Source: Radio New Zealand
Professor James Renwick of Victoria University Supplied
A government decision to reject stronger climate targets is pitiful, and will cost households in the long run, scientists, advocates and opposition politicians say.
However, a scientist who contributed to the government’s methane review said he’s not surprised the Climate Change Commission’s “activist” recommendations were rejected – but has still taken a swing at the lack of concrete policy action.
The coalition on Thursday released its response to the independent Commission’s advice to strengthen New Zealand’s 2050 targets for methane and carbon emissions, and include emissions from international shipping and aviation in the targets.
It rejected all three recommendations.
The status quo targets are to hit net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and reduce methane emissions by 24-47 percent from 2017 levels.
The Commission had recommended increasing the lower bound of the methane target to a 35 percent reduction, and pursuing a net-negative target for carbon dioxide and other long-lived gases – meaning New Zealand would need to suck more greenhouse gases from the air than it emitted.
The government had already indicated it would reject both the methane and carbon recommendations, and instead lower the methane target to a 14-24 percent reduction.
In its formal reasons for rejecting the commission’s advice, the government said it had weighed the benefits of climate action against the economic costs.
Modelling indicated that GDP would be 0.4 percent lower than the status quo in 2035, and 2.2 percent lower in 2050, if it implemented the stronger targets.
“Implementing the Commission’s recommended target would also require major policy reform and private sector action,” it said.
The government said it took into account concern from rural communities about land-use change and food production loss if it strengthened the methane target.
Former Climate Change Commissioner James Renwick said the government’s decision was “a deeply disappointing response, and a dangerous one”.
He and his fellow commissioners found that setting higher targets was not only compatible with long-term economic growth, but would prevent future costs, he said.
“This government seems to be all about economic growth now, this quarter, this year, and anything that is apparently a cost that would limit that is off the table.”
In its advice to the government in November last year, the Commission said the global climate outlook had worsened since the 2050 targets were first set.
The county could, and should, do more, including through faster-paced electrification of transport and industry, and greater uptake of methane-inhibiting agricultural technology, it said.
Dr Renwick said the commission had also warned of the intergenerational inequity of not acting faster, now.
“What’s the future going to be like for my children and their children?”
Labour’s climate spokesperson Deborah Russell said today’s decision was “bollocks”.
“They’ve focused on the costs of climate action but they haven’t looked at the cost of not doing anything and they also haven’t looked at the lost opportunity-cost of green jobs.”
Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the economic rationale for rejecting the advice did not stack up.
“We’re talking about tiny numbers in terms of the GDP impact, and this is to be contrasted with the thoroughly evidence-based assessment that the Climate Change Commission has made.”
Greens co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the economic rationale for rejecting the advice did not stack up. RNZ / Mark Papalii
Greenpeace Aotearoa executive director Russel Norman said climate change would cost the country anyway.
“Climate change is going to cause immense damage to the New Zealand productive sector, both the agricultural sector… but everywhere else as well – think about the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle and other extreme weather events like that.”
The global accord to tackle climate change via the Paris Agreement had been hard-won and New Zealand’s actions undermined that, Dr Norman said.
“If more governments behave like the Luxon government, it will unravel global efforts to cut emissions.”
But Canterbury University Professor Dave Frame, who was on the expert panel tasked with finding a methane reduction level consistent with a policy of ‘no additional warming’, said he was not surprised the “activist tone” of the Commission’s advice was rejected.
“The [Commission] never really explained to New Zealanders why we, alone, should commit to including international aviation and shipping, biogenic methane, and net negative emissions, when other countries are, for the most part, pledging to get to net zero emissions by 2050.”
Cantebury University Professor of Climate Change Dave Frame. RNZ / Chris Bramwell
Long-term targets mattered less than concrete policy signals and the government’s form on that score was “mixed”, he said.
He agreed with Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ assessment that it would be reckless to pay billions of dollars for overseas carbon credits, and if the country missed its first Paris target, “so be it”.
However, the government had been “pretty reckless” in dismantling programmes like the Clean Car Discount for EVs, he said,
“Because we have a comparatively clean electricity grid, transport is a more important sector for New Zealand than for many other countries.
“We really have been sluggish where others are actually taking action, and it’s pretty hard to square the pandering to SUV drivers with the government’s claims to be serious about getting to net zero.”
The “clear impression” that carbon markets had was that the government was back-tracking on climate policies.
“There needs to be initiatives to build better policies, not just dismantle ones you don’t like.”
The 2050 targets were due to be reviewed again in 2030. However, proposed amendments to climate law will now see that review pushed out to 2032.
RNZ has requested an interview with Climate Change Minister Simon Watts.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand