National’s carbon budget is a crock

Written By: - Date published: 7:26 pm, July 18th, 2024 - 16 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment, ETS, national, same old national, science - Tags:

It is now clear why Simon Watts rushed out a three page brochure setting out what this Government’s response to climate change will be.

He knew that the latest Climate Change Emissions Reduction Plan was coming out for consultation. It looks like National wanted to have something they could use to fill the Minister’s introduction to the plan.

Otherwise it was going to be really grim. Because in decision after decision National has wound back decisions the last Labour Government made to move the country onto a path where we could at least meet our international obligations to do something about climate change.

The recently released draft plan confirms this. Basically National has taken us backwards at a time when the country’s attempts to address greenhouse gas emissions should be surging.

This RNZ article by Eloise Gibson sets out the details.

From her article:

The emissions picture is worse than it was a year ago, partly because the government has not announced enough new policies to counter the long-term impact of ditching Labour-era climate policies, and developments it doesn’t control, such as Tiwai Point aluminium smelter staying open.

As things stand, the country is on track to comfortably meet its first emissions budget (2022-2025) and narrowly meet its second budget (2026-2030), though not as comfortably as it was on track for a year ago.

The third budget (2031-2035) looks set to be missed by around 17 million tonnes of emissions, under middle-of-the-road assumptions about the economy and other things.

One tonne of carbon dioxide is equal to nine average car trips from Auckland to Wellington in a petrol car, and the country’s total emissions are currently around 70 million tonnes annually.

The projections have plenty of room for error, particularly looking further out, and were calculated differently than they were when Labour’s plan was assessed a year ago.

However a comparison table using the closest available figures suggests New Zealand was on track to over-perform on its third emissions budget a year ago, under policies in place as at July 2023.

As of July 2024, it is projected to miss that budget by around 17 million tonnes.

Her analysis of savings is as follows:

  • Targeting 10,000 electric vehicle chargers by 2030 (saving a maximum of 0.01 million tonnes of emissions in 2025-2030 and 0.2 million in 2030- 2035.)
  • Pricing agricultural emissions by 2030 and making emissions-cutting tools available to farmers (saving 0.1 million tonnes of emissions in 2025-2030 and 5.5 million by 2030-2035). Those higher reductions would depend on a methane-cutting supplement for cows and sheep arriving in the New Zealand market, while the policy of pricing farming emissions will happen five years later than proposed under Labour.
  • Investigating carbon capture and storage, for example gas companies catching and storing CO2 in empty oil and gas reservoirs (potentially saving 1.4 million tonnes of emissions in 2025-2030, and 3.2 million in 2030-2035).
  • Electrify NZ policy to reduce consenting barriers for renewable energy (saving 0.1 million tonnes of emissions in 2025-2030 and 1.6 million from 2030-2035).
  • Better public transport (saving 0.1 million tonnes of emissions from 2025-2030 and 0.3 million from 2030-2035). This including investing in projects such as Auckland busways. Notes with the document say some of this benefit might be undone by the government’s increased spending on roads.
  • Invest in resource recovery for processing organic waste through the Waste Minimisation Fund to reduce waste emissions (saving 1.3 million tonnes of emissions from 2025-2030 and 1.3 million from 2030-2035).
  • Improve organic waste and landfill gas capture by extending requirements to catch methane gas to more landfills (saving 1.1 tonnes of emissions from 2025-2030 and 1.4 million in 2030-2035).

Are you impressed? 4.11 million tonnes of emissions saved in the first perod. But 1.4 million of those rely on unproven carbon capture and storage and 2.7 million tonnes relies on things that were probably going to happen anyway. National’s remaining contributions are miniscule.

Compare this with the 4.8 million tonnes saved during the same period by the previous Government’s NZ Steel deal, a deal that National has bitterly opposed.

And the much derided clean car discount was estimated to save 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 a year which is 7.2 million tonnes over the period.

The plan is totally underwhelming. And clearly if National has its way the country’s emissions will go backward.

Eloise Gibson describes how much worse in this passage:

According to government projections, NZ is on track to be 6 million tonnes under budget from 2022-5, 2 million tonnes under budget from 2026-2030 but 17 million tonnes over budget in 2031 to 2035. That is significantly worse than the projection the same time a year ago. Some of this shift was caused by accounting changes, and different methods, however some of it is the result of policy changes under the Coalition.

