Kiwiblog

Stephen Franks blogs:

Take a look at this NCPA collection of sobering figures (drawn from the work of a physics professor at UCAL Berkeley) for an explanation.

• China’s emissions intensity (CO₂ per dollar of GDP) is five times greater than that of the United States.

President Hu Jintao plans to reduce China’s CO₂ emissions per unit of GDP by 4 percent per year for 5 years. If carried on it would reduce China’s CO₂ emissions intensity 70 percent by 2040. But even if it works:

• If China cuts its emissions intensity 45% it will still surpass the U.S. in per capita annual CO₂ emissions by 2025.
• Indeed, every 10% cut in U.S. emissions would be negated by one year of China’s growth.
• Because China’s economy is growing by 10% p.a. a 4% cut in intensity is actually a 6% annual increase in emissions.
• CO₂ emissions are increasing similarly in India and other developing countries – far surpassing rich countries’ output.
• Even if China and India’s goals are met – and other developing countries make similar cuts- total atmospheric CO₂ would rise from 385 parts per million currently to 700 parts per million by 2080

The leaders of China and India can not risk constraining their growth, even if they were persuaded that they should give higher priority to CO2 emissions.

I did my own calculations a few weeks ago:

China said it will “endeavour” to cut the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005. The “carbon intensity” goal would let emissions keep rising, but more slowly than economic growth.

Now even putting aside the fact China won’t agree to any verification of their emissions (ie they can simply make up their figures), what does their pledge mean.

Let us assume that their business as usual case is that emissions will increase in line with economic growth.

Now their GDP in 2005 was US$2.24 trillion. In 2020 it is estimated to be around US14.6 trillion. That is a 640% increase in GDP.

Now if their emissions intensity is 40% less, then the increase in emissions will be 385%.

So China’s pledge is they will only increase emissions by 385% by 2020.

Now their level of emissions in 2006 was 6,103 million tons. So China’s projected increase in emissions is around 23,000 million tons. …

In fact China’s pledge to reduce intensity by 40% means their total level of emissions in 2020 could be as high as 33,000 million tons.

And you know what. That is more than the rest of the world produces today. The world, excluding China, produces 22,000 million tons. With China it is 28 million tons

So the entire world could go carbon neutral, and China would still push world emissions up 20% from 2006.

This is the reality the world faces. It does not matter what the USA does, what the EU does, even what India does. Global emissions are going to increase significantly, just from China alone.

Reuters reports:

Fifty-five countries, accounting for almost 80 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions, have pledged varying goals for fighting climate change under a deadline in the Copenhagen Accord.

“This represents an important invigoration of the UN climate change talks,” Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, said of the national targets for curbs on emissions until 2020 submitted by January 31.

It represents no such thing. As I said in NBR on Friday, the political tide has turned. Regardless of your views on the science, there is no chance of meaningful reductions in emissions. Even if the EU and Australia and NZ manage some reductions, 50% of the global total is basically China, India and the US.

What does India say:

Indian officials said they want the 1992 UN Climate Change Convention to remain the blueprint for global action, not the Copenhagen Accord.

That means they do not want to commit to any reductions at all for India.

And China:

China said it will “endeavour” to cut the amount of carbon produced per unit of economic output by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from 2005. The “carbon intensity” goal would let emissions keep rising, but more slowly than economic growth.

Now even putting aside the fact China won’t agree to any verification of their emissions (ie they can simply make up their figures), what does their pledge mean.

Let us assume that their business as usual case is that emissions will increase in line with economic growth.

Now their GDP in 2005 was US$2.24 trillion. In 2020 it is estimated to be around US14.6 trillion. That is a 640% increase in GDP.

Now if their emissions intensity is 40% less, then the increase in emissions will be 385%.

So China’s pledge is they will only increase emissions by 385% by 2020.

Now their level of emissions in 2006 was 6,103 million tons. So China’s projected increase in emissions is around 23,000 million tons.

New Zealand’s total level of emissions is 30 million tons.

