tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/new-zealand-emissions-trading-scheme-68535/articlesNew Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme – The Conversation2023-12-18T19:09:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2177722023-12-18T19:09:19Z2023-12-18T19:09:19ZPlanting pine or native forest for carbon capture isn’t the only choice – NZ can have the best of both<p>New Zealand’s <a href="https://environment.govt.nz/publications/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-inventory-1990-2020-snapshot/#how-new-zealand-compares-to-other-countries">per-capita</a> contribution to carbon emissions is very high by international comparison. But so too is its potential to mitigate climate change by planting forests to quickly sequester large amounts of carbon.</p>
<p>There is sometimes passionate debate about how best to do this. Should we continue establishing radiata pine plantations, or focus instead on planting New Zealand native trees?</p>
<p>Arguments for and against each option exist – but there is also a third way that could achieve the best of both worlds: planting radiata pine forests that are not harvested, but instead transitioned over time into native forests through targeted management.</p>
<p>We need to cut emissions drastically. But we also need to remove as much CO₂ from the atmosphere as possible, especially over the next 20 years. A transitional forest model is a powerful way to help achieve this.</p>
<h2>Farming carbon using trees</h2>
<p>As trees grow they absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere and lock the carbon into wood, leaves, roots and soil. </p>
<p>The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (<a href="https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/climate-change/ets/about-nz-ets/">ETS</a>) provides income from growing trees to store carbon. It is a key tool for meeting domestic and international climate change targets, including the 2050 target set by the Climate Change Response Act 2002.</p>
<p>A newly planted native forest will absorb approximately 40 tonnes of atmospheric CO₂ per hectare over ten years. By contrast, an exotic radiata pine forest will achieve <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2022/0266/latest/LMS709973.html">five to ten times this amount</a> over the same period. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meeting-the-long-term-climate-threat-takes-more-than-private-investment-10-ways-nz-can-be-smart-and-strategic-211100">Meeting the long-term climate threat takes more than private investment – 10 ways NZ can be smart and strategic</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In other words, to absorb a given quantity of carbon during the early stages of reforestation, it will take five to ten times more farmland using natives. Because of this enormous advantage of exotics over natives, there is a place for exotic carbon farming. </p>
<p>Some object to pine planting on purely aesthetic grounds – they just don’t like the look of radiata forests. And we agree there are some places where pine is just not appropriate for the landscape. But the urgency to mitigate climate change means we need to turn as much unprofitable pasture into forest as possible.</p>
<p>Radiata forests are also criticised for being monocultures that lack biodiversity. But the pasture they replace is also a monoculture that contains even less biodiversity. Planting trees on pasture also reduces gross emissions by reducing animal stock and therefore methane emissions.</p>
<h2>We can’t plant too many trees</h2>
<p>A year of emissions in Aotearoa New Zealand equals 78.8 million tonnes CO₂ equivalent, based on 2020 figures. To offset this for a ten-year period would require planting roughly 20 million hectares of pasture in native trees, then waiting ten years for them to grow. </p>
<p>The total area of Aotearoa is 26.9 million hectares, with 3 million of those being mountains. Therefore, another treeless country of a similar size would be required to fully offset its emissions using native trees alone. Using radiata pine would require 2 to 4 million hectares. </p>
<p>At an individual level, just one return trip from Auckland to London for one person will produce approximately 11 tonnes of CO₂ emissions. To offset this would require planting over a quarter of a hectare (almost an acre) of native trees, and waiting ten years for them to grow. </p>
<p>On current projections, Aotearoa will need to purchase 100 million tonnes of offshore carbon credits to meet its international commitments. According to <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/498515/the-multibillion-dollar-climate-hole-faced-by-both-labour-and-national#:%7E:text=Treasury%20had%20previously%20put%20the,around%20%24500%20million%20a%20year">Treasury calculations</a>, this will cost between NZ$3.3 billion to $23 billion between now and 2030.</p>
<p>Obviously, the country cannot offset all its emissions by planting trees, native or exotic. Reducing emissions in the first place is the priority. But from a climate perspective, we cannot plant too many trees of any kind. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/were-burning-too-much-fossil-fuel-to-fix-by-planting-trees-making-net-zero-emissions-impossible-with-offsets-217437">We're burning too much fossil fuel to fix by planting trees – making 'net zero' emissions impossible with offsets</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Restoring biodiversity over time</h2>
<p>One of the criticisms levelled at exotic carbon forests is that the carbon storage is not permanent because of the shorter lifespan of pine. But pine plantations in New Zealand can <a href="https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/85/1/79/644814?login=true">keep accumulating carbon</a> for at least a century if they’re not harvested.</p>
<p>Also, the carbon storage is permanent if exotic forests are transitioned into self-sustaining native forests. This process occurs naturally, but can and should be accelerated by targeted management. </p>
<p>Because radiata pine needs a lot of light to grow, its own seedlings will not establish beneath its canopy. Therefore, pine will naturally decline over time and
gradually be replaced by native forest, a process that occurs naturally but takes many decades. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cyclone-gabrielle-triggered-more-destructive-forestry-slash-nz-must-change-how-it-grows-trees-on-fragile-land-200059">Cyclone Gabrielle triggered more destructive forestry 'slash' – NZ must change how it grows trees on fragile land</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>To provide crucial structural and species diversity, and to expedite the transition process, native trees requiring plenty of light need to be planted, and pine trees need to be thinned. This is nothing like commercial harvesting, so the problems associated with forestry “<a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/updated-forestry-regulations-increase-council-controls-and-require-large-slash-removal">slash</a>” do not arise.</p>
<p>Fruiting natives will attract birds and enhance seed dispersal. At the same time, the income from carbon credits through the ETS can be used for further plantings, and also to fund intensive animal pest control – a critical step towards rebuilding native forests.</p>
<p>Eventually, this strategy will provide both permanent carbon storage and carbon capture that continue way beyond a century. But within decades we would also see the return of large areas of highly biodiverse native forests.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217772/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sebastian Leuzinger is a professor of ecology at Auckland University of Technology and occasionally consults for New Zealand Carbon Farming. He has received funding from the Royal Society in the past.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Len Gillman is co-chair of the Waitakere Ranges Pest free Alliance. He has acted as an independent consultant for local government and carbon farmers on climate change mitigation, climate effects mitigation and native forest restoration ecology.</span></em></p>Pine grows faster and sequesters more carbon. But native forest is better for biodiversity in the long run. Transitioning between the two offers a win-win solution.Sebastian Leuzinger, Professor of Environmental Science, Auckland University of TechnologyLen Gillman, Professor of Biogeography, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2174372023-11-15T19:04:41Z2023-11-15T19:04:41ZWe’re burning too much fossil fuel to fix by planting trees – making ‘net zero’ emissions impossible with offsets<p>The idea that we can mitigate current carbon emissions by “offsetting” them with carbon reduction initiatives elsewhere has become central to government and business responses to climate change. But it’s an idea we need to seriously question.</p>
<p>Essentially, the offsetting strategy assumes the release of carbon stored by ancient biology a hundred million years ago can be mitigated in the current active carbon cycle. Since the <a href="https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol">Kyoto protocol</a> was signed, offsetting has become the <a href="https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/carbon-offsets-2023/timeline.html">preferred option</a> globally.</p>
<p>The concept of “net zero” carbon emissions is also at the heart of New Zealand’s <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0040/latest/DLM158584.html">official climate response</a> and its <a href="https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/climate-change/ets/">Emissions Trading Scheme</a>. </p>
