By Kevin Trenberth*
The announcement of a partnership between the government and the world’s biggest investment manager BlackRock in a NZ$2 billion climate infrastructure fund suggests the company is expecting renewable energy in New Zealand to increase its own profitability.
Climate policy expert 'cautiously optimistic' over BlackRock deal https://t.co/6GwrYVrIP1
— RNZ News (@rnz_news) August 9, 2023
The new fund is the first country-specific renewable investment BlackRock has made, following its 2022 acquisition of New Zealand company SolarZero, which produces solar battery storage and other energy services.
The initiative also underpins the government’s aspirational goal of having 100% of electricity generated by renewable sources by 2035. The purpose of this fund is to accelerate investment from Crown companies and agencies to speed up decarbonisation. But will it cut costs to consumers?
Given New Zealand’s isolation and reliance on exports and tourism, the country remains vulnerable to climate change impacts and carbon pricing designed to help cut emissions. Aside from storm and drought damage from climate change that disrupts food production, both imports and exports are likely to increase in price, and carbon-based tariffs may adversely affect New Zealand’s economy.
To address climate change threats in New Zealand will require more than mobilising private investment with a focus on renewable energy. It will need a comprehensive and collaborative approach that acknowledges dependencies on shipping and air travel, which continue to depend on fossil fuels.
Here are ten broad areas that must be considered when tackling the specific and sometimes unique challenges New Zealand faces in the years ahead.
1. Maximising renewable energy
Most of New Zealand’s electricity comes from hydro power as well as wind and solar power. It is already over 80% renewable, but the grid is topped up by coal.
Promoting renewable electricity is essential but likely not enough. Energy for industrial processes (heating, drying, steel production) still relies on fossil fuels, and we need to make more use of abundant solar and wind resources.
Because these resources are intermittent, they must be integrated with hydro power to serve as a “battery” by storing water behind a dam. This requires a national, publicly owned entity whose goal is to maximise renewable energy production (not profits in private companies).
2. Rethinking travel
New Zealand has a growing fleet of electric vehicles, but the transport system still largely runs on fossil fuels. It is one of the country’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, responsible for 17% of gross emissions.
Apart from improving public transport and promoting cycling and walking, simply avoiding unnecessary travel becomes essential. The COVID pandemic has shown the way with teleconferencing and virtual meetings.
3. Reduce shipping emissions
If shipping were a country, it would be sixth in total emissions. Last month, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN agency that regulates global shipping, agreed to a new climate strategy to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions “close to 2050”.
Already, penalties are being implemented to prevent use of high-sulphur oil. A carbon tax or levy is likely, starting in the European Union in 2024. Biofuels, methanol and perhaps even wind power may help shipping.
4. Trains versus planes
For international air travel, development of sustainable aviation fuels is progressing. Further optimising air traffic and flight routes and promoting the use of fuel-efficient aircraft and technologies is essential.
It seems likely carbon offsets may be required, and these could be expensive. For domestic travel, trains may become more viable.
5. Prepare for tourism declines
Ecotourism is likely to grow, and operators will have to abide by sustainability certifications and limits to fragile ecosystems areas. Off-peak and new, dispersed destinations seem likely.
Offsetting carbon may become mandatory and the cost is likely to go up, with adverse effects on New Zealand’s economy.
6. Better carbon offsets
The need for quality offsets for fossil fuel use is likely to increase. The main potential is wood in trees, since plants take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
However, trees have a finite lifetime and this can only be a temporary fix. Indigenous trees grow more slowly and can lock up carbon for more than a century. But considerable care is needed to avoid forest fires and disease, or the offset value diminishes rapidly.
7. Strategic forestry
Protecting and restoring existing native forests helps conserve biodiversity. It also helps limit runoff and erosion. Large-scale afforestation and reforestation efforts to expand forest cover should continue, as strategic planting of native trees will enhance carbon sequestration and restore ecosystem balance.
Implementation of sustainable forest management practices, emphasising selective logging and reforestation after harvesting, will ensure a continuous carbon sink, preserve biodiversity and protect sensitive ecosystems.
8. Greener cities and towns
Urban forestry can counteract urban heat island effects and enhance air quality. Planting trees in public spaces and along streets in residential areas can reduce energy consumption for cooling and improve people’s wellbeing.