So we could go totally carbon neutral, and it would barely compensate for 0.1% of the increase from China.

In fact China’s pledge to reduce intensity by 40% means their total level of emissions in 2020 could be as high as 33,000 million tons.

And you know what. That is more than the rest of the world produces today. The world, excluding China, produces 22,000 million tons. With China it is 28 million tons

So the entire world could go carbon neutral, and China would still push world emissions up 20% from 2006.

As I have said before, you need to get an agreement between the major emitters first, and the rest of the world will then make sure they pick up their fair share.

And I would say there is no way China is going to agree to reductions beyond what they indicated at Copenhagen.

So regardless of what you think about the science, the fact is there will be no reduction in global emissions. Doesn’t matter what we do, what the US does, what the EU does.

Now I am not an advocate of New Zealand breaking away from the rest of the OECD, and saying we refuse to do anything, unless China comes to the party. We are too small to do that, without the risk of repercussions. But we should shy away from any emission reduction measures that significantly reduce economic growth, and focus mainly on improving technology.

China may change its stance over time – perhaps in ten years or so, if there has been clear evidence of rapidly rising sea levels for example. But for the next decade, global emissions will increase beyond doubt.

Many people know of the 80/20 rule. It is used in many situations. One of them is an adage about how you can fix 80% of the problem easily, and the last 20% with much more difficulty.

This got me thinking about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are 150 countries at Copenhagen, and in theory all of them have to agree. But in reality the countries that are the biggest emitters really matter – the ones who make up 80% of emissions. Without them, no agreement will work. While if they do agree, what the rest of the world wants or does not want is of little moment. That is not to say that you do not want as many parties as possible agreeing, but those who make up 80% are the key ones.

So who are they. Well based on CO2 emissions, you only need 20 countries to make up 80% of emissions. They are:

The top six make up 60%, and the top 20, 80%.

Barack Obama has said the US will wim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020, but this is 17% on their 2005 levels, not 1990 levels.

The growth from 1990 to 2005 has been around 17%, so in fact their target is to be around the same as in 1990 – a 0% change.

Now bear in mind the Greens have got hysterical because NZ has *only* pledged a 10% to 20% reduction on 1990 levels. Obama’s target makes NZ’s target seem wildly ambitious, not bottom of the pack.

An article by Brian Fallow covers issues around the proposed ETS:

Taxpayers will be stuck with 84 per cent of the bill for meeting New Zealand’s obligation under the Kyoto Protocol, while farmers and large industrial emitters get hefty subsidies, according to a report out today.

The report on the Government’s planned changes to the emissions trading scheme by the Sustainability Council’s executive director Simon Terry and economist Geoff Bertram says farmers will be subsidised to the tune of $1.1 billion by the end of 2012, while large emitters get nearly $500 million.

Sounds awful doesn’t it. Certain bloggers rant on about how people are getting paid to pollute etc, But the situation is far more complex than slogans.

Kyoto requires New Zealand to take financial responsibility for any increase in its emissions over 1990 levels during the five years from 2008 to 2012 inclusive. Current estimates are that we will exceed that target by 76 million tonnes, which would cost $2.3 billion (at the carbon price of $30 a tonne the report assumes).

At present we actually (as at 2009) have net emissions that are 10 million less than our 1990 levels – thanks to forestry plantings.  Also the current price of carbon is $20.35 a tonne, not $30. So the projections for 2008 to 2012 are some way from the current situation.

Changes to the ETS being considered by a parliamentary select committee lighten the burden on “trade-exposed” sectors, including farming, which account for around two-thirds of the country’s emissions, to protect their competitiveness when most of the world has yet to impose a price on carbon emissions.

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith said the Government was providing allocations of free emissions units more generously for those emitters because they were trade-exposed.

“It has nothing to do with favouring big over small,” he said.

And this is key. Making trade exposed industries pay straight away the full cost of carbon will merely see them lose production to other countries. And those other countries will often be more carbon intensive. So the net effect is bad for the environment and bad for our economy.