<p>How this might change under a new government is hard to predict, with the different positions held by the negotiating parties potentially leading to a “coalition of climate chaos”, <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/500343/coalition-of-climate-chaos-where-national-act-and-nz-first-differ-on-emissions">according to one commentator</a>. </p>
<p>At one level, net zero makes sense. Planting trees to mitigate the effects of forest clearance – or to provide shade, stabilise land and enhance biodiversity – means carbon in the atmosphere can be sequestered where it otherwise would not be.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t automatically mean the planet can absorb all the fossil carbon human industry continues to release. The idea that harm done in the present can be “offset” somewhere else in the future – something <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00288330.2022.2147201">also seen</a> in the field of freshwater ecology – cannot be taken at face value.</p>
<h2>How the carbon cycle works</h2>
<p>To put things in perspective, global carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are currently around <a href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/4811/2022/">10 billion tonnes per year</a>. If we continue emitting at this rate, total fossil fuel emissions from now to 2050 will be about 280 billion tonnes – seven times larger than the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6282">maximum estimated biological carbon sequestration</a> of 38 billion tonnes from 2015 to 2050.</p>
<p>Before humans began extracting fossil fuels, carbon cycled in a <a href="https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/co2-reservoir/">dynamic equilibrium</a>: the total amount of carbon entering each carbon pool was balanced by the total amount of carbon leaving, so the amount of carbon stored did not change. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-tonne-of-fossil-carbon-isnt-the-same-as-a-tonne-of-new-trees-why-offsets-cant-save-us-200901">A tonne of fossil carbon isn't the same as a tonne of new trees: why offsets can't save us</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Then, beginning with coal and later oil and gas, carbon stored over millennia prior to 65 million years ago has been unlocked and released.</p>
<p>Despite its ancient origins, this fossil carbon is “new” carbon being added to the current active <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/aadc6ea123523a46102e2be45bfcedc8.pdf">land-atmosphere-ocean</a> carbon cycle. The reality is that the long-term storage of carbon in plants, soils, geologic formations and the ocean can only mitigate carbon from the current carbon cycle – not any extra fossil carbon. </p>
<p>While the carbon atom in the tree is the same as the carbon atom from burned fossil fuels, that’s where the similarity ends. The fossil carbon the tree is purportedly mitigating is a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.009">separate and additional source</a>.</p>
<p>Planting a tree only mitigates the carbon lost from another tree that no longer exists (the one we chopped down, for example). Furthermore, planting trees to mitigate fossil carbon emissions commits future generations to locking up land as forests, to be maintained forever.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/now-we-know-the-flaws-of-carbon-offsets-its-time-to-get-real-about-climate-change-181071">Now we know the flaws of carbon offsets, it's time to get real about climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This comes with many risks, including <a href="https://www.noaa.gov/noaa-wildfire/wildfire-climate-connection">wildfires</a> and <a href="https://environment.govt.nz/news/the-science-linking-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/">storm damage</a> driven by <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41851-0">droughts</a> and rising temperatures. The resulting feedback loop of weather extremes caused by climate change can <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41854-x">limit and even halt</a> carbon sequestration in forests. </p>
<p>Planting forests to mitigate this means the land is then not available for possibly better uses, including food production. Even so, the world is currently removing trees at <a href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/14/4811/2022/">double the rate</a> they are being replanted.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/forests-cant-handle-all-the-net-zero-emissions-plans-companies-and-countries-expect-nature-to-offset-too-much-carbon-170336">Forests can't handle all the net-zero emissions plans – companies and countries expect nature to offset too much carbon</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The carbon trading trap</h2>
<p>The now ubiquitous notion of “net zero” emissions is at best a delaying tactic, at <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368">worst</a> a form of self-delusion, because it <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3950103">justifies allowing more fossil carbon</a> to be released unabated.</p>
<p>In New Zealand, this translates into subtracting the carbon sequestered by forests planted since 1990 from total emissions – giving a false impression they are <a href="https://environment.govt.nz/assets/publications/climate-change/New-Zealands-Greenhouse-Gas-Inventory-1990-2021-Data-fact-sheet.pdf">27% lower</a> than they actually are.</p>
<p>After subtracting the carbon sequestered from the total emissions, the remainder is labelled “net emissions” – even though every tree planted replaced a preexisting tree, so no fossil emissions were balanced out. </p>
<p>The trading of <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/79031600/government-allowed-climate-fraud-to-reach-emission-reduction-targets--report">fraudulent carbon credits</a> has been an issue in the past, as has been the sale of “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe">phantom credits</a>”. Overall, it <a href="https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/centers/cepp/projects/berkeley-carbon-trading-project">has been shown</a> that “offset credits traded on the market today do not represent real emissions reductions”.</p>
<p>But the underlying assumption that we can mitigate fossil carbon in the current carbon cycle persists. This is despite New Zealand’s Climate Change Commission <a href="https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/public/Advice-to-govt-docs/ERP2/draft-erp2/CCC4940_Draft-ERP-Advice-2023-P02-V02-web.pdf">making it clear</a> the addition of fossil carbon to the atmosphere is effectively permanent on human timescales.</p>
<h2>More trees alone won’t work</h2>
<p>On top of natural sequestration strategies, there are also technological carbon capture and storage techniques being promoted. However, these require large amounts of energy, have been shown to be <a href="https://www.theenergymix.com/2022/07/24/carbon-capture-technologies-are-extraordinarily-expensive-show-limited-potential-ipcc-analysis-concludes/?utm_source=The+Energy+Mix&utm_campaign=3649c2e348-TEM_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc146fb5ca-3649c2e348-510018762">extraordinarily expensive</a>, and have limited potential. Most attempts so far <a href="https://thebulletin.org/2022/09/plagued-by-failures-carbon-capture-is-no-climate-solution/">have failed</a>.</p>
<p>Also, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf">has noted</a>, the carbon captured through such technologies will not necessarily be permanent. Crucially, the net energy return for fossil fuels – that is, the energy they supply versus the energy it costs to extract them – is already in <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190711114846.htm">sharp decline</a>. </p>
<p>Any carbon capture system will <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33976-5">significantly accelerate</a> that decline. According to the IPCC, 13-44% of the energy obtained from extracting fossil fuels <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Chapter_06.pdf">would be lost</a> in the form of the energy required for the process of carbon capture. </p>
<p>The notion that the planet can achieve a net-zero equilibrium without fundamental economic and social change only serves to delay the inevitable. </p>
<p>Even if the entire country or planet were replanted in trees, it would at best <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find#:%7E:text=There%20is%20enough%20room%20in,ETH%20Zurich%2C%20a%20Swiss%20university.">soak up a decade’s worth</a> of current emissions.</p>
<p>Deforestation has to be reversed, and more trees must be planted to sequester the carbon emitted through past land-use changes. But planting trees <em>instead of</em> stopping fossil emissions is not the answer. Planting trees <em>as well as</em> not emitting fossil carbon is the only solution.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217437/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mike Joy receives funding from The Environmental Law Initiative. </span></em></p>The idea that harm done today can be offset in the future is based on a basic misunderstanding of the carbon cycle. Planting more trees is important – but it’s no substitute for cutting emissions.Mike Joy, Morgan Foundation Senior Research Fellow in Freshwater Ecology and Environmental Science, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1626572021-06-17T02:14:26Z2021-06-17T02:14:26ZWhy a carbon price alone won’t be enough to drive down New Zealand’s emissions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406891/original/file-20210616-21-hzbrul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C160%2C8243%2C5302&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With its emissions budgets, the <a href="https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/">Climate Change Commission</a>’s <a href="https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/our-work/advice-to-government-topic/inaia-tonu-nei-a-low-emissions-future-for-aotearoa/">final advice to the government</a> charts a course towards a low-emissions economy. But its comprehensive policy package is arguably the more decisive element — targets can only be achieved if the right policies are in place.</p>