A comparison table in the document shows emissions from 2022-5 will be 11 million tonnes higher under the government’s new proposed policies than estimated a year ago under Labour. From 2026-2030 they will be 19 million tonnes higher than under Labour policies from a year ago, but still with a good chance of being under budget. For 2030-2035 emissions will be higher by 24 million tonnes higher than estimated a year ago under Labour, and 17 million tonnes over budget.

I was cautiously proud of Labour that they had wrestled with the issue and had the country on the right track. More was needed but the country was moving in the right direction. It is clear that this Government if allowed will undo all the good that was achieved. And it is relying on untested technology to do most of the heavy lifting.

The cost will be significant. New Zealand is committed to purchasing carbon credits if it does not reduce emissions sufficiently. At $50 a tonne for the third period given the plan’s predictions the Government will need to pay out $850 million. And it could get worse, much worse.

This is why the NZ Steel deal was so good. It cost the Government $16.20 a tonne to abate NZ Steel’s emissions.

Submissions on the draft plan are now open and close on August 21, 2024.

Take the opportunity to comment. Tell the Government that its draft plan is totally underwhelming and very risky given that it relies on unproven technology. Beg the Government to return some of the policies of the previous Government that this Government with great relish has reversed.

And ask for the sake of our kids and grandkids that it gets real about climate change and the sorts of changes that need to be made if we are not going to cook the planet.

16 comments on “National’s carbon budget is a crock ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. PsyclingLeft.Always 1
    18 July 2024 at 8:20 pm

    unproven carbon capture and storage

    Absolutely. They are pushing all of this Climate Stuff out further and further….. when it needs action now.

    Professors/Scientists and others who actually know the urgency of our Planets situation…are in disbelief. I put some links on open mike here

    https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-18-07-2024/#comment-2005029

    MS, Good on you. And I also think Labour were on the right track. Still I do think more mass protest marches like the one you attended, along with many thousands of concerned People are a positive way to fight back. Action !

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/environment/519013/thousands-protest-fast-track-approvals-bill-in-central-auckland

    Oh I did rate the Paddy and Siri sign…

    “Predator Free 2026″

    referencing the date of the next election, with the faces of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon along with Jones and Chris Bishop

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/fast-track-approvals-bill-protesters-to-gather-in-aucklands-aotea-square/TKKB6NJTU5BX5NMLG3HWLSR26Q/

    : )

  2. lprent 2
    18 July 2024 at 11:03 pm

    The carbon capture and storage budget is a complete waste of time.

    No-one who knows the basic science thinks we are able to capture CO2 economically with any of the proposed techniques, and the probability of successful storage without over even short period like a few decades will even work. No-one even has a theoretical system to do it at scale and every project that has tried that over the past 3 decades has miserably failed.

    It just comes down to a relatively few corrupt knuckle heads who are willing to take investment money, mostly from fossil fuel companies, to present a scam and talk large on talk shows. Whereas we have known and economically viable techniques that just happen to inconvenience some peoples ability to realise value from their owned assets.

    Besides it'd take many decades to put any CCS solution into scale, and the risk of tripping over a unexpected tipping point is more likely to happen before then.

    …making emissions-cutting tools available to farmers…

    That old pile of bullshit again. That simply isn’t going to happen.

    Attempts to produce cattle and sheep or their feed to reduce methane production have been going on for more than 30 years now. They still haven't managed to find anything that works at scale. Yet somehow this is going magically happen in the next five years?

    National is indulging in magical thinking yet again. Just like they think that farming will be ready in 5 years to pay farming emissions. That is simply a another delaying tactic, it also does absolutely nothing to deal with their share of what they have already polluted the world with.

    Meanwhile they have been foisting all of the forward costs on to the 98% of the population who actually pay taxes including the ETS for tha last couple of decades and intend to continue into the future …

    The whole farming sector is most notable for its lack of ability to generate sustained profit for the economy and country. That is why you only ever hear about farming export revenue and never about the what its profitably levels are.

    Effectively the profit is sucked up by the interest required to pay escalated prices for farmland. That interest is mostly siphoned off by banks and other finance institutions to overseas investors. Farmers have effectively been farming mainly for capital gain since the 1990s, and any increases in farming efficiencies head there as well.

    • roblogic 2.1
      18 July 2024 at 11:42 pm

      Farming activity does have benefits to rural communities but if the associated costs are properly accounted for I seriously doubt that mass producing milk powder is a worthwhile enterprise.