When No Right Turn thunders on about subsidising polluters, he is actually calling for something that will lead to increased carbon emissions.

Dr Smith said it was misleading to talk about subsidies to farmers on the basis that they are not paying for their emissions during Kyoto’s first commitment period (2008 to 2012).

“No country … is imposing a cost on their agriculture industry in the first commitment period. We are likely to be the first in 2015.”

Again this is where the purists just have no idea. They want us to tax (through the ETS) our farmers, in advance of any inclusion of agriculture by any other country. Again if we do what they want, then it is a lose-lose – bad for our economy and bad for the environment.

The NZ Herald laments the missed bipartisan opportunity:

A bipartisan policy on a subject so important for long-term investment decisions would be a rare and splendid thing, giving all sectors confidence that carbon emission costs would survive the next change of government. …

The economic good sense of ensuring emission costs are passed into prices will be obvious to those in industries that may be relieved by National’s transfer of their costs to the taxpayers.

Relief in those industries will be tempered by the knowledge that the next government is quite likely to reinstate economic sense. That likelihood already makes investment decisions difficult. Such is the folly of National’s failure to embrace a bipartisan approach.

My preference also was for a bipartisan deal, but I would not assume there would be changes made to the ETS by a future Government. National only had an opportunity to amend Labour’s ETS because it got passed just weeks before the election. I think, despite the rhetoric, Labour will be very wary of campaigning in 2011 on the platform of increasing prices.

In some respects the scheme National can now enact with Maori Party support is superior to the previous government’s. Permissible emissions will be based on an industry standard rather than an arbitrary base year so that firms that are efficient by their industry’s measure will be allocated free emission rights. The free allocations will be withdrawn much more slowly than Labour’s scheme allowed, sensibly aligning New Zealand’s scheme with Australia’s.

Labour might have agreed with all of these changes for the sake of a bipartisan consensus. It has found that leadership on climate change is not an election winner. The subject is too big for campaign slogans and some of the nominated solutions – dimmer light bulbs, dribbling shower heads – are annoyances that Labour now regrets.

The issue over allocation of permissible emissions being on an intensity basis, to reward efficiency, was one of the crucial aspects, and I suspect was the issue hardest for National and Labour to agree on. However it does seem that negotiations had not concluded with Labour, and it would have been desirable for them to be allowed to consider in private if they could back the changes the Maori Party agreed to.

The Dom-Post says:

Once the emissions trading scheme was about saving the world from global warming. Now it is about who pays and who gets to pass the cost of their emissions on to someone else.

Actually it was never ever about “saving the world”. Our reduction commitments at Kyoto and Copenhagen are about that, so to speak.  The ETS was always about who pays.

The deal cobbled together by National and the Maori Party is a triumph of political pragmatism. It is also an agreement that has ended, at least for the foreseeable future, the prospect of an enduring bipartisan approach by Labour and National. That turns New Zealand’s emissions policy into a political football.

The deal is a political solution that fails to solve an environmental and economic problem. It will not provide long-term certainty to business or to consumers.

The ETS was always a political solution. And as I said previously I would be surprised if in two years times Labour really wants to campaign on changes, as it will meet massive resistance from the losers from any changes.

Other changes will result in some businesses and agriculture being given more time to adjust, with a delay in bringing them into the scheme, while others are given less time.

That is good news for those who benefit, but it rather misses the point. The aim of the exercise is not to raise money to pay for New Zealand’s Kyoto obligations. It is a stick to encourage those responsible for emissions to cut them.

The Dom Post needs to read up on trade exposed industries and how imposing costs on NZ businesses and farmers that their overseas competitors do not have, may actually lead to an increase in global emissions.

Finally the ODT:

Having stitched up a deal with the Maori Party on its revised Emissions Trading Scheme – which has exercised environmentalists and received only lukewarm plaudits from two of the revised scheme’s more notable beneficiaries, industry and agriculture – the Government might venture to suggest that since no-one is entirely happy it must have the numbers about right.

