|
|
The Government has committed to greenhouse gas emissions reductions of between 10 percent and 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, conditional upon a comprehensive global agreement being negotiated at Copenhagen later this year that includes new rules on forestry. Going on the record of previous inter-national meetings over climate change, that consensus is unlikely. However, in the scenario that we did chase a mid point of a 15 percent reduction in 1990 emissions within a decade (and our gross emissions are already 24 percent above 1990 levels), Greenhouse Policy Coalition economic analysis say this would impose a cost on each Kiwi of $1400 a year, or $5600 per household of four. Catherine Beard, the executive director of the coalition says that in contrast, the US Environmental Protection Agency has told a Senate Committee that the carbon cutting Bill passed in the House would cost - at most - $1 per day per US household in 2020. “So the largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions would require its citizens to pay US$365 per household per year ($562) and New Zealanders would be paying $5600 for a four person household per year, roughly 10 times more.” Beard says the reason it is so difficult and expensive for New Zealand to reduce emissions is due to our unique national circumstances, including the second highest population growth amongst Annex 1 countries and our high percentage of agricultural emissions, for which there are no quick or easy solutions. “New Zealand’s population growth since 1990 is about 20 percent and this correlates closely to our emissions growth since 1990, which is about 20 percent. Short of shooting livestock and exporting people, our business as usual emissions growth to 2020 could be another 20 percent. This means that even emission reductions to 1990 levels will be costly at around $4000 a year for a family of four.” Beard said it is well recognised internationally that New Zealand has an unusual emissions profile and population growth (compared to other Annex 1 parties) which is why most of the economic modelling on what a fair burden sharing agreement would be, gives Oceania (New Zealand and Australia) a growth target. “Groups like the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development that are calling for an unconditional 20 percent gross emission reduction target on 1990 levels, clearly don’t understand the issues. A gross emission reduction target means we cannot count our carbon sinks (trees) as a credit against our emissions, so a 20 percent gross target would be a complete economic disaster.” The GPC recommends that when the government offers up an emission reduction target it takes full account of all the international analysis on burden sharing, she says. “If the government decides on an emission reduction target it should also have a plan for how the cost would be kept as low as possible for New Zealanders. “We recommend a very modest target, conditional on action by all other major emitters and conditional on being allowed to get full credit for our carbon sinks. “The costs could be offset by a government programme of extensive tree planting on marginal government land and greater investment in new low carbon solutions.” The majority of Kiwis would probably agree with the coalition. In August 2009 the NZ Herald surveyed more than 6000 respondents on emissions targets for the country and 75 percent didn’t think we should be reducing emissions at all.
|