9. Biofuel development
As well as using wood to temporarily sequester carbon, it can be used as a biofuel. Torrefaction is a thermal process that involves heating biomass in the absence of oxygen to produce a more energy-dense and stable material.
This process can be applied to various types of biomass, including wood chips, slash, agricultural residues and other organic materials. The resulting torrefied biomass has several advantages, including improved grindability, increased energy density and reduced moisture content.
It is currently used at the Huntly power station in place of coal but the torrefied wood chips are imported. Instead, this could be an important fuel and an export, given the shortages in Europe arising from the Ukraine war.
10. Incentives for better land use
Regenerative farming, agroforestry and silvopasture techniques integrate trees with agricultural practices. This enhances carbon sequestration, improves soil health and provides additional income streams for farmers.
New Zealand should implement financial incentives and regulations to encourage private landowners to participate in tree planting and sustainable forest management. Tax incentives, carbon offset programmes and grants can drive private investment in climate-friendly practices.
A more self-sufficient future
Addressing climate change threats in New Zealand requires acknowledgement of the dependencies on shipping, air travel and tourism. Planning for the consequences of climate change and building resilience are both essential.
New Zealand needs to become a lot more self-sufficient and reduce volumes of exports by increasing domestic processing and manufacture. These changes may be hastened by international tariffs on trade based on carbon content.
By transitioning to green shipping, transforming air travel and fostering sustainable tourism, New Zealand can mitigate its carbon footprint, protect natural ecosystems and ensure long-term socioeconomic prosperity. Public-private partnerships and robust policy implementation are crucial.
*Kevin Trenberth, Distinguished Scholar, NCAR; Affiliate Faculty, University of Auckland. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
31 Comments
Nice 👍.
Thats more thought than the Green party 🥳🎉 has ever given the subject ..
Actually, it Segway's nicely with this article about the Greens and who you'd vote for to IMPROVE THE ECO CLIMATIC conditions of NZ
https://nopunchespulled.com/2023/08/09/more-wisdom-from-historian-and-f…
let's not talk climate change!
let's talk climate " improvement"
He's dead right about the need for self-sufficiency.
But the rest?
The problem is very simple; you have to not draw-down resources, including stored sunlight ones. That means operating on real-time solar energy,and of course it is over-committed if we try and replace buried sunlight with real-time sunlight.
So the last paragraph I disagree with entirely - hopium from a fellow in a silo.
Imagine if both local and central governments wrote plans and strategies (and subsequent budgets) to achieve greater self-sufficiency as opposed to greater income/growth (GDP).
What a different world/country we would live in.
I recall EECA from decades ago suggesting a pilot strategy/plan be run to make Taihape as self-sufficient a community as possible. It was to be a test-case for further study and progress in that regard. Never went ahead - which was a shame. Massive foresight from the folks there at the time.
While he identifies some future challenges, he has avoided the biggest challenge with no mention at all, and if it is not addressed none of the others will succeed - POPULATION!
And there there is the not so minor fact that at less than 1%, no matter how successful we as a nation are (or are not), our total GHG emmissions simply do not register on a global scale. So unless the major contributors, especially the autocracies don't do anything, nothing we achieve will even matter.
Where do you get any idea that I am any where near happy about the current situation? You are being an extremist and demonstrate very little if any ability to think and reason.
Actually when I re-read my last sentence it is crap, very poor english. What I should have said; "So As long as the major contributors, especially the autocracies don't do anything, nothing we achieve will even matter."
Extremist? Possibly, it's just I have a clear view of the lifeless rock human activity is driving us to. Your comment basically says let's not change course, because it's pointless. Lett the despots, polluters and poisoners do what they like.
To be fair I do agree with many of your comments, just not this one.
I'm not saying do nothing at all. If you paid attention to all my comments on this topic, what I argue is a quite different approach essentially centered around a reduced population target, but where we use the time to build a manufacturing capability to build national resilience and independence. Free market globalisation is screwing us and destroying the planet, but people are refusing to acknowledge that. And most fundamentally of all there are simply too many people. But I suggest it is possible to build an efficient, balanced economy that we can support our selves without an over reliance on global supply chains for basic items.
That comment was ignorant - in the primary sense of the word (meaning ill-informed/uninformed).
We apply foreign phosphate from a finite and contended stock, we also apply several calories of oil (perhaps as many as 30, but let's take the lazy figure of 10) to 'produce' one calorie of food. By the time we aren't subsidising food energy with oil energy, we might support 2 million. We aren't underpopulated; the planet is overpopulated - you seem to be using the wrong end of the stick as a measure.