Indeed.

The big question for the Government has been how to be seen – ahead of the Copenhagen climate meetings in December – to be making a meaningful contribution to mitigating the effects of emission-induced climate change as a good global citizen should, but to be so doing in a manner that does not place an undue burden on industry and agriculture, and thus circumscribe economic growth; nor, in the midst of a recession, place too much immediate cost on the individual consumer.

The proposed new scheme, which it will be able to pass into law with the support of Peter Dunne’s United Future vote, and that of the Maori Party, seeks to achieve this by, in the first instance, delaying entry of agriculture into the ETS from 2013 until 2015.

For the purists who decry the delay, it is worth noting this will be the first ETS in the world that includes agriculture, I believe.

In the face of climate change with its dire predicted consequences, all countries are having to grapple with striking a similar balance, nuanced according to the demands of their individual economies and political sensitivities.

This is new territory. There is an element of guesswork and gamble in reaching all such accords. National has, for better or for worse, both spurned Labour’s hand and taken a conservative approach. In the short term this is likely to pay handsome political dividends; in the longer term, it may prove to be less advantageous – electorally and environmentally.

Again, it would have been desirable to continue negotiations with Labour.

The Herald reports:

The transport and stationary energy sectors will now come into the scheme on July 1 next year, six months earlier and later respectively than under the existing law.

That will provide a local market in which owners of post-1990 forests can sell carbon credits should they wish.

But for the first 2 years, oil and power companies will now have to surrender only a one-tonne carbon unit for two tonnes of emissions. The taxpayer would pay the cost of the other one. Alternatively they could pay the Government a cash price of $25 a tonne.

Agriculture, which is responsible for half the country’s emissions, will still come into the scheme, but two years later, in 2015.

It will also get a more generous allocation of free units.

So will the smokestack industries – large industrial emitters like the Glenbrook steel mill, the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter and the Marsden Point oil refinery – whose international competitiveness would be jeopardised if they had to pay the full cost of their emissions.

I find what the Government has done is interesting. They have moved some sectors into the ETS faster than under Labour’s EST, while they have delayed other sectors. Why the difference?

Basically carbon leakage for trade exposed industries.

Moving the transport sector into the scheme earlier is relatively safe, as we’re not about to start filling our cars up in Australia with petrol.

But certain sectors, such as agriculture, are trade exposed and if one forced them to start paying the full cost of carbon too soon, they may lose market share to overseas producers who are not paying a price for carbon. And this can turn into a lose/lose for the environment and the economy. The environment suffers if we lose agricultural production to China (as per unit we are lower emitting), and our economy suffers also.

So when you read stories about how “polluters” are being subsidised, the reason is because we do not want our trade exposed industries to be losing market share to countries not charging for carbon. Now if you get a global agreement that brings in China, India etc then you get a different scenario.

I would have thought that having seen the massive increase in unemployment when our economic growth drops away, some groups would be less keen to advocate a scheme that would damage economic growth, and not actually benefit the environment.

Of course even this amended ETS will see some reduction in economic growth. But I’ve never regarded it as realistic to think we could be the only country in the OECD that doesn’t set a price for carbon and participate in an international agreement to reduce emissions.  We are far far too small to be able to get away with that, without facing some nasty consequences for trade access.

I attended the AGM of the NZ Institute of Economic Research last night. After the AGM and guest lecture (which I will blog on separately) there was a dinner at Icon Restaurant at Te Papa.

It was perhaps the only dinner I had been to, where you could have a discussion about the pros and cons of an intensity based approach to credit allocations in an emissions trading scheme, and the entire table understood the discussion!

In discussing the ETS, it became very clear that the preferred options of the NZ business sector is for National and Labour to reach agreement on the ETS, rather than National to rely on the Maori Party or ACT. They want certainty of policy.

Now Labour and National do actually agree on around 32 of the 35 issues around an ETS. However the issues they differ on are pretty big – the dates certain sectors enter the ETS and the merits or otherwise of an intensity based approach (which I will try and blog on at some stage also).

