By Robert McLachlan & Ian Mason*
It may have been largely overlooked in the election debates, but New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are finally on the way down.
Annual emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels are the lowest since 1999 and the 12-month renewable share of electricity is back above 90% for the first time since 1981. The Ministry for the Environment has advised New Zealand is on track to meet the first (2022-2025) carbon budget.
All this can be attributed to a range of factors, including fossil gas running low, full hydro lakes, high petrol prices and working from home. But climate policies such as the Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS), the clean car discount and the Climate Emergency Response Fund (CERF) have made a significant contribution to the turnaround.
Current decarbonisation policies have and will continue to deliver real emissions cuts, provided they remain in place.
It is therefore disconcerting that the National Party plans to take $2.3 billion from the CERF (almost two-thirds of the fund’s mid-2022 balance) to pay for tax cuts. The argument that individual households will use tax cuts to make their own decarbonisation decisions is unsupported by evidence and lacks credibility.
The Labour Party has also dipped into this fund, taking $236 million to pay for rebates for household installations of solar panels and batteries, and community energy schemes. These may produce some as yet unquantified emissions cuts.
Government funding is working
Allocations from the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry (GIDI) fund to NZ Steel and Fonterra show direct and measurable avoidance of emissions. The installation of an electric furnace at NZ Steel to utilise scrap will save 1% (800,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emissions, or tCO₂e) of New Zealand’s 2021 gross emissions. Support for Fonterra to convert coal-fired boilers at six plants to renewables will save 1.4% (1.1 MtCO₂e).
The Act Party has pledged to disestablish this fund.
The State Sector Decarbonisation Fund, valued at $215 million and used to reduce emissions in government organisations including hospitals and universities, is on track to deliver emissions savings of nearly a million tonnes over ten years (0.1% per year).
Since the introduction of the clean car discount in July 2021, sales of electric vehicles have quintupled and now have a 12% market share. The market share of all low-emission vehicles rose from 20% to 60%, easily surpassing emissions targets of the clean car standard which came into force this year.
While these rates of increase may look impressive, the actual number of EVs remains very low. Nonetheless, emissions cuts already run into hundreds of thousands of tonnes per year, a significant part of which is due to the clean car discount.
Need for more investment
New Zealand is not yet on track to meet its international pledge (known as Nationally Determined Contribution, or NDC, and covering all emissions from 2021 to 2030) or the second and third carbon budgets.
Many important policy matters are either unresolved or stuck in review: how to meet the NDC, whether and how to prioritise gross emissions reductions over tree planting, how to reduce agricultural emissions.
In its pre-election fiscal and economic update, Treasury warned of the risks these uncertainties entail:
The actual cost of achieving emissions reduction targets and addressing risks from climate change will likely exceed the overall size of the Climate Emergency Response Fund.
Lack of an integrated plan
In the year to June 2023, oil was responsible for nearly three-quarters of fossil fuel emissions. Two-thirds of this came from transport. But transport emissions are supposed to fall 41% by 2035 – a massive task that will involve pressing hard on all three parts of the avoid/shift/improve transport framework.
Unfortunately, the framework is looking shaky.
Regarding avoidance, even the draft local plans for avoiding car travel are not yet ready. Labour and National are competing as to who can offer the most extravagant motorway plans, known to encourage driving.
When it comes to shifting modes of transport, there has been some expansion of urban cycleways. But Auckland’s city rail link will not open until 2026. And a great deal has to happen to meet the Climate Change Commission’s draft advice to “complete cycleway networks by 2030 and take steps to complete rapid transport networks by 2035”.
The National Party plans to cut public transport funding and increase fares.
As for improvement, the National Party plans to cancel the clean car discount and weaken the clean car standard. The current plan requires 30% of the entire light-vehicle fleet to be zero emission by 2035 (currently at 1.4%), which is ambitious but doable under the existing framework.
New Zealand still doesn’t have any kind of fuel-efficiency standard or coordinated policy on heavy-vehicle emissions.
Renewable energy
New Zealand’s renewable share for all energy (not just electricity) has been stuck below 30% for decades. It is supposed to reach 50% by 2035 and then continue to increase until use of fossil fuels is almost entirely eliminated.
New Zealand has untapped resources of renewable energy, wind, solar and geothermal. An even bigger supply of offshore wind is now being explored.
At the recent New Zealand wind energy conference, many massive possible projects were mooted. But delegates said they needed to be sure the electricity demand would be there before making final investment decisions.
The fate of the Climate Emergency Response Fund is of great importance, as international evidence shows:
It is the use of revenues from carbon prices, not the carbon prices themselves, which trigger change.
Depleting this fund will slow electrification and demand for renewable energy.
New Zealand’s current emissions reduction plan, which runs to 2025, is a package. Its parts support each other and attempt to balance many people’s needs. If one part is weakened, the difference has to be made up elsewhere.
This article was prepared with the assistance of Paul Callister.
*Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey University and Ian Mason, Adjunct Senior Fellow in Renewable Energy Systems Engineering, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
43 Comments
"It is the use of revenues from carbon prices, not the carbon prices themselves, which trigger change."