<p>For many years, the Emissions Trading Scheme (<a href="https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/key-initiatives/ets/">ETS</a>) has been the government’s primary policy response to climate change. It puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions, but given New Zealand’s failure to cut emissions, its efficacy has been called into question.</p>
<p>In part, this failure is circumstantial. The ETS was <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003014249-7/rhetoric-reality-new-zealand-climate-leadership-david-hall">deliberately hobbled</a> by the fifth National government to “moderate” its impact on the economy in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. </p>
<p>But recent changes to the ETS settings, especially the introduction of a <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/emission-trading-reforms-another-step-meeting-climate-targets">flexible cap on the total emissions allowed in the scheme</a>, make it more rigorous than ever. The price of New Zealand units (NZUs) has risen correspondingly and, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-020-00436-x">presumably</a>, behaviour change will follow. Or will it?</p>
<p>The commission has taken a clear position that emissions pricing, while necessary for driving the low-emissions transition, is not sufficient. To drive down emissions, the ETS needs complementary policies and tools. Hence the commission’s endorsement of a comprehensive policy package.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-how-emissions-trading-schemes-work-and-they-can-help-us-shift-to-a-zero-carbon-future-122325">Climate explained: how emissions trading schemes work and they can help us shift to a zero carbon future</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This has proven controversial <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/richard-prebble-new-climate-report-is-just-socialist-quackery/WLMWYWJY7VIJNFSVRY7N4TLNDY/">domestically</a>, but it is the standard view in international climate policy circles, including among many economists. A <a href="https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/events/docs/Jenkins%20Stokes%20Wagner%202020%20Carbon%20Pricing%20Workshop.pdf">recent expert workshop</a> in the US concluded that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Carbon pricing cannot stand alone. Politically feasible carbon pricing policies are not sufficient to drive emissions reductions or innovation at the scale and pace necessary.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why is this the case? Because the real world is <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01500-2">more complicated</a> than economic models typically allow.</p>
<h2>Not just market fixing</h2>
<p>There are many finicky obstacles to behaviour change, even when an adequate carbon price is in place. </p>
<p>Consumers may lack adequate information, or lack access to capital to purchase cleaner technology (such as electric cars), or lack the authority to respond to the price signal (such as a building tenant who carries the cost of electricity but cannot undertake energy efficiency improvements to a building she does not own). Not every such barrier will require a regulatory solution, but sometimes this will be just the ticket.</p>
<p>Beyond market fixing, there are deeper challenges to market-based approaches such as emissions pricing.</p>
<p>In theory, an emissions price enables markets to identify the least-cost emissions reductions. This is valuable because the more cost-effective the climate policy, the more resources are left over to do further good.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/carbon-pricing-works-the-largest-ever-study-puts-it-beyond-doubt-142034">Carbon pricing works: the largest-ever study puts it beyond doubt</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But there are instances where more expensive options make sense, especially from the perspective of long-term strategy. It is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907003552">well known</a> that investing in expensive technologies lowers their cost over time, such that steeper upfront costs are justified in the long run. </p>
<p>For example, Germany drove down the price of solar panels through feed-in tariffs, which meant Germans overpaid for electricity but also <a href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/carbon-taxes-alone-aren-t-good-climate-policy-gernot-wagner">accelerated the global shift</a> to renewable energy. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Aerial view of houses with solar panels" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406894/original/file-20210616-3759-u71y7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406894/original/file-20210616-3759-u71y7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406894/original/file-20210616-3759-u71y7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406894/original/file-20210616-3759-u71y7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=295&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406894/original/file-20210616-3759-u71y7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406894/original/file-20210616-3759-u71y7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406894/original/file-20210616-3759-u71y7o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When Germany introduced feed-in tariffs, the price of solar panels dropped.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Hennadii Filchakov</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, in Aotearoa New Zealand, there are opportunities, especially in agriculture and land use, to make future solutions more cost competitive by investing now. </p>
<p>Take investing in native forests — it’s exactly what will reduce the relatively higher costs of establishment (compared to commercial pine plantations that have enjoyed decades of investment already). The higher cost is currently seen as a reason not to plant native forests.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/greening-the-planet-we-cant-just-plant-trees-we-have-to-restore-forests-156910">Greening the planet: we can't just plant trees, we have to restore forests</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Not so sensitive</h2>
<p>Another complication is that some sectors are more sensitive to a carbon price than others. For example, the planting of exotic forest has proved <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300046434/new-zealand-could-meet-its-zero-carbon-target-at-virtually-no-economic-cost-but-is-the-social-cost-too-high">very sensitive</a> to carbon price. So too has electricity because costs are direct and alternatives are available.</p>
<p>But sectors such as agriculture and transport tend to be <a href="https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/fora97&section=88">less sensitive</a>, because costs are diffuse, cultural norms are entrenched, and alternatives are lacking.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/9120/thesis_access.pdf?sequence=1">analysis of transport</a> found an emissions price of NZ$235/tonne — about six times higher than today’s price — would be needed to align transport emissions with New Zealand’s international commitments. This is because, in order to change transport behaviour, we ultimately need to change the transport system. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Cars on motorway" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406896/original/file-20210616-3582-9immhh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406896/original/file-20210616-3582-9immhh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406896/original/file-20210616-3582-9immhh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406896/original/file-20210616-3582-9immhh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406896/original/file-20210616-3582-9immhh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406896/original/file-20210616-3582-9immhh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406896/original/file-20210616-3582-9immhh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">To cut emissions from transport, the system needs to change to reduce people’s dependence on cars.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jason Oxenham/Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Existing infrastructure creates a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620300633">lock-in effect</a> which keeps people in their cars even as the emissions price rises, because alternative means of mobility are inadequate. This is known as “price inelasticity” and has likely been <a href="https://www.ineteconomics.org/research/research-papers/carbon-pricing-and-the-elasticity-of-co2-emissions">significantly underestimated</a> in economic modelling. It is also the source of <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-our-response-to-climate-change-needs-to-be-a-just-and-careful-revolution-that-limits-pushback-123588">political pushback</a> because people have no choice except to bear higher costs.</p>