Now NZ already has an ETS, passed into law. Labour did this in 2008. So if Labour and National do reach an agreement, it is Labour that is arguably making the greater concession in order to give businesses policy certainity.

The Herald reports:

Labour is trying to rope Prime Minister John Key into the climate change negotiations, saying leader-to-leader talks are the way ahead. …

This is an opportunity for Phil Goff. In fact again at last night’s dinner we discussed how if Labour does do a deal with National on the ETS, this could be the equivalent of John Key’s compromise with Helen Clark on the smacking law.

And if Labour do put the national interest ahead of partisan interest, and strike an agreement with National, Phil Goff deserves his day up on the podium with John Key, looking Prime Ministerial.

But the issue is at what stage do you turn this into a negotiation at the leadership level.  If I was advising John Key, I would have two reservations about negotiating with Goff at this stage.

1. Can you trust him to be sincerely wanting an agreement, or is he just trying to get the PM involved so Key gets personally blamed when Goff walks away. Up until the Richard Worth affair, Goff would have been trusted. But his behaviour over the Choudary allegations, has dented Goff’s trustworthiness. And his use of confidential MFAT staff notes to embarrass Don Brash has not been forgotten either. In a negotiation both sides need to be able to put forward positions in confidence, and trust the other not to report the details.
2. Can Goff deliver his caucus? Key had a strong enough grip on the leadership that he could strike a private deal with Clark, and cheerfully walk into Caucus and tell them all that they are now voting for the bill they have spent the last six months fighting. A deal with National might involve (for example) a change of stance on the intensity issue. Could Goff get his Caucus to agree to that, just to get him his day in the sun?

Now these are not reasons to not meet with Goff at all. If Labour does do a deal, he should be the one to get the credit and share the podium with the PM. For putting the national interest of policy certainty first, he would deserve it.

But such a meeting is unlikely to happen, until the lower level negotiators can report back that there are reasonable prospects of success.

It is 132 pages long and can be read here.

The main recommendations are:

1. Accept IPCC 4th assessment report as consensus of the science, noting there are uncertainties but not enough to delay action
2. The point of obligation for agricultural sector should initially be at the processor, not the farm gate, as administratively too costly to do for now
3. An ETS is preferred over a carbon tax as it can better link up internationally.
4. That all sectors be included in the ETS long-term
5. Important to have certainty legislated for forestry asap to ensure further planting not inhibited
6. Consider a price cap in the short-term while the market matures
7. Agriculture to be in the ETS but no date specified
8. Will support changing rules to allow offsetting for forestry, but need international agreement

Labour, in its minority report says:

1. Supports an all gases all sectors ETS
2. Are against capping the price of carbon initially
3. will support delaying entry of stationary energy, industrial and transport sectors until 1 July 2010
4. all other sectors to enter by 1 Jan 2013 (status quo)

Greens say:

1. Used to support carbon tax but ETS now preferable
2. ETS should be all sectors and gases
3. Against a price cap

ACT say:

1. says response to climate change should be based on actual measurable change, not projections of future change
2. If one has to respond, prefer low rate carbon tax to ETS
3. Much of NZ emissions come from producing food for export, not domestic consumption.
4. Does not accept there is a strong chance of trade reprecussions, as seen by Singapore and Hong Kong

Maori Party say:

1. Against ETS as won’t sufficiently lower domestic emissions
2. Prefer carbon tax

To my mind there are no big surpises here. And from what I can see, the ETS will proceed. It will be amended from what Labour and passed, but not in a fundamental way. The three big issues appear to be:

1. Do you have an initial cap on the price of carbon? I actually tend to favour the Labour/Greens view that you should not.  A price cap will make the ETS less effective, and more importantly may not get the forestry sector sufficient incentives to increase plantings.
2. What date do sectors enter the ETS.  The big two sectors politically are transport and agriculture. The first will put up the price of petrol and the second will see an increase in costs for the agricultural sector. And if you bring agriculture in too soon, you risk merely exporting the emissions overseas making it a lose-lose. Remember that when Labour/Greens demand a 2013 entry.
3. How many free allocations in each sector? A sector will be given an allocation of credits initially, so that you don’t have sudden and massive price shocks. Key issue is how big that allocation is, and when does it run out.

