The target of net zero is set in stone. If we do not meet our international commitments countries and companies will refuse to trade with us.
Labour’s plan was to use central planning to achieve net zero emissions. The coalition’s plan is to let the market find the lowest-cost solutions.
Labour’s plan was to use today’s technology. The coalition’s plan assumes over the next 25 years new technology will lower emissions.
Parliament has adopted a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases. Those who emit must buy greenhouse units from those who remove emissions such as forestry. There would be no need for a plan if the Emissions Trading Scheme covered the whole economy. The government could just set the cap on emissions until we reach net zero in 2050.
We need an emissions plan for two reasons: Industries in the global economy are receiving free carbon credits. Without free credits, these industries could not compete with international companies that are not required to buy credits.
The principal reason we need a plan is agriculture produces half of all emissions and has been excluded from the Emissions Trading Scheme. The draft plan proposes agriculture have its own reduction plan for adoption in 2030.
Worldwide, CO2 is causing global warming. New Zealand agriculture produces little CO2 but does produce methane, a shorter-lived gas but more potent.
There is a case for methane to be treated differently from CO2.
New Zealand’s dairy industry is the world’s lowest greenhouse emitter. Including dairy in the Emissions Trading Scheme would shift global milk production to countries where the emissions per litre of milk are higher. As the goal is to reduce global warming that makes no sense.
While a different scheme for methane is sensible there is no getting away from the fact that agriculture must reduce its emissions to enable New Zealand to reach net zero.
The Greens’ solution is to have far fewer cows. Labour’s is to include agriculture in the Emissions Trading Scheme.
The coalition’s solution is to rely on new technology.
Critics, to quote a Guardian headline say “New Zealand will fail to meet 2050 net zero targets, data shows, after climate policies scrapped”.
Scientists say the Government’s approach to emissions-cutting is ‘high risk’ and reliant on “immature technologies”.
History is full of examples of experts predicting disaster by projecting the future based on existing technology. In 1894, it was predicted that in 50 years London’s streets would be under nine feet of horse manure. Technology and Henry Ford solved the issue without a plan.
Insisting on a plan using only today’s technology just gives the illusion of certainty. We do know that technological change is accelerating.
This five-year plan will be overtaken by unpredictable events.
While the technological changes will be unknowable, what is known is that in 25 years there will be even more technological change.
Imagine New Zealand had, in 1999, adopted a 25-year plan based on existing technology. It would have been a plan for a country with no take up of smartphones, electric and hybrid cars, cloud computing, Internet shopping or AI, to name a few of the technical developments of the past 25 years.
Implementing Labour’s Luddite plan to use only today’s technology would require draconian regulations. The result would be a much poorer country.
Globally a huge effort is underway to find ways to reduce global emissions ranging from better batteries to carbon capture.
Developments are being made where New Zealand has an advantage - wind, geothermal and wave.
Our challenge is having a unique greenhouse profile. We must reduce the methane produced from agriculture.
The plan makes research into methane reduction New Zealand’s priority.
There are many promising projects. Feed additives that inhibit methane production: Selective breeding to create herds and flocks that emit less methane: Grazing management using forage plants that reduce methane production: AgResearch has a vaccine under development that targets the microbes that produce methane.
Overseas research has shown adding some types of seaweed to stock feed can reduce methane production by 80%.
Where the draft plan can be criticised is for ignoring existing safe technology that we refuse to use. Nuclear power and genetic engineering could greatly assist in getting New Zealand to net zero emissions.
New Zealand will reach net zero emissions, but our emissions are so small it will make no difference to climate change.
Our challenge is that the world is failing to reduce global warming. We need an action plan to make the country more resilient.