<p>Consequently there is a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069617308392">case for starting early</a>, rather than attempting an expensive transformation of the transport system only once the carbon price reaches a certain threshold. As others have <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118305671">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Carbon taxes stimulate a search for low-hanging fruit. That ceases to matter when we know we must eventually pick all of the apples on the tree.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>A paradigm shift ahead</h2>
<p>It is time to take seriously the notion that climate policy cannot only be about correcting the status quo, but undertaking a <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/16/8664">major technological transition</a>. What is required isn’t only market-fixing, but a <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/publications/2018/jul/economics-change-policy-and-appraisal-missions-market-shaping-and-public">mission-oriented approach</a> which embraces people’s capacity to find solutions and put them into action. </p>
<p>It also involves more than just allocating costs efficiently by emissions pricing, but searching for policy levers that trigger systems change over time, especially through <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2020.1870097">technological tipping points</a> that cascade upwards into a global-scale impact.</p>
<p>It bears emphasising that, even though there is a case for complementary policies, this does not mean every complementary policy is justified. A new way of evaluating policy options, which accounts for the risks and opportunities of the low-emissions transition, is seriously overdue. </p>
<p>Cost effectiveness ought to retain its place as an instrumental value, alongside other <a href="https://www.bwb.co.nz/books/careful-revolution/">principles of justice</a>. But the purpose of the exercise is risk mitigation — that is what climate action should be judged against. Getting that wrong will be more costly and more unjust than the burdens of the transition.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162657/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hall received funding from Biological Heritage National Science Challenge.</span></em></p>An emissions trading scheme is New Zealand’s main policy to tackle climate change. But to bring down emissions quickly enough, other policies will need to transform transport and agriculture.David Hall, Senior Lecturer in Social Sciences and Public Policy, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1627512021-06-16T23:28:32Z2021-06-16T23:28:32ZNZ’s clean car discount is a turn in the right direction, but how much will it drive consumer demand?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406609/original/file-20210616-3629-1pmqjj6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5400%2C3344&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>New Zealand faces two enormous challenges if it is to meet its international climate change commitments under the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement">Paris Agreement</a>: biogenic methane emissions from agriculture, and carbon emissions from industry and transport.</p>
<p>For now, there seems little prospect of significantly reducing agricultural emissions, short of reducing actual livestock numbers, because the technology is currently not available. The same can’t be said for decarbonising industry and transport.</p>
<p>The question is, how best to do that. Carbon emissions are currently priced by the emissions trading scheme (<a href="https://www.epa.govt.nz/industry-areas/emissions-trading-scheme/">ETS</a>), but in its present form this can’t provide the financial incentives to decarbonise within the <a href="https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/our-work/advice-to-government-topic/inaia-tonu-nei-a-low-emissions-future-for-aotearoa/">timeframe recommended</a> by the Climate Change Commission.</p>
<p>To meet the government’s target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, other market mechanisms will be required. Hence the recently announced “<a href="https://www.transport.govt.nz/area-of-interest/environment-and-climate-change/clean-cars/">feebate</a>” scheme to encourage a transition to electric and cleaner hybrid or conventional vehicles.</p>
<p>There’s no doubt the technology exists to transition industry and transport to a low-carbon future. For industry, electricity and possibly hydrogen are the obvious substitutes for coal and gas.</p>
<p>Decarbonising transport is also technically feasible, but creating the right incentives remains a challenge. While taxes on petrol and diesel already include a price on carbon, demand is relatively insensitive to price, regardless of global costs and local taxes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-policy-that-relies-on-a-shift-to-electric-cars-risks-entrenching-existing-inequities-160856">Climate policy that relies on a shift to electric cars risks entrenching existing inequities</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The new rebate policy simply switches the focus from fossil fuel energy for internal combustion-powered transport to electricity-powered transport.</p>
<p>Ironically, this reverses what happened when hybrid electric vehicles were <a href="https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g15378765/worth-the-watt-a-brief-history-of-the-electric-car-1830-to-presen">first produced</a> in the late 19th century. Mass production of cars and cheap oil put an end to that early form of EV. Back to the future!</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1404180831409561600"}"></div></p>
<h2>How will consumers respond?</h2>
<p>Reducing the price of EVs by lowering the government’s tax take and increasing the levy on certain classes of fossil-fuelled vehicles is a bold initiative — but also something of an experiment. The outcome will depend on the extent to which the rebate increases consumer demand.</p>
<p>New Zealand has one of the highest rates of car ownerships in the world — close to <a href="https://www.transport.govt.nz/statistics-and-insights/fleet-statistics/sheet/vehicle-ownership-2">0.8 vehicles per person</a>. EVs are becoming more popular but still account for less than 1% of the market. Higher uptake depends on a range of variables.</p>
<p>Most car manufacturers are moving into the production of EVs. Although this will occur at scale, we can’t be sure the vehicles will become cheaper, particularly if recent price spikes in raw material markets continue.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nzs-climate-change-commission-needs-to-account-for-the-huge-potential-health-benefits-of-reducing-emissions-156036">NZ's Climate Change Commission needs to account for the huge potential health benefits of reducing emissions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>New Zealand is also at the end of the supply chain, making us price takers in the global market for new EVs. The supply of second-hand EVs from Japan will depend on how often owners replace their vehicles.</p>
<p>On the demand side, the feebate initiative will change the relative price of cars and should increase sales. By how much and over what period is harder to predict.</p>
<p>New Zealanders’ ability to pay for EVs is perhaps more significant. New Zealand is not a high-income economy, and this will probably have a greater bearing on uptake. Even a second-hand vehicle at NZ$25,000 is beyond the reach of many households.</p>
<p>If demand turns out to be relatively insensitive to a change in price, further policy adjustments will be needed. This, of course, opens up the possibility of future governments altering the entire course of transport decarbonisation policy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-nz-gets-serious-about-climate-change-can-electricity-replace-fossil-fuels-in-time-155123">As NZ gets serious about climate change, can electricity replace fossil fuels in time?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A nudge in the right direction</h2>
<p>Economies are complex interdependent systems. The rebate scheme is a policy “nudge”, but clearly public transport, cycling and walking should be part of a broader set of policies aimed at getting people out of private motor vehicles.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the impact on electricity prices remains unclear. About 80-85% of New Zealand’s electricity comes from renewable sources. Timely investment in wind, geothermal and stored hydro can add to supply in the future, and the current government wants to see <a href="https://www.labour.org.nz/release-renewable-electricity-generation-2030">100% renewable electricity</a> generation by 2030.</p>
<p>Paradoxically, however, transitioning to a low-carbon economy will most likely result in higher electricity bills. Bringing additional generation capacity on line, increased demand from transitioning industry and transport to electric, and the prospect of producing green hydrogen from renewable sources, will all drive up prices.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, New Zealand’s endowment of renewable resources positions it well to meet its obligations under the Paris Agreement. But achieving the 2030 target remains a huge challenge. The rebate scheme is but a step in that direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162751/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Basil Sharp does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Moving New Zealanders rapidly into electric vehicles is a good idea, but success will still depend on a number of difficult to predict economic forces.Basil Sharp, Professor of Energy Economics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1510832020-12-01T03:21:50Z2020-12-01T03:21:50ZClimate emergency or not, New Zealand needs to start doing its fair share of climate action<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/372131/original/file-20201201-21-lr9ip6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=20%2C98%2C2711%2C1724&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Hana E</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Following this week’s <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300168280/government-to-declare-climate-change-emergency-in-parliament-next-week">climate emergency declaration</a>, New Zealand will have to face up to the fact it has one of the worst climate records of industrialised nations.</p>