The ball is now clearly in the Government’s court. There is little doubt we will have an ETS – in fact we already have one – passed into law. The Government will want to make some changes to it. ACT look unlikely they will support changes as they don’t want an ETS at all. However they might be reluctant to vote against (for example) a delay in Agriculture entering the ETS.

Labour and Greens are relatively happy with the current ETS and unlikely to want to vote for changes. So this means the Maori Party is pretty important for getting any changes made.

It is possible National will not be able to get agreement on any changes. Unlikely, but possible. If that happens it does not mean there is no ETS. It means the one passed in 2008 will continue.

Former Energy Minister Barry Brill makes the case that the emissions reduction target of 10% to 20% is far far too ambitious:

The National Party campaigned on a promise to reduce our greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2050 – a cut of 46Mt (million tones of CO2-equivalent) from 2008 levels over a period of 40 years. But Mr Key now says his Government will aim to reach more than half the 2050 goal in just 10 years.

Because technologies to reduce agricultural emissions have not yet been developed, the most expensive and painful time to reduce gases will be in the early part of the 40-year period.

Brill is right. Technology will make it easier to reduce emissions later rather than sooner.

While we have undertaken a 10-20 per cent decrease from 1990 levels, the largest emitter, the United States, is aiming for a zero decrease – if their Senate approves legislation. Canada is targeting a 3 per cent decrease and Japan 8 per cent. Australia’s plans seem likely to be voted down by their Senate.

The 27 EU countries picked up a huge advantage from the choice of 1990 as the base year, but their combined goals looking forward are reductions of 15 per cent (mid-point). Russia is aiming at increases of 24 per cent. New Zealand outpoints them all by targeting forward reductions of 32-42 per cent.

This is quite key. When the Greens and Labour say NZ is a laggard by aiming for 10% to 20% under 1990 only, they are ignoring the fact that Helen Clark’s Government left us with emissions so high that the reduction from today to the 2020 target is one of the highest in the world. The 40% target the Greens promote is quite literally impossible to achieve. Even the Greens admit this – their plan involves us failing to meet the target and purchasing credits from overseas.

It gets worse – 20 per cent below 2008 levels equates to a 64 per cent per capita reduction in emissions from 2008 to 2020.

So, our country is a clear contender for the Gold Medal in the Copenhagen stakes. How embarrassing for all the industrialised countries that an agricultural country should lead the way.

If Labour and the Greens claim NZ is not doing enough, ask them why a 64% reduction per capita is not enough.

But the Prime Minister has assured us that the best available guess is that we’ll all be out-of-pocket by $27 per week per head by the end of the decade. This cost will start building up from now, and will continue forever.

This cost is appalling. Why aren’t we rioting in the streets? Even now, we can’t afford decent healthcare, education, prisons, so where will we find another $6 billion per year? How can a family of four find an extra $112 per week after tax?

The bill of $6 billion per year is more than 5 per cent of the country’s GNP. We are told we need to incur this cost because it will be good for trade in an indirect sort of way.

But the cure is worse than the disease when the cost is greater than all our earnings from meat and wool exports, or equal to 60 per cent of our annual dairy exports.

To be fair to the Government, the 10% to 20% target is not a unilateral commitment as I understand it, but dependent on an agreement with all major developed and/or emitting countries. And that is far from certain.

New Zealand’s promises in Copenhagen won’t have any material impact on efforts to change the world’s future climate. However, there will be endless meetings, where every country will pressure every other country to accept a bigger share of the burden.

Going into this sort of negotiation, most countries start with a low bid. Our Government’s tactics of tabling a massive opening bid – one we can’t afford – will have competitors scratching their heads. I predict it will become a case study in business schools and negotiating classes around the world.

