$14 billion to meet Paris Agreement targets

Written By: - Date published: 7:01 am, May 23rd, 2017 - 16 comments
Categories: climate change, ETS, global warming, national, useless - Tags: , , , ,

Great piece by Isobel Ewing on Newshub yesterday:

New Zealand to spend $14 billion to meet Paris Agreement targets

Newshub can reveal the cost to the New Zealand economy to meet Paris Agreement targets will be $1 billion every year for a decade

But that money won’t be spent on reducing New Zealand’s domestic emissions, it’ll go towards paying other countries to reduce their emissions.

The point of the agreement is to reduce emissions. Buying credits is a last resort, not a first.

In the documents, officials say “this represents a significant transfer of wealth overseas”, and also warn “ an over reliance on overseas purchasing at the expense of domestic reductions could also leave New Zealand exposed in the face of increasing global carbon prices beyond 2030”.

Why isn’t National taking active steps to curb our emissions? We committed to reduce to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, instead we are expected to increase. This is a massive failure of vision, commitment, and competence.

Co-leader James Shaw argues it’s cheaper for New Zealand to reduce domestic emissions, and it’s risky to take a gamble on an international carbon price which is subject to increase.

“The government has always said it’s too costly for New Zealand to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions, but what these documents show is they haven’t been completely straight with the public because they haven’t been talking about the cost of paying other countries to do it for us.”

If we do end up spending this huge amount on carbon credits, can we at least make sure that they aren’t fraudulent credits like last time?

16 comments on “$14 billion to meet Paris Agreement targets ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Andre 1
    23 May 2017 at 7:37 am

    There’s a fundamental perception problem with carbon credits – they imply some sort of right to pollute and trash the environment.

    Whereas a simple greenhouse gas tax sends the implicit message – you damage the commons, you pay for that damage.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      23 May 2017 at 8:02 am

      ^^^this.

      The Friedmanites at Chicago U clearly forgot that when you invent a market, you also create a black market to go with it.

  2. RedLogix 2
    23 May 2017 at 8:13 am

    Even in Australia, where carbon politics have driven a huge rent down the middle of the consensus over the past 15 years, there is a slow awakening (everywhere except the Liberal’s) that some form of carbon pricing is going to be necessary.

    The Liberals are now looking very stupid indeed. For a decade they warned that carbon taxes would increase power prices, but now directly due to government policy failure and a subsequent lack of generation investment (old stations being retired at end of life and nothing new to replace them) power prices are increasing 30 – 50% in a matter of months. Far more than any carbon tax would have done.

    Surprisingly the charge is being led by the big banks and coal companies who finally woke up to the fact that without the pricing mechanism to make new high efficiency power stations and carbon capture economic, there is absolutely no future in coal when competing against solar.

    Turnbull’s govt has had to intervene directly in the gas market to prevent local customers being charged 2 -3 times more than the same gas delivered to Japan.

    The lack of a clear carbon policy has resulted in a complete mess in their energy sector. Here in NZ the issue revolves more around agriculture and we have yet to really see the impact of our lack of action. Other nations who are our customers will not permit us a free ride forever.

  3. Draco T Bastard 3
    23 May 2017 at 8:49 am

    Why isn’t National taking active steps to curb our emissions?

    Because it threatens their present model of cheap Get Rich Quick Schemes.

    This is a massive failure of vision, commitment, and competence.

    Actually, it’s exactly as planned. We keep doing what we’re doing and other people can go to the effort of reducing GHG emissions. This is what all the hoopla of NZ emissions not making a dent in the world is all about. An excuse to allow the polluters to keep polluting.

    If we do end up spending this huge amount on carbon credits, can we at least make sure that they aren’t fraudulent credits like last time?

    If it’s National in power you can guarantee that they will be fraudulent ones as they’ll be the cheapest available.

  4. saveNZ 4
    23 May 2017 at 9:39 am

    The government/industy should be paying locals for real carbon credits! We are ‘supposedly’ a ‘clean, green, 100% pure country” – so it makes more sense to create an economy in NZ for carbon credits.

    Rather than reducing and polluting our forests and biodiversity the government should be actively using local ‘carbon’ credits as way forward in climate change.