<p>Of 43 industrialised countries — known as <a href="https://unfccc.int/process/parties-non-party-stakeholders/parties-convention-and-observer-states">Annex 1</a> countries — 31 are experiencing a drop in emissions. But 12 have seen net emissions increase between 1990 and 2018, and New Zealand is near the top of this group.</p>
<iframe title="Industrialised countries that show an increase in net emissions" aria-label="chart" id="datawrapper-chart-OuWK6" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/OuWK6/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" width="100%" height="625"></iframe>
<p>As part of the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement">Paris Agreement</a>, countries were asked to submit emissions reduction targets. These Nationally Determined Contributions (<a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs">NDCs</a>) are a measure of a nation’s commitment to contribute to the goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C.</p>
<p>New Zealand submitted its NDC in 2015, with a headline target of bringing emissions down over the coming decade to 30% below 2005 levels. But this is not what it seems. </p>
<p>New Zealand’s NDC <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/climate-commission-to-review-nzs-paris-target">confuses</a> the issue by adopting a target of <em>net</em> emissions in 2030 compared to a baseline of <em>gross</em> emissions in 2005. This target actually allows New Zealand to <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/emissions-reduction-targets/projected-emissions">increase</a> net emissions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/by-declaring-a-climate-emergency-jacinda-ardern-needs-to-inspire-hope-not-fear-151021">By declaring a climate emergency Jacinda Ardern needs to inspire hope, not fear</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Last year, New Zealand introduced the <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/zero-carbon-amendment-act">Zero Carbon Act</a>, making it one of few countries to have a zero-emissions goal enshrined in law. But current short-term policies do not yet keep up with the ambition to reach net zero emissions by 2050.</p>
<h2>Fair and ambitious climate action</h2>
<p>It was clear at the time of the Paris Agreement that countries’ initial targets would be woefully insufficient for limiting warming to well below 2°C. Therefore, the agreement requires countries to show a “<a href="https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf">progression over time</a>” to reflect each country’s “highest possible ambition”. </p>
<p>In addition to increasingly more ambitious targets, countries were also asked to explain why their intended contribution to the common aim was fair. <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10784-017-9381-x">Many did so</a>, but not New Zealand. </p>
<p>Some countries argued their contribution was fair because their total share of global emissions was small. Others said their per-capita emissions were small, while some high-emitting nations pointed out their per-capita emissions were falling. If those arguments weren’t applicable, some countries said it was particularly hard for them to reduce emissions, so their fair share should be smaller. </p>
<p>As any child in the playground complaining “That’s not fair!” would recognise, these are just self-serving excuses for inaction, rather than justifiable bases for determining fairness. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-our-response-to-climate-change-needs-to-be-a-just-and-careful-revolution-that-limits-pushback-123588">Why our response to climate change needs to be a just and careful revolution that limits pushback</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Who decides what’s fair</h2>
<p>The official United Nations (UN) review of climate plans won’t happen until 2023. For now, we have to rely on outside assessments. Two major ones, by <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/">Climate Action Tracker</a> and the <a href="http://climateequityreference.org">Climate Equity Reference Project</a>, illustrate some possible approaches.</p>
<p>Climate Action Tracker argues an approach is fair if it would lead to the outcomes agreed in Paris, were it to be followed by all countries. On that basis, <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/new-zealand/">New Zealand’s NDC</a> was rated <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/122341331/nz-rated-insufficient-on-climate-action-again">insufficient</a>, consistent with a world that would be 3°C warmer. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1332297632698417153"}"></div></p>
<p>The Climate Equity Reference Project attempts to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10784-017-9371-z">determine</a> universally agreed criteria of fairness, based on UN agreements and on discussions with social, environmental, development and faith groups around the world. They found there should be a component of historical responsibility — who got us into this mess, and who benefited from it? </p>
<p>This can be assessed by cumulative emissions from some starting point, such as 1850 or 1950. There should also be an element based on a country’s ability to act, assessed by GDP above a certain threshold. </p>
<p>Under this approach, New Zealand’s <a href="https://calculator.climateequityreference.org/">target</a> would need to be for net emissions to reach zero by 2030, and to go negative after that by storing carbon and by investing in emission reductions in other countries.
These conclusions were recently endorsed in a detailed <a href="https://www.oxfam.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Oxfam-NZ-Briefing-A-Fair-2030-Target-for-Aotearoa.pdf">study</a> by Oxfam NZ. </p>
<p>Zero net emissions by 2030 is just not possible. New Zealand hasn’t even <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-emissions">started</a> reducing emissions yet. </p>
<h2>Wealthy nations should shoulder more responsibility</h2>
<p>So what can you do when you’ve agreed to something that you can’t achieve? The first step has to be to acknowledge the situation and to determine a fair contribution. New Zealand hasn’t done that yet — our present NDC (updated in April 2020 to reflect the Zero Carbon Act) does not mention fairness. </p>
<p>The second step is to work out the highest possible ambition. For example, New Zealand could follow the EU lead of cutting emissions by a further <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eu-climate-action/2030_ctp_en">42–48%</a> in the next decade. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/">Climate Change Commission</a>, set up under the Zero Carbon Act, gives New Zealand a framework for addressing this. The commission is expected to release a consultation document in February, reviewing the NDC and preparing emissions budgets out to 2035. </p>
<p>The commission’s chair, Rod Carr, has acknowledged the importance of fairness in determining the NDC, <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/climate-chief-rod-carr-on-agriculture-fairness-and-optimism">saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think fair share is a really good conversation for New Zealanders to have […] We’re a wealthy, developed nation. The wealthy nations, with the higher incomes per capita, do have a responsibility for doing more than the average. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The commission will also advise on how much of New Zealand’s contribution should be met domestically or internationally, and how much should be met by planting trees versus actually reducing emissions. </p>
<p>The latter is already a contentious issue, as the payments for “carbon farming” (which New Zealand’s <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/ets">Emissions Trading Scheme</a>, uniquely in the world, includes) are leading to <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/116842839/govt-gives-japaneseowned-forestry-company-free-pass-to-buy-new-zealand-land">unrest</a> in the farming and environment sectors. </p>
<p>If people are paid to store carbon in trees today, who bears the responsibility for maintaining that store indefinitely, and who bears the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9">risk</a> should it fail?</p>
<p>Climate change minister James Shaw has <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/123360658/nz-now-behind-china-on-climate-pledges--james-shaw">acknowledged</a> the present target is weak, compared to what the US, EU and China are now considering, and that he is expecting a stronger target to be recommended by the commission next year.</p>