Is this really true in the NZ context? We aren't exactly pricing carbon, we are limiting emissions with a falling number of permits each period. Price is just the method that emitters use to decide who makes the cuts mandated by the policy.
Cap and trade is the important bit - the rest I am not so sure about.
I have genuine respect for both writers, but this piece cones firmly under the heading of 'techno-optimism'.
I question how much of the 'reduction', is deferred maintenance? (failure to adequately parry entropy).
I question how much is because of offshoring (the build of EVs, for instance, and the demise of foundries and other manufacturing in NZ)?
And at the end of the day, money is underwritten by energy - and despite their cheery assertions, renewable energy is orders-of-magnitude short of replacement for fossil energy. And the latter is half-gone; the best half. That means that physical rationing is the better wind-down; trading and the fudging via money, just obscure the real requirement.
Money is underwritten by energy, the last century that energy has come from fossil fuel. Its production and supply have caused inflation, recession and wars. Enriching a few. Its why the USA has recently introduced the Inflation Reduction Act, a trillion dollar program to electrify transport and power production. Why? because your running cost are lower. Even without the environmental benefits its still worth replacing fossil fuel with renewables, because costs can be controlled you’re not reliant on OPEC, who are currently trying to inflate oil prices by reducing production. And before you cry it can’t be done, it can. We already do for most of our electricity, more pumped hydro, geothermal wind and solar is still needed. But it is cheaper in the long run as you’re not burning fuel that needs replacing.
@mfd – Good question. I am not 100% certain but I am fairly sure regarding the examples given in the article from cars and industry (eg Glenbrook and Fonterra). The ETS can take the credit for electricity and perhaps a general background change in behaviour. But under an 'ETS only' approach, even with CO2 at $200/tonne and full coverage, industry would be hammered and transport hardly affected (that adds 40c/litre to petrol which has little effect and is also regressive). It is hard for a price on carbon to effect system-wide change, or to deal with a fixed carbon budget. (The 1975 article that coined the term 'stock pollutant' already noted that they cannot be addressed by a tax.) It is not known yet whether the 'cap' in our system will actually hold – it is called a 'flexible cap' and there are issues like the stockpile of unused units to deal with.
What was also overlooked in the election debates, and in the doom porn climate change industry itself, is the fact New Zealand is already carbon negative as a country. If our target is to be CO2 negative we have already hit it. Hooray for us. Job done. Let's focus on poverty, education and health.
"Results from Beata Bukosa's research from @niwa_nz confirm New Zealand as a carbon sink. Interesting and encouraging preliminary results of inverse modeling and new measurements in New Zealand #CarbonWatchNZ #ICOS2020SC"
"At the time, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research had two atmospheric testing stations, one at Lauder in Central Otago and the other at Baring Head on Wellington’s south coast.
Niwa researchers could estimate how much carbon dioxide was arriving over the country. And they could measure how much CO2 was found at the two stations. The latter figure was between 30 and 60 per cent less than the former."
Exactly, add everything, including the vast forests that we are not allowed to include as carbon sinks along with other things. Sure if we remove all of these carbon sinks things we are not, obviously. At the moment we are not 'carbon negative' as we are not allowed to include all the carbon sinks that we have. In NZ we are carbon-negative and have been for ages. Not that it means an awful lot in the grand scheme of things, but all these people running around shouting out how we need to get to carbon zero by whatever date are total idiots. We already are, always have been, so go get a useful job or start complaining about something else, somewhere else, about something that is a problem or at least something you understand.
Human activities aren't carbon negative.
The conversation is always about human activities. The point is that if worldwide human activities are not carbon neutral, human activities will warm the planet.
Human activities in New Zealand are contributing (an absolutely miniscule amount) to global warming, because human activities in aggregate in New Zealand aren't carbon neutral, or negative.
Bollocks. I thought you said you were well read? Nothing is being forced - we are are living in a period of atmospheric CO2 starvation. Where do you think the White Cliffs of Dover came from? Our ecosystems love this stuff, hence the global greening. Hats off to you for helping them out by continuing to be here - even though you generously want a lower global population.
"The decline of atmospheric CO2 over the last 65 million years (Ma) resulted in the `CO2-starvation' of
terrestrial ecosystems and led to the widespread distribution of C4 plants, which are less sensitive to CO2
levels than are C3 plants."
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.1998.0198
Yes, the actions of humans in New Zealand are contributing to human-induced global warming.
The whole point of the discussion, which you seem to either not understand, or are deliberately ignoring, is to separate human actions that result in CO2 emissions and CO2 sinks from natural processes that result in CO2 emissions and CO2 sinks.
If natural CO2 sinks were sufficient to absorb all human CO2 emissions then we would not have rising CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural sinks are not sufficient to do this, which is why human activity that results in CO2 emissions needs to be monitored.
I think you are ignoring the fact that New Zealand is a net carbon sink - "Niwa researchers could estimate how much carbon dioxide was arriving over the country. And they could measure how much CO2 was found at the two stations. The latter figure was between 30 and 60 per cent less than the former.". You are just going to have to admit to yourself that you, and your hand wringing mates, aren't moving the dial on atmospheric CO2 in New Zealand. Maybe if we had some heavy industry, or a population that wasn't insignificant, you might have a point. Why separate it? Bask in the fact you live in a negative carbon country - I'm told by climate tragics that carbon negative is great for marketing.
