NZ sets emissions target
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
The New Zealand Government announced on 10 August 2009 that it will seek a 2020 carbon equivalents emissions reduction
target range of 10 – 20 per cent on 1990 levels. The range is conditional on the following:
A global agreement being secured that limits carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) to 450ppm and temperature increases to
2°C.Effective rules on forestryNew Zealand having access to international carbon markets.
A Q on the target is published here.
The Science Media Centre approached scientists for their reaction to the emissions reduction target range decided on by
the Government.
Professor Jonathan Boston, Director, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington comments:
“The 2020 emissions targets announced today by the New Zealand government represented a useful first step in the current
international negotiations for a post-2012 climate change agreement. But New Zealand and many other developed countries
will need take responsibility for reductions in emissions by 2020 of more than 20 per cent if there is to be a
reasonable chance of avoiding the mean global surface temperature increasing by more than 2 degrees C (above
pre-industrial levels). It is to be hoped that the 10-20 per cent target range is not the government’s final position.”
Professor Allan Rae, Director of the Centre for Agricultural Policy Studies, Massey University comments:
The target announced strikes me as a sensible balance between NZ’s obligations to the international agreement and our
economic ability to shoulder a realistic share of the global burden of attacking climate change. Of course actual
emissions don't have to be reduced by the target amount – firms will mitigate emissions to the point where the marginal
cost of doing so equals the international carbon price. What the announced target determines is the quantity and cost of
purchasing permits from the international market, and therefore the welfare of New Zealanders. To counter potential loss
of international competitiveness, it is important that NZ’s approach(the ETS) should be aligned (sectoral coverage ,
timing, etc) with approaches taken in our competitor countries.
Dr Jim Renwick, climate scientist at NIWA, chair of the climate change committee of the Royal Society of New Zealand
comments:
“It’s good to see such a target (or target range) set for emissions reductions by 2020. To ensure we begin to deal with
the threat of climate change, we must work hard to meet the targets that have been set today, and set even more
ambitious targets for the future. We must act, because if global warming is allowed to continue unchecked, some very
damaging and irreversible changes are likely to come our way.”
Professor Janet F. Bornman, Director, International Global Change Institute, University of Waikato comments:
“At first glance, the government’s target of 10-20 per cent emissions reduction seems very conservative, given that this
is not based solely on reducing domestic emissions. One wonders how much of the emissions reduction will be offset by
the softer options of carbon storage in forests and buying of emission reductions permits from other countries. Unless
there is emphasis on the domestic emissions, the pathway to strong commitment will be compromised.
“The real message as to how we live and work lies in the fact that on a per capita basis, New Zealand is rated 11th in
the world as an emitter. For the general community, targeted awareness campaigns, and where feasible, further financial
contributions, to bring about a change in lifestyle practices are vital for buy-in towards a sustainable and exemplary
New Zealand. The co-benefits to quality of life would be remarkable. But we all need to be caught up in this euphoria
for a significant result to occur.”
Dr Euan Mason, Associate Professor, School of Forestry, University of Canterbury comments:
“A rough calculation suggests that if we established 50,000 ha/year on our eroding lands, by 2020 we would have an extra
15,000 k t of CO2 equivalent sequestered each year by these new forests. This a very significant proportion of the net
emissions cut that the government is seeking, but we need to make provision for harvesting of forests that were planted
during the 1990s. Much of this harvesting is likely to occur during the decade from 2020 to 2030. If this planting rate
continued, by 2030 we could have 30,000 k t of CO2 equivalent sequestered each year by these new forests, which would
more than account for the large projected increase in our net emissions that would otherwise occur as a result of
harvesting plantations planted during the 1990s. Such a programme would cost roughly $40-50 M/year for plantation
establishment, while the annual worth of credits in 2020 would be, conservatively, $375 M (assuming a low value of
NZ$25/t). It is easy to show that such a programme is financially viable, but much harder to identify how to implement
it.
“The ETS, if fully implemented across all sectors, would provide a powerful incentive for the private sector to engage
in such planting, but fully implementing the ETS would impose large changes in relative values of our activities, and
therefore has both economic and political risks. An alternative that we might consider would be to establish a
plantation establishment agency to assist with establishment of carbon forests on private lands, with carbon forests set
up as joint ventures between the state and private land owners. Typically joint ventures for wood production involve a 2
to 1 ownership of the wood between funders and land owners. The terms might be similar for the state and land owners,
but this would require some further analysis. Assuming that the international carbon market persisted and that we had
continuing carbon treaty obligations, taxpayers would be richly rewarded for this investment. At worst we would have
secured some of our eroding lands and reduced the need for state assistance such as that provided to the Wairarapa after
the last flood.
“If we can advance a programme of carbon forest establishment at such a rate for the next century or so, then this will
provide some extra time for New Zealanders to make necessary, but potentially destabilising changes to our behaviours
while still meeting very ambitious targets for reductions in net emissions. Towards the end of the century we would have
established forest on all our erosion-prone land.”
ENDS