<p>New Zealand has put in place new institutions and mechanisms to cut emissions and to phase out fossil fuels. Now, we put them to work.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151083/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New Zealand is one of few countries to enshrine a zero-carbon goal in law, but current climate policies don’t keep up with that ambition.Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1465692020-09-30T18:26:41Z2020-09-30T18:26:41ZNZ election 2020: survey shows voters are divided on climate policy and urgency of action<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360642/original/file-20200929-22-48ixm8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C80%2C4493%2C2889&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/riekephotos</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>New Zealanders are polarised on climate change policy, according to a recent <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/122106838/why-the-stuffmassey-election-survey-matters">Stuff/Massey University survey</a> of 55,000 readers. This puts the two major political parties in a difficult position as they seek options that are credible yet appealing to voters. </p>
<p>Just 30% of Labour voters and 22% of National voters think the country is “more or less on the right path” on climate action. </p>
<iframe title="On climate change, which of the following messages would you send to the government?" aria-label="chart" id="datawrapper-chart-VxkTD" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VxkTD/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" width="100%" height="500" caption="test"></iframe>
<p>The majority of voters on one side of the political spectrum wants to see “urgent action and radical change”, while at the other end most recommend caution and scepticism. </p>
<p>The survey helps explain the deep <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/oram-if-you-want-a-future-vote-climate">distrust</a> climate advocates have for the National Party, and their <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/campaigning-hits-credibility-gap-on-climate">demands</a> for bolder choices from Labour. </p>
<h2>Where the parties stand</h2>
<p>Labour is running heavily on its record, including the passing of the <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/zero-carbon-amendment-act">Zero Carbon Act</a> and the introduction of a <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/nz-puts-hard-cap-on-emissions-for-first-time-to-strengthen-its-trading-scheme-27417/">falling cap</a> on emissions permits issued under the <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/ets">Emissions Trading Scheme</a>. </p>
<p>Although the government’s COVID-19 recovery spending has been criticised for not being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/14/new-zealand-budget-1bn-for-nature-jobs-but-dismay-at-lack-of-climate-action">green enough</a>, Labour seems aligned with a “just transition” approach championed by the <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_432859.pdf">International Labour Organisation</a>. </p>
<p>Labour’s climate headline policy is for <a href="https://www.labour.org.nz/release-renewable-electricity-generation-2030">100% renewable electricity</a> by 2030, five years earlier than planned, and to spend NZ$100 million <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/100-renewable-electricity-grid-explored-pumped-storage-%E2%80%98battery%E2%80%99">developing a pumped hydro scheme</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-wants-to-build-a-100-renewable-electricity-grid-but-massive-infrastructure-is-not-the-best-option-143592">New Zealand wants to build a 100% renewable electricity grid, but massive infrastructure is not the best option</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Labour is also sticking with a plan for a nationwide <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/18628/attachments/original/1599690527/Clean_Energy_-_FAQ.pdf">fuel efficiency standard</a>, which would begin to turn around New Zealand’s growing <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12221417">transport emissions</a>. </p>
<iframe title="Emissions from transport" aria-label="chart" id="datawrapper-chart-1vDp3" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1vDp3/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The party has dropped the electric car rebate, which the National Party has <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12264203">attacked</a> on the grounds it could increase the price of popular vehicles. A similar <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/ev-scare-puts-morrison-at-odds-with-his-party-and-treasurer/news-story/efacec437ba0fd97b08aa60e809e144d">approach</a> worked for the Australian Liberal Party in 2019.</p>
<p>The Green Party would go further. While also promising 100% renewable electricity by 2030, the party promotes home solar and insulation and community clean energy. More boldly, it would <a href="https://www.greens.org.nz/energy_policy">immediately</a> ban new fossil-fuelled industrial boilers and end industrial coal use by 2030 and gas by 2035. It would <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122922549/election-2020-greens-promise-free-public-transport-ban-on-petrol-vehicle-imports-cycle-super-highway-fund">prioritise</a> free public transport for under-18s, ban petrol car imports from 2030 and create a NZ$1.5 billion cycleway fund.</p>
<p>The National Party has released its <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300104885/national-wants-electric-cars-in-bus-lanes-as-part-of-push-to-electrify-fleets">electric vehicle policy</a>, with a target of 80,000 electric vehicles on the road by 2023 (up from 16,000 now). It would exempt these vehicles from fringe benefit tax until 2025 and from road user charges until at least 2023 to encourage uptake by commercial fleets. </p>
<p>It would also target a third of government vehicles to be electric by 2023 and allow electric vehicles to use bus and carpool lanes. The last point has been criticised for <a href="https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2017/04/06/at-rejects-allowing-electric-vehicles-in-bus-lanes/">impeding</a> the flow of buses.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1304233527630651392"}"></div></p>
<p>On the other hand, National’s climate spokesperson, Scott Simpson, has called the party a “broad church” and <a href="https://www.podcasts.nz/king-of-the-roads-meet-scott-simpson-nationals-spokesperson-on-climate-change/">pledged</a> to amend the Zero Carbon Act to emphasise that food production should not be sacrificed for climate goals.</p>
<p>The ACT Party, which on current polling would <a href="https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/1-news-colmar-brunton-poll-labour-and-greens-in-driving-seat-but-act-still-strong">increase from one to ten MPs</a>, was the only party to oppose the Zero Carbon Act. It now <a href="https://www.act.org.nz/environment">proposes</a> repealing the act and tying the price of carbon to that of New Zealand’s five top trading partners.</p>
<h2>What a difference three years make</h2>
<p>At the time of New Zealand’s last general election in September 2017, Extinction Rebellion and the School Strike 4 Climate movements did not yet exist. Greta Thunberg was unknown to the world. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Climate protest" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360645/original/file-20200929-16-3bq0ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360645/original/file-20200929-16-3bq0ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360645/original/file-20200929-16-3bq0ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360645/original/file-20200929-16-3bq0ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360645/original/file-20200929-16-3bq0ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360645/original/file-20200929-16-3bq0ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/360645/original/file-20200929-16-3bq0ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate protesters demonstrating in Wellington.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/ Natalia Ramirez Roman</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now climate activism has increased <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/27/climate-crisis-6-million-people-join-latest-wave-of-worldwide-protests">globally</a>. Climate-change <a href="https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/">impacts</a>, including temperature records of 38°C in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-wmo-russia-idUSKBN2412SG">northern Siberia</a> to 54°C in <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53788018">Death Valley</a>, have attracted widespread attention. Orange skies in San Francisco are a reminder of apocalyptic Australian bushfires less than a year ago. </p>
<p>There are also signs of bolder climate action that may fulfil the declarations of the <a href="https://cop23.unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement">Paris Agreement</a>. In the European Union, negotiations are under way to cut 2030 emissions to <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/eu-lawmakers-up-the-ante-vote-for-60-climate-target-for-2030/">40-45%</a> of 1990 levels. This target would require halving emissions in the next decade. </p>
<p>In the US, the Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, has a <a href="https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/biden-unveils-2-trillion-plan-to-decarbonise-us-power-by-2035/2-1-843114">US$2 trillion proposal</a> for rapid decarbonisation. Ireland’s new government has agreed to emission cuts of <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/programme-for-government-binding-targets-under-green-new-deal-1.4279576">7% per year</a>. China has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/22/china-pledges-to-reach-carbon-neutrality-before-2060">pledged</a> to be carbon-neutral before 2060. </p>