Here's what the scientist involved in the research actually had to say:
In any event, Aotearoa’s carbon sinks aren’t enough to offset the country’s CO2 emissions. We still have to stop burning fossil fuels, Mikaloff-Fletcher says.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300304615/fiordland-carb…
The statement is completely unsubstantiated. Our EEZ sea sea deposition alone annually sequesters all of our fossil fuels. For that statement to be correct atmospheric CO2 would have to be increasing as it passes over NZ - yet NIWA the proven the opposite of that is true. It not just Fiordland that is sequestering either. They admit in the article they had no idea these sinks existed, or on the scale they found. When the facts change you are allowed to change your mind.
"• Recent flux NZ picture: 2017-2019 CO2 sink still present
• New measurements suggest even larger sink"
https://gml.noaa.gov/publications/annual_meetings/2020/pdfs/eGMAC_Beata…
Yeah. Can you not substantiate your opinion? But I 'spose climate doom porn brainwashing will do that.
NZ continental shelf 6 million km2
CaCO3 deposited per annum 120 million tonnes = 53 million tonnes CO2-e.
New Zealand's net emissions in 2020 were 55.5 Mt CO2-e. (44% of this is from ag biomethane which provides no net warming).
https://environment.govt.nz/publications/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-in…
No one knows the real numbers. The numbers we are presented are simply made up, and then a bunch of exclusions are removed to make the situation look bad, and then the complainers complain.
Here are three examples of ridiculous exclusions:
i) Rain forests (or native forests) due to some insane rule are not to be included, only plantation forests planted after 199x (I cannot remember the year). Plantation forests make up a small percentage of NZ forestry. The so-called experts are still arguing about whether existing forests still consume carbon. To me, it's pretty obvious, if they are unable to consume CO2 they die, so that argument is pretty much over, so I cannot believe they still talk about it.
ii) Grassland in NZ is also not included, however, if you watch any overseas documentary on how they are modifying agriculture to be more environmentally friendly you will see they look to NZ at our outdoor grass-based practices because livestock tramples their own manure into the ground, which sequesters carbon and improves the health of the soil. This is what regenerative farming practices are all about. But, of course, this is excluded, farming is bad. We have massive areas like this, and none are included as far as I am aware.
iii) We have one of the largest EEZs in comparison to land area. Algae and organisms in the sea consume vast amounts of C02, but again, it's not counted.
So, we exclude all of this stuff, feel bad about the made-up numbers, and then we think driving electric cars powered by coal-fired power plants is the answer. We are nuts. Apparently, carbon zero is the answer, and we are in the lucky position that we are already there. We can carry on as normal. But we won't. We will then panic and stupidly punish ourselves (well some of us will).
Couldn't access the twatter link but found this
The last sentence from the author is interesting...
In any event, Aotearoa’s carbon sinks aren’t enough to offset the country’s CO2 emissions. We still have to stop burning fossil fuels, Mikaloff-Fletcher says.
(I thought NIWA was full of untrustworthy climate alarmist babies anyway...?)
Nonsense. Is the forest cover in Fiordland increasing? Will it continue? And will that offset how much how much of the last 150 years of forest-razing (which is the true ecological base-line)?
They are quite right; it is the ADDITION of carbon which was BELOW GROUND longer than all of human evolution, to the above-ground arena, that is the problem. And no amount of sequestration-by-tree, can alter that equation.
It was always a fudge.
New Zealand’s renewable share for all energy (not just electricity) has been stuck below 30% for decades. It is supposed to reach 50% by 2035 and then continue to increase until use of fossil fuels is almost entirely eliminated.
I think it is quite likely we will reach, and probably surpass, that 50% target by 2035. But it will be because fossil fuel use has declined due to price and scarcity, not because we've ramped up renewable energy production substantially.
Frequent Interest commenter, Chris Morris, has an excellent post up on Climate Etc. on the NZ grid/renewables etc. He doesn't share your 50% optimism.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/09/30/new-zealand-grid/#more-30549
"There are a lot of plans to build more wind and grid solar farms, but many see them as just tyre-kicking exercises, with few consents applied for and even less construction starting. The windfarms get no direct subsidies from NZ consumers. Therefore, the economics just aren’t there for building additional plants of this sort."
Where are you getting that data from?
Lol seriously? Let’s multiply the 10 Model S from 2012 by 115, add a few Leafs and we then had about 2000 EVs in NZ.
Multiplying *thousands* of Model Ys and BYDs by 5 each and every year is excellent progress thanks to the CCD, which needs to continue for a decade. I guess compounding growth and S curves are a bit beyond you?
CCD achieved 5 x growth in 2 and a half years. This represents a drastic reduction in the growth rate. The 5x figure was being quoted as though it was an achievement. Sure the EV uptake may have only been 4.999X without the clean car rebate but it would be more honest to compare the 4.999 to the 5x and state that the clean car rebate increased EV uptake by 0.001x
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.