      We do not properly manage the effluent of the national herd – equivalent to the shit of 20 million people into our waterways and coastal ecosystems.

      We ignore the carbon cost

      We ignore the cost of losing sovereignty to a rapacious trading 'partner'

      We ignore the social and economic cost of farmers trading against a global market stuffed with subsidies and dumping, trying to break even in the meantime, and not actually making money until the property is sold.

      This addiction to milk powder and the cargo cult mentality of farmers is corrosive to our democracy, they have shown a nasty resentment against Māori interests in water and land, and a gleeful indulgence in conspiracies, abuse against Jacinda, and driving tractors up and down the country to spread their divisive manure.

      Despite all that, voting Labour is actually in their best interests. Because Labour is more do-ey than hui, and unlike NACT1 they didn’t piss off our trading partners by breaking climate commitments.

      • lprent 2.1.1
        20 July 2024 at 8:47 am

        Farming activity does have benefits to rural communities but if the associated costs are properly accounted …

        Pretty much I tend to worry about. I spent a lot of time on farms between 1974 and 1984 in between sessions of work and university. My parent owned a empty 88 acre ‘hobby’ block at Puhio and I spent most weekends there doing the usual fencing, clearing scrub and managing the sheep and cattle. Did most of a year as a farmhand, half on a town supply dairy farm and half on a sheep station before going into the army in 1977.

        Decided not to go farming because the economics didn’t make any sense. Their costs, especially land and fuel costs, were rising. The value of what they got at the farm gate was starting to fall and showed no signs of ever rising. The Muldoon government response was the SMP (supplementary minimum prices scheme) which was obviously economically insane. Especially for the farming and rural communities that it was meant to support against price fluctuations.

        It didn’t address any of the underlying economic issues, and was founded on a prayer (in my opinion) that at some point a nice war would break out to cause commodity prices to rise. It increased confidence in farming and caused a higher than inflation price spiral on farmlands. The economic conditions continued onwards and by 1980/1, having even worse prices coupled with farming input cost inflation, moved from dealing with fluctuations to the economically suicidal straight income subsidy. There was a nice paper on it by the reserve bank in 1982….. found it. It all turned to shit after that.

        My partners father sold up his farm when it all inevitably crunched and moved into town. Farmers that I knew all had significiant issues because mostly because they hadn’t been adjusting to economic realities for more than 10 years after the UK moved into the EEC and we’d had the oil price issues.

        What I have seen for the last 20+ years is farmers falling into the same stupid economic trap again. It shows up in the falling profitability levels. It shows in what is happening in amongst the processing companies like Fonterra, Synlait, and the consolidation and shutting of freezing works. Commodity farm goods are on a long term downturn in profits

        The response by the farming community has been in denial and trying to live in a world of magical thinking. Praying for new technological magic for methane reductions that never eventuate in a usable form.
        Denial of the obvious science of climate change that will inevitably hit farming the hardest. Busy polluting or pillaging the landscape of the resources required to sustain farming over the long term.

        All the time sucking up scarce capital that the country could use for something that is economically productive to buy farmland at spiralling prices in a ridiculous ponzi scheme. While paying fuckall in taxes on profits and waffling on about their export revenue.

        All the time pushing the rest of NZ taxpayers to pay for their missing ETS contributions and to clean up the waterways and lakes they have polluted, while excessively sucking water out of the aquifers. ie not paying their own costs.

        Problem is that it is coming to a crunch for farming. But they have largely used up the reservoirs of tolerance that they had from the urban populations because of their intransigent stupidity. Just bloody irritating. Especially their adverts about trees. Farming could drop to a less than 10% of the current capacity and NZ would be better off. No point in providing food for 40 million people offshore if, as a country, we can make a real profit from it. No point in subsidising rural roads to handle heavy trucking if, as a country, we don’t make a profit from it.

        We are profitable with some of the farms. Export wines and fruit do pretty well compared to tourism and export tech, generally our two fast growth and profitable parts of the economy over the last two decades when you look at the tax take on income and profits.

        But much of our commodity farming just effectively sucks capital out of the system. Most of that has effectively been subsidised for a number of years by the productive and profitable parts of the economy to maintain the farmers lifestyles.

        Reminds me of the same economic stupidity from the late 70s and early 80s

  3. Mike the Lefty 3
    19 July 2024 at 11:04 am

    The plan you have when you don't have a plan.

