Climate Change – Emissions Trading Scheme for NZ -an update

Greenpeace, not an organisation with which I normally see eye to eye has issued a report- New Zealand’s Expanding Carbon Footprint – which is highly critical of this government’s proposed Emission Trading Scheme.

The following is an extract from the media release:-

The report is co-authored by Dr. Hugh Saddler and Dr. Richard Denniss , and concludes an overall target is needed if New Zealand is to achieve any significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. As it stands the scheme will fail to produce any substantial reductions.

“The current proposal for the structure of the ETS will deliver no significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, will act as an impediment to the rapid implementation of less carbon intensive production technologies in the manufacturing industry and will do nothing to slow the destruction of forests to make way for increasingly greenhouse gas intensive forms of dairy farming,” said Dr Denniss.

“If the objective of the Government’s scheme is emission reductions then they will need to make significant changes to it. With these changes, the ETS could be a very valuable and effective way of addressing climate change. Without them, the New Zealand government’s goal to be the ‘world’s first truly sustainable nation’ will not be achieved.”

As well as the lack of an overall target, the report highlights the exemption of agriculture until 2013 as a major barrier to emission cuts.

It has been my belief that the scheme is flawed from the outset. I suspect that the ETS has much to do with a desire to be seen to be taking action, any action.

Now Greenpeace along with a number of other organisations has condemned the ETS.

On this issue, as with so many others, the regime does not appear to be listening.

It is interesting to note though that Peter Neilson CEO of the Business Council for Sustainable Development still appears ready to tow the government line, despite a number of his members being very concerned about the line taken. This article by Fran O’Sullivan refers – Sustainability Dissent.

Now Minister Parker, as one might expect, ignored the report put out by the Business Roundtable and others in February, despite the fact the report was prepared by reputable and appropriate consultants. Again Fran O’Sullivan had a good column - Government must face reality -on the issues and contradictions, plus potential problems.

Today an article in the Dominion Post highlights the concerns of the tourism industry, which fears operators might go out of business. This saw little sympathy from Mr Neilson, if he is quoted correctly.

So we are about to impose a regime which according to a report for the Business Roundtable is economically unsound, is according to Greenpeace unlikely to yield any real ecological benefit and for at least one major industry sector, and I am sure there are others, will lead to economic hardship.

Now where is the logic in all this?

We impose more cost on business, which is already exporting jobs to China and elsewhere. We achieve no real GHG reduction. We impede economic sectors which employ lots of people.

When we have done this – government can claim we are leaders in sustainability. But will there be anything left to sustain?

Have the inmates taken over the asylum or have we strayed into a parallel universe where all logic is reversed?

This post is not a plea to do nothing. I do think we should do something, but we should put in place a rational ETS, which at the least meshes with what Australia is now contemplating. Further it should be economically sound, minimise employment impact, reduce GHS and ideally grow our overall brand. This of course requires consultation, education and thought and real leadership. not political posturing.