The Government’s commitment to a higher but unambitious emissions reduction target will surprise few.
Similarly, the reactions of Labour and the Greens are expected. What is being witnessed are the policies of a pragmatic Government and standard opposition positioning. …
Mr Groser says this is ”respectable” and in line with what the United States, Canada and Japan are promising. Australia is yet come out with its figure.
The US target is 26% to 28% (by 2025) below 2005 levels. Canada’s target is 30% by 2030.
Mr Groser does say the Government will adopt an appropriate mix of policies to ensure the target is met, but at this stage that seems to involve primarily a review of the emissions trading scheme. This was weakened by National and, as acknowledged, needs toughening.
Unexpectedly, the price of carbon collapsed and the scheme failed.
National is sceptical about ”green growth”.
It argues the best advice it has received is that lowering emissions will cost the economy, at least in the short and medium term.
The cost of even its limited commitment is put at $1270 a family a year, not a massive amount for some but significant nonetheless.
In its pragmatism, National knows it will not appeal to the green vote whatever it does, so there is little to gain electorally from doing much more than the minimum.
It knows, too, despite the relatively high level of climate change scepticism in this country, the majority of voters have some concerns and it must be seen to be doing something.
Most voters, however, will reject being hit significantly in the pocket.
From that point of view, National has its policy about right. Legitimate fears, however, must arise because the climate does not play politics.
The efforts of New Zealand and the rest of the world could well be too little too late.
The ETS is having little impact on emissions as the price of carbon has declined. However if there is a binding agreement in Paris, then the price may increase, and the ETS will start to impact again.