    • Draco T Bastard 4.1
      23 May 2017 at 3:58 pm

      We are ‘supposedly’ a ‘clean, green, 100% pure country”

      It’s typical RWNj behaviour. You see, that’s just a brand and when it becomes sullied due to their inaction they’ll just change the brand. Same as what happens to other brands in the market.

  5. Bill 5
    23 May 2017 at 9:39 am

    Okay, I know I’m not saying anything that people hereabouts don’t already know, but buying credits is putting on a blind fold in the conviction that equals having escaped the firing squad.

    Take the $14 billion and use it to fund a hard sinking cap on fossil use in NZ.

  6. Kevin 6
    23 May 2017 at 9:46 am

    And so Rome continues to burn while the poli’s fiddle.

    This is all pointless anyway. Do people seriously think that politicians the world over will not only form a consensus on this but also enact and stick to it?

    The rate of GHG emissions we currently have and the fast approaching disaster of methane emissions from the arctic, make all of this redundant anyway.

    Anyone want to take a bet on the day article sea ice disappears this northern summer?

    http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d27ef904970c-pi

  7. saveNZ 7
    23 May 2017 at 10:42 am

    By the way our Metservice now has 49% stake in MetOcean, the company which provides special oceanic weather forecasts for the deep sea oil and gas industry…

    I feel I’m in the Twighlight zone, does everything the Natz do in this country, lead back to oil and gas???

    Look at Fonterra too, with their coal! Pike River. The transport industry and roading. Everything seems to be about burning as much gas and coal as possible.

    It does not even help industry for the government to enable them! It’s just making them look more like dinosaurs and ready for an international expose as how polluting NZ industry all are in a time where consumers and governments are calculating it.

  8. Greg 8
    23 May 2017 at 1:36 pm

    lets all hope we can end this nightmare sept 23. 9 terrible years and nothing to show for it

    • Draco T Bastard 8.1
      23 May 2017 at 4:03 pm

      9 terrible years and nothing to show for it

      There’s lots to show for it:

      Lots more homelessness
      Lots more poverty
      Lots more inadequate mental health services
      Lots more people in prison producing profits for the bludgers
      Lots more uneconomic roads
      Lots more profits for the like of the Talleys
      Lots more pollution

      See, lots to show. It just so happens that it’s all negative and is taking our society ever closer to outright collapse.

  9. The Chairman 9
    23 May 2017 at 3:51 pm

    “Newshub can reveal the cost to the New Zealand economy to meet Paris Agreement targets will be $1 billion every year for a decade”

    Not only will this be inflationary, but as cost are generally passed on, it will be those at the bottom (who are unable to pass their costs on) that will largely carry the burden.

  10. ianmac 10
    23 May 2017 at 7:46 pm

    Mike the Motormouth tonight was shouting that you may as well flush $1billion a year down the toilet. No mention that our Government, Paula Bennett I think, signed us up to the Paris Accord, then did nothing.

  11. greywarshark 11
    24 May 2017 at 9:23 am

    I think a change of name is due for this country. We have lost our zeal to do anything that requires self-discipline by the nation, or those who take a hand in running it and like to consider themselves responsible people. So I suggest calling ourselves New Dreamland. It is very descriptive, and constantly self-fulfilling as with each day there comes a new dream, or an updated version of the old one.

    This business about taking practical and a little painful, steps to control emissions is being constantly deferred in a dreamy way. Oh we will have done that by Xyears and everyone off in their dream of ‘normality’ accepts that dream as reality. Cargo cult attitude has been mentioned, and this fits – expecting some technological fix to arrive, or someone take the responsibility from off-shore, or else cringe-making cries of we can’t, it hurts, we’re too small, it’s not fair, we can’t afford to be a responsible nation etc.

  12. jaymam 12
    26 May 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Methane in the air is 1800 parts per billion, or 0.00018%. Why does anyone think that could cause a change in climate?
    So, ignoring methane would cut NZ’s farming emissions to about zero. Problem solved, $14 billion saved.
    Besides, including methane, NZ’s emissions are 0.175% of world emissions.
    If anyone disputes these figures, please cite better ones.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.