<p>In New Zealand, both <a href="https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/environment/Pages/auckland-climate-action-plan.aspx">Auckland</a> and <a href="https://wellington.govt.nz/services/environment-and-waste/environment/climate-change/zero-carbon-capital">Wellington</a> councils have released highly ambitious climate plans that will require sweeping changes to housing and transport.</p>
<p>But this year’s New Zealand general election won’t be about climate change. The COVID-19 crisis and the high level of uncertainty about economic recovery and employment have made issues of leadership, trust and party branding more important than ever. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-covid-19-budget-delivers-on-one-crisis-but-largely-leaves-climate-change-for-another-day-138524">New Zealand's COVID-19 budget delivers on one crisis, but largely leaves climate change for another day</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In this context, Labour’s nod to the <a href="https://businessdesk-co-nz.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/businessdesk.co.nz/amp/article/keith-turner-time-for-new-nation-building-hydro-project">Lake Onslow pumped hydro project</a> could be a winner. Its storage potential is <a href="https://newzealand.water.blog/2019/05/30/the-journey-begins/">enormous</a> – more than all of New Zealand’s present hydro lakes combined and 15 times the size of Australia’s <a href="https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/">Snowy 2.0</a> project. </p>
<p>It could decarbonise not just all electricity generation, but a lot of industrial process heat and transport as well. It would address the seasonal imbalance between lake inflows and electricity demand, and protect against dry years. But it’s also a traditional civil engineering project far in the future and doesn’t threaten anybody’s lifestyle today. </p>
<p>In New Zealand, as elsewhere, climate politics means finding support for actions now whose benefits extend far into the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146569/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New Zealand voters are divided on climate policy along party lines, with the majority on one side of the political spectrum calling for urgent action while at the other end most recommend caution.Robert McLachlan, Professor in Applied Mathematics, Massey UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1223252019-08-27T20:10:27Z2019-08-27T20:10:27ZClimate explained: how emissions trading schemes work and they can help us shift to a zero carbon future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289353/original/file-20190826-170956-kugdi5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions forces us to face at least some of the environmental cost of what we produce and consume.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/287622/original/file-20190811-144878-bvgm9l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><strong>Climate Explained</strong> is a collaboration between The Conversation, Stuff and the New Zealand Science Media Centre to answer your questions about climate change.</em> </p>
<p><em>If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, please send it to climate.change@stuff.co.nz</em></p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Would you please explain how the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) works in simple terms? Who pays and where does the money go?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>Every tonne of emissions causes damages and a cost to society. In traditional market transactions, these costs are ignored. Putting a price on emissions forces us to face at least some of the cost of the emissions associated with what we produce and consume, and it influences us to choose lower-emission options. </p>
<p>An emissions trading scheme (<a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/ets">ETS</a>) is a tool that puts a quantity limit and a price on emissions. Its “currency” is emission units issued by the government. Each unit is like a voucher that allows the holder to emit one tonne of greenhouse gases. </p>
<p>The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (<a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/ets">NZ ETS</a>) is the government’s main tool to meet our <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/climate-change-and-government/emissions-reduction-targets/about-our-emissions">target</a> under the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement">Paris Agreement</a>. In a typical ETS, the government caps the number of units in line with its emissions target and the trading market sets the corresponding emission price. </p>
<p>In New Zealand, the price for a tonne of greenhouse gases is currently slightly below NZ$25, which is not in line with our target. We are still waiting for the government to set a cap on the <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/ets">NZ ETS</a>, which is (hopefully) coming. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-nzs-emissions-trading-scheme-should-have-an-auction-reserve-price-102984">Why NZ's emissions trading scheme should have an auction reserve price</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the past, we had no limit on the number of emission units in the system, which is why emission prices stayed low, our domestic emissions continued to rise, and the system accumulated a substantial number of banked units.</p>
<h2>How an ETS works and who pays</h2>
<p>The government decides which entities (typically companies) in each sector (e.g. fossil fuel producers and importers, industrial producers, foresters, and landfill operators) will be liable for their emissions. In some cases (e.g. fossil fuel producers and importers), liable entities are not the actual emitters but they are responsible for the emissions generated when others use their products. </p>
<p>There is a <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/new-zealand-emissions-trading-scheme/about-nz-ets">trading market</a> where entities can buy units to cover their emissions liability and sell units they don’t need. The trading price depends on market expectations for supply versus demand. Steeper targets mean lower supply and higher emissions mean higher demand; both mean higher emission prices and more behaviour change. </p>
<p>Each liable entity is required to report emissions and surrender to the government enough units to cover the amount of greenhouse gases they release. The companies that have to surrender units pass on the associated cost to their customers, like any other production cost. In this way, the emission price signal flows across the economy embedded in the cost of goods and services, influencing everyone to make more climate-friendly choices. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289523/original/file-20190826-8856-1fpatuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/289523/original/file-20190826-8856-1fpatuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289523/original/file-20190826-8856-1fpatuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289523/original/file-20190826-8856-1fpatuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289523/original/file-20190826-8856-1fpatuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289523/original/file-20190826-8856-1fpatuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/289523/original/file-20190826-8856-1fpatuv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Supplied by author</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are several ways for entities to get units. </p>
<p>First, some get free allocation from the government. Currently, these free allocations are granted to <a href="https://www.epa.govt.nz/industry-areas/emissions-trading-scheme/industrial-allocations/decisions/">trade-exposed industrial producers</a> (for products such as steel, aluminium, methanol, cement and fertiliser) as a way of preventing the production and associated emissions from shifting to other countries without reducing global emissions. Producers who emit beyond their free allocation need to buy more units, whereas those who improve their processes and emit less can sell or bank their excess units. </p>
<p>Second, entities can earn units by establishing new forests or through industrial activities that remove emissions. By stripping emissions from the atmosphere, such removal activities make it possible to add units to the cap without increasing net emissions. The government <a href="https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Documents/Emissions-Trading-Scheme/Reports/Annual-Reports/2018-ETS-Facts-and-Figures.pdf">publishes information</a> on ETS emissions and removals every year.</p>
<p>Third, entities can buy units from the government through auctioning. In this case, market demand still sets the price. The NZ ETS does not yet have auctioning, but again this is (hopefully) coming. The government currently does allow emitters to buy uncapped fixed-price units at NZ$25.</p>
<p>In the past, entities had a fourth option – buying offshore units – but this <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/decisions-kyoto-protocol-emission-units">stopped in mid-2015</a>. This option is not currently available under the Paris Agreement. If that changes in the future, quantity and quality limits will be needed on offshore units. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-poised-to-introduce-clean-car-standards-and-incentives-to-cut-emissions-120896">New Zealand poised to introduce clean car standards and incentives to cut emissions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Where the money goes</h2>
<p>The entities that surrender units to the government directly face the price of emissions – either because they had to buy units from other entities or the government, or because they lost the opportunity to sell freely allocated units. </p>