    This whole quasi government is a crock of…..

  4. ghostwhowalksnz 4
    19 July 2024 at 11:50 am

    Guess what , another infrastructure project that had reduced emissions but was ditched

    https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/media/new-ferries-electric-propulsion-system-will-help-kiwirail-meet-emission-goals/"

    The hybrid technology selected to drive the new ferries will use electrical propulsion from generators fuelled by diesel and batteries recharged by electrical shore power.

    Batteries will power 30 per cent of the three-hour journey. Under normal conditions the ferries will be operating on batteries only while manoeuvring and in port, using a combination of battery and shore power. Any surplus energy produced by the generators during sailing can also be battery stored.

  5. PsyclingLeft.Always 5
    20 July 2024 at 12:00 pm

    Farmers back bill to exclude climate rules in resource consents

    Federated Farmers is backing a members' bill aimed at stopping regional councils from factoring in the negative effects of climate change in consenting decisions.

    ACT Party MP Mark Cameron, who submitted the bill, said councils' efforts against climate change were "hopeless" and creating a "productivity crisis".

    ACT's Cameron bleats/whines…..

    "We've got farmers, business owners, heavy industry, right down to the commercial sector literally not being able to function because they are drowning in red tape… and this bill would seek to remove that," he said.

    Joined by (unsurprisingly)

    Federated Farmers RMA (Resource Management Act) spokesman Mark Hooper

    "For example, the local council could set a completely unreasonable target for emissions reductions that go much further and faster than is required under our national targets."

    Fucking fedfarm. Militant self interest union since way back.

    Anyway, a Mayor on this, I hope more speak up !!…

    Mayor Rehette Stoltz

    "Climate change is significant for everyone and particularly for Tairāwhiti, and we'll continue to consider it in our mahi," she said.

    LGNZ

    A Local Government New Zealand spokesperson said councils were committed to addressing climate change and were at the frontline of dealing with it.

    "The effects are more acute than ever.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/522409/farmers-back-bill-to-exclude-climate-rules-in-resource-consents

    Along with ACT Climate denier Cameron, there is ex FedFarm Pres now also ACT Andrew Hoggard.

    And other Climate Deniers. Has anyone done a count on how many Climate Deniers in NACT1 ?

  6. SPC 6
    20 July 2024 at 1:30 pm

    The problem with one option, when that is not that good an option.

    She said the group was also concerned about the Government’s intention to focus New Zealand’s emissions reduction strategy on planting more pines on steep, erosion-prone land in Class 7.

    “This policy will accelerate the crisis our region already faces and risk total collapse of catchments. Eventually the companies may not be able to afford to clean up their mess, and will likely walk away from the liabilities they have been incentivised to create. We don’t want them to just walk away, we need central government to help with the urgent transition to get pine off unsuitable erosion-prone slopes, given successive governments encouraged the planting of pines in the first place,” Warmenhoven said.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350348199/gisbornes-woody-debris-dilemma-forestry-companies-decry-clean-costs

  7. adam 7
    20 July 2024 at 6:33 pm

    Thank goodness act is making is simpler to get weapons. We are going to need them when this bullshit policy makes it all turn to crap.

  8. Ed1 8
    20 July 2024 at 9:21 pm

    I know of a person (I call him a climate change denier which he readily accepts) who does not believe that there will be any problems for New Zealand, and is clear that in the event of the current agreements being likely to give rise to penalties, New Zealand will be able to simply withdraw from the agreement. Is it possible to withdraw from the climate change agreements?, and if it is possible would there be likely to be any actions taken by other countries in relation to such a withdrawal? Based on the projections recently published, how much in current dollar terms do we appear to need to plan on paying?

  9. georgecom 9
    22 July 2024 at 6:48 pm

    seems as if National is operating on the basis that as long as we reduce emissions by 2050 then we won't feel the effects of climate change. they cannot seem to get their head around the effects being with us here and now and just going to get worse for each ton of carbon put in the atmosphere. by 2035/40 will some parts of the country be able to farm? year on year droughts and floods would make farming almost impossible (?), erroding the climatic predictability farming requires, year on year economic losses and disasters. The farming sectors who think they can continue BAU as long as we reduce emissions by 2050 will leave the next generation of farmers stranded, no BAU for them.

    Is there the opportunity to make oral submissions/speak to a select committee under the consultation process?