Why there's no justification for a 10–20% emissions reduction target
Home » Blog » Sophie Barclay » Why there's no justification for a 10–20% emissions reduction targetAre New Zealanders being misled into accepting a shamefully low emissions target, based on misuse of flawed research?
New Zealand used to be a leader: giving women the vote, settling indigenous land settlements and of course our anti-nuclear stance. However, last week Climate Change Minister Nick Smith relegated New Zealand to an embarrassing 'wait-and-see-er' with the announcement of a pathetic emissions reduction target.
The proposed target of between 10 and 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 is nothing short of a joke.
The public has been frightened into silence by outlandish claims that climate change adaptation and mitigation will cost the average Joe $1,400 in lost income by 2020. These figures come straight out of a report to the Ministry for the Environment written by Infometrics and NZIER [PDF].
The report, which includes only costs and does not account for any benefits, such as the savings made by energy efficiency and low carbon technology, bases the figures on a ‘business-as-usual’ scenario. It assumes that we do not reduce our carbon emissions, do not change our technologies, do not replant any trees and that no climate change polices or international agreements are made. These are unrealistic scenarios and refuse to acknowledge savings, technological developments and energy efficiencies that will save the country millions of dollars.
Cath Wallace, spokesperson from Environment and Conservation Organisations of NZ (ECO), said about the report: “The models that Infometrics and NZIER used have a number of flaws, incorporated no costs of climate change or of retaliatory action by other countries if New Zealand shirks its duty to cut emissions.”
FACT: The report was about Assigned Amount Units (AAU) or carbon credits, which are not relevant to emissions reductions.
FACT: Page one of the report states: “To be clear, this report investigates the impact of changes in New Zealand’s AAUs under the framework of an international agreement whereby New Zealand takes responsibility for any emissions above a given amount. This is not the same as investigating different domestic emissions targets and should not be interpreted as such.”
Blogger Keith Ng from Public Address had this to add about the report:
“When the report said that ‘40%’ would cost $15b, it meant that if our carbon credit allocations were reduced by 40%, and our emissions level was unchanged, then it could cost New Zealand the equivalent of $15b. So the cost that Smith talks about is categorically NOT the cost of cutting New Zealand's emissions … It is the cost that New Zealand could face if we DON'T cut our emissions”.
The Green Party has stated that despite the belief of the National party, a 40% cut is possible and is economically viable. They state several key ways in which we can cut down our emissions, including reforms that would see Huntly's coal burning power station closed, reducing the size of dairy herds by a small fraction, and more forests planted. The Greens believe that by combining these cuts with a switch from coal to wood or gas in some industrial processes, 36 million tones of carbon could be saved by 2020.
According to a survey commissioned by NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development, 49% of New Zealanders want the Government to set a target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by a minimum of 20%. A minimum. Added to this, the government’s recent nationwide public consultation tours, held in July, were met with overwhelming support for a 40% emissions target reduction.
One group that government still seems to be ignoring is the group whose views are essential to the debate. Scientific groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an intergovernmental scientific body made up of thousands of scientists, support a 25–40% emissions reductions by 2020, and an 80–90% cut by 2050.
Their recommendation allows an average global temperature rise of 2°C, which will lead to problems such as increasing droughts, water stress, bleaching of most corals, increased flooding and a change in the distribution of some disease vectors, to name but a few. If we can’t even make meet the minimum emissions reduction of 25%, the results will be worse.
James Hansen, professor at Columbia University, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and climate expert stated in his 2008 report: “If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm”. This is what has led to calls from environmental NGOs such as 350.org and Greenpeace for more stringent cuts.
The same arguments that are worn to death always surface at this point, including the well-cited “we’re only a small country, why should we pay to offset our emissions” excuse. Although we are small, we are mighty! In fact, in terms of annual per capita CO2-equivalent emissions we clock in at 16 tonnes per person per year, the same as Australia and Canada, more than Russia and seven times more than the average Chinese person’s emissions.
Weak excuses such as ‘the impact on the economy’ and ‘job losses’ have been used by John Key as a justification for inaction. However Key has failed to let us know what the impact on the economy will be if there is a rise in temperature of 2°C. Where are the figures that show us the cost of doing nothing? The cost of not doing enough?
Many developing countries see it as fundamental to the future of our planet that developed countries agree to a 40% cut at Copenhagen at the end of the year. They are dependant on countries like New Zealand to step up to the mark and to act responsibly. We need action, we need policy and we need it now. Considering our history, they expect us to lead.
Fri August 21, 2009 @ 10:11 AM