<p>When the government sells units – through auctioning or the fixed-price mechanism – it earns revenue. In 2018, the New Zealand government sold 16.82 million fixed-price units and received NZ$420 million in revenue. When selling fixed-price units that allow the market to emit more, the government has to compensate through more action to reduce domestic emissions (like reducing fossil fuel use or planting more trees) or purchasing emission reductions from other countries - and these actions have a cost. </p>
<p>When ETS auctioning is introduced (potentially in late 2020), the government will receive more significant revenue. It has signalled that any revenue from pricing agricultural emissions (methane and nitrous oxide) will be returned to the sector to help with a transition to lower emissions. </p>
<p>What will happen with NZ ETS auction revenue from other sectors is an open policy question. So are the questions of how large the NZ ETS cap, and how high the emission price, should be. This will be determined under the <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/zero-carbon-amendment-bill">Zero Carbon Bill</a> and future amendments and regulations to the ETS. </p>
<p><em>This article was prepared in collaboration with Bronwyn Bruce-Brand and Ceridwyn Roberts at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122325/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine Leining does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Traditional market transactions ignore the costs of greenhouse gas emissions. An emissions trading scheme is a tool to put a price on emissions and to influence us to choose lower-emission options.Catherine Leining, Policy Fellow, Climate Change, Motu Economic and Public Policy ResearchLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1142812019-03-28T04:10:45Z2019-03-28T04:10:45ZNZ’s environmental watchdog challenges climate policy on farm emissions and forestry offsets<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266050/original/file-20190327-139361-ecbjab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=81%2C226%2C3785%2C2359&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has warned that afforestation is a risky approach to combatting climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, from burping and urinating livestock, account for about <a href="http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/why-climate-change-matters/agriculture-emissions-and-climate-change">half of New Zealand’s total emissions</a>. These agricultural emissions have been the elephant in the room of New Zealand climate policy for some time.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/farms-forests-and-fossil-fuels-the-next-great-landscape-transformation">report</a> released by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (<a href="https://www.pce.parliament.nz/">PCE</a>) this week suggests New Zealand should treat biological emissions differently from carbon dioxide emissions. It also says afforestation is a risky approach to combating climate change if planting trees is used to offset carbon emissions.</p>
<p>The report threatens to turn environmental policy and its principal policy tool, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (<a href="http://www.mfe.govt.nz/ets">NZ ETS</a>), on its head.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-approach-to-emissions-trading-in-a-post-paris-climate-78746">A new approach to emissions trading in a post-Paris climate</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Emissions trading in New Zealand</h2>
<p>New Zealand’s <a href="http://www.mfe.govt.nz/ets">Emissions Trading Scheme</a>, established by Helen Clark’s Labour administration in 2008, was meant to be a bold first in the world. It was going to cover all greenhouse-gases and all sectors and include forestry as an emissions sink. Critically, it was to include agriculture and the related biological emissions. </p>
<p>But the election of John Key’s National administration in 2009, with their rural electorate, meant agriculture never entered the scheme and was therefore “given a free ride” in the decade or so since. To put this “free ride” into context, the rest of the economy could buy cheap, and in some cases dubious, international carbon units for the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988318301609">bulk of that period</a>. </p>
<p>After international trading was stopped, they could buy relatively cheap domestic forestry units. In truth, it was never much of a free ride for agriculture since no one was working particularly hard to mitigate anyhow. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.pce.parliament.nz/publications/farms-forests-and-fossil-fuels-the-next-great-landscape-transformation">PCE report</a> challenges the scheme’s architecture. It makes a number of recommendations. First, it suggests that biological emission should be treated differently to carbon dioxide emissions, with a zero target on carbon dioxide and a much lower but unspecified target for biological emissions. </p>
<p>The second recommendation is to no longer allow forestry sinks to be used to offset carbon dioxide emission, but to continue using them to offset biological emission. </p>
<p>This shifts the burden of mitigation away from biological emissions in agriculture towards carbon dioxide emissions from energy use and transport.</p>
<h2>The PCE’s recommendations</h2>
<p>The report provides an alternative vision to the “all gasses and all sectors” flexibility envisioned for the original NZ ETS. It differentiates between carbon dioxide and biological emissions since carbon dioxide is a long-lived greenhouse gas, but biological emissions include the <a href="https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/343616/livestock-to-blame-for-19-percent-of-global-warming-study">long-lived nitrous oxide and the shorter-lived but potent methane</a>. </p>
<p>The recommendation that afforestation sinks should no longer be used to offset carbon dioxide emissions represent a radical departure. It is likely to be opposed by foresters and those not wanting to create too much uncertainty in the NZ ETS. These are fair points that must be balanced against the logic behind the recommendation. </p>
<p>Using afforestation to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions is risky because forests may burn down (especially in a warming world) and <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-wildfires-carbon-emissions-equal-year-power-pollution-n942756">release the carbon again</a>. Commercial plantation forests only hold the carbon until the next harvesting cycle, and ultimately the land available for tree planting is limited and may crowd out other land uses. </p>
<p>Using afforestation to tackle carbon dioxide reductions also means we do not work hard enough to decarbonise the economy in more fundamental ways, including switching to electric vehicles, building houses for passive solar heating and making process heat renewable.</p>
<h2>The search for cross-party consensus</h2>
<p>Overall, the report signals a fundamentally different approach to climate policy from that envisioned for the NZ ETS over a decade ago. Differentiating carbon and biological emissions is sensible both from a science and a political expediency perspective. </p>
<p>The latter is particularly important if we are to have a political consensus behind the <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/have-your-say-zero-carbon">proposed Zero Carbon Act</a>. Ultimately, the opposition National party will not back anything that unduly affects its agricultural electorate. Reducing reliance on carbon sinks also seems sensible as it pushes the cost of mitigation into the future, imposing it on future generations. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-fresh-start-for-climate-change-mitigation-in-new-zealand-87245">A fresh start for climate change mitigation in New Zealand</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Does this mean a free ride for agriculture once more? Probably not, but the devil will be in the detail. What the reduction targets for biological emissions should be is not clear. The report cites a range of between 22% to 48% by 2050 as potentially feasible with investment in research and development. </p>
<p>The degree to which afforestation can be used to offset agricultural emissions also needs to be thought about. Unlimited forestry offsets could lead to landscapes that are either planted in trees or relatively intensive dairy farming, with little else in between. This is undesirable as it could lead to changes in biological diversity and water quality and ultimately damage New Zealand’s green and clean brand. </p>
<p>Clearly, there needs to be strong incentives to reduce biological emissions beyond the offset option that push towards more sustainable forms of farming. There is a strong case to limit offsets for agriculture as well, but this might depress the forestry sector.</p>
<p>Finally, to remove the carbon offset option from the market immediately or in the next few years would be unfair to foresters and companies that have been planning to use offsets based on the current architecture. A transition period would be needed to lessen the regulatory shock.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114281/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ivan Diaz-Rainey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new report suggests New Zealand should rethink climate policy and use forests to offset only agricultural emissions, which make up half of the country’s total emissions, and not carbon dioxide.Ivan Diaz-Rainey, Associate Professor of Finance & Director, Climate and Energy Finance Group, University of OtagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.