lot of bewildered - then angry - people out there soon. My great-grandmother lived 15 miles from a city during the 1930s, and famously saw off a vege-pilfering intruder with a shotgun, in her wee-willie-winkie hat and nightgown. Told him if he came back and worked, she'd give him food. He didn't...
I'd rather we had a plan in place, than that incident times thousands...
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.