And get your own pen-name - I've been on this site for 15 years, and I wouldn't want folk to think I was talking nonsense...
Agree, our low birthrates would take care of it. If posters want to start talking about marching off cliffs and purges as requirements for your suggestion, then I hope the people that advocated for high immigration and growth for growths sake 'get ahead' by going directly to the front of the queue!
Our birth rates will not take care of anything unless we learn to be happy with what we have. The most likely scenario will be each increase our consumption to compensate.
Just look around you there are examples everywhere of how we respond to getting more. We are obese so when we get more food we just eat more even though it is killing us. We call Uber eats to get food because we can't be bothered to take 5 minutes to eat out. Faster internet so we get large videos even though you can barely see it. We buy clothes and basically throw them away after a few uses because they are cheap. Some moron buys a Rolls-Royce that has tires that cost $15,000 each to replace, that's more than 3 times the price I paid for my car. We spend billions of sports events when our health, education, infrastructure is failing. We burn electricity mining crypto just to take some money of someone else, despite global warming.
Our entire economy is based on consuming as much as we can so that we can say look how big our GDP is, and how many toys we have.
Are we happier because of all this waste, as we are at the beck and call of our cell phones, but while fewer people don't have a stable place to live, I very much doubt it.
Until we learn to be happy with enough, and stop constantly seeking more we will drive this planet into the ground.
I still don't see carbon as the biggest threat. It will take decades for it to have a meaningful impact (negative or positive)
Yet, in a few years we will have emptied the oceans, felled the global forests, and killed all the wild megafauna.
NZ was self sufficient, and can be self sufficient again, but we will require pre 1970s lifestyle and population to do so.
Immigration, wildling pines, and Trains wont fix anything.
NZ was self sufficient, and can be self sufficient again, but we will require pre 1970s lifestyle and population to do so.
I would like to suggest that unless we can find an alternative to fossil fuels we could go all the way back to pre 1900's . NZ population ~ 800k, lots more horses.
Left field but related ...
During peak COVID 200k of so called Kiwis returned to NZ .
Q: How many brought houses and inflated the market.
Q: How many are still here and why?
Q: how many filled the job market
Q: what have the remaining been doing
Q: have they contributed to our economy / climate issues
...Apart from improving public transport and promoting cycling and walking, simply avoiding unnecessary travel becomes essential. ...
Nice if you live in a main city and can walk or use an ev.
But for those of us in living in small town New Zealand, you are attempting to rule out seeing family, holidays, concerts and sporting fixtures amongst other travel needs.
Have you attempted to travel in a second hand ev from Nelson to Christchurch - some folk are charging up to 5 times on a trip. Noting not everyone can afford a Tesla!
Actually, no city anywhere, anytime, has proven that 1 million or more can be supported crammed together, ex fossil energy. And 60% of the global population is crammed, a goodly portion of that in cities.
The rural areas are the only ones which will be able to feed themselves - but they'll probably have to defend themselves too...
Auckland, ex fossil energy and without outside input, @ 2 hectares/person, could support what? South of 10,000. People have no idea what this temporary pulse of energy did for us. But they will learn.
Maybe, but those few ancient cities were sited on the most productive parts of the planet, mainly flood plains. The fertility arrived naturally every year, it wasn't transported across the planet, or manufactured using Haber Bosch. Today's urban dwellers live like gods compared to those from antiquity.To be fair PDK did say millions, not 100 000s and he is correct.
I don't know why everyone has to take it to the extreme.
Moving to renewables will reduce the amount of coal and oil we import.That's a gradual improvement.
Foodwise we export enough dairy and milk to feed 40 million, but we import fertiliser and feed to do so . and 1/2 the food in our supermarkets is imported.I would have thought the Covid shortages would have encouraged at least some self sufficency in what items we could grow here.
Market efficiencies usually win the day, so there's a tendency for NZ to focus on a smaller variety of product grown at scale. People around me attempt to grow niche crops commercially, but struggle to make it much more than a hobby. When you're only one of a few bit players you lose access to more efficient plant and machinery that can be afforded by a sector that's producing hundreds of million, or billions of dollars of produce.
That's not to say monoculture isnt without it's foibles, more that re-onshored produce would struggle to find a market.
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.