I’ve made this point myself – our target is our opening bid. It is foolish to set it too high.

A few people have tried to portray the Government’s target of a 10% to 20% reduction over 1990 levels as some sort of half hearted wimp out. In fact it is right at the top of what is achievable without lunacies such as shooting cows.

Matthew Hooton pointed out in NBR how massive this target is:

The 10-20% target announced by John Key, Nick Smith and Tim Groser this week is far more radical than it sounds.  By 2020, under business as usual, New Zealand’s net emissions are forecast to be up 40% over 1990 levels.

This means the Greens’ 40% target cut over the 1990 baseline is in fact a 57% cut over the base case.  National’s 20% target would require a 43% cut.

In other words, National has offered up a proposed cut that is three-quarters of what the most swivel-eyed neo-Marxists in the Green movement have been demanding.

This is why Labour does not dare say what their target would have been.

Now NZPA report what Treasury says the target should be:

But Treasury recommended a target range with an unconditional target of 8 percent reduction on a base year of 2005.

This was equivalent to emissions 15 percent above the 1990 level because New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions increased 24.7 percent between 1990 and 2005.

So the Government has gone for a target of 10% to 20% below 1990 levels, when their official advice was aim for 15% above 1990 levels. So again, if an eco marxist tries to claim this target is some sort of wimpy sell out, go drop a cow on them. If anything the Government could be criticised for too ambitious a target.

Incidentally I would recommend people read Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s summary of the issues on climate change.

The post on abortion as a climate change measure was not meant to be funny. I wrote it before I left actually, and set it on time delay.

It was using satire to make a point. A political party in Parliament has seriously proposed that the appropriate response to the challenge of climate change is to reduce the national dairy herd by 20%.

If people are seriously going to propose policies such as reducing the national dairy herd by 20%, then they should expect a robust response. To be blunt their policies and claims do not get enough scrutiny as it is, so I don’t regret for one second that post.

And for those who get all yucky because it mentioned abortion, I’ll point out this post by a Labour MP basically stating John Key is responsible for increased abortions due to the folic acid in bread decision. And that was a serious post, not even satire.

Anyway this is my first political post while on holiday. The others were all time delayed. Back to holiday blogging.

The Green Party today released a further policy on how New Zealand can make a goal of a 40% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

“We realised our previous policy of de-stocking dairy herds was not going to be enough. Yes Cows fart and belch more methane than humans, but they don’t travel in cars and use heaters” said the Green Party.

New Zealanders emit 7.4 metric tons of carbon emissions per capita. The more New Zealanders we have, the more emissions we have. Hence the solution is to have less New Zealanders”

We have decided abortion is the best way to reduce the number of New Zealanders, as this is preferable to euthanasia. In 2007 the abortion rate was only 22.2% of pregnancies. If we can triple that to 67%, that will mean 37,000 less New Zealanders every year.

Over 10 years until 2020, that is a massive 370,000 fewer New Zealanders. That will reduce annual emissions by 2.8 million tons of carbon emissions. And by 2050 that will see annual emissions down by 14 million tons.

The Greens wish to make it clear they are not proposing that abortion be compulsory for all New Zealanders.

“We propose a lottery, like the US green card for immigrant visas. Every month all pregnant women will be entered into the lottery, and only two out of three of them will have to abort their pregnancy. One in three women will be allowed to keep their pregnancy viable. Of course they may miscarry, which will be great for the environment, but that is just an added bonus.

We wish to make it very clear, in case our opponents scare-monger, that a woman who has to have an abortion for the sake of reducing our carbon emissions is allowed to get pregnant again. So really it is just a small delay in having children for most women.

Some parties may decry this policy as extreme, but they should remember that unless carbon emissions in New Zealand are reduced to 40% of 1990 levels by 2020, the world is doomed and we will all end up aborted. So this is about saving the planet for the one in three who are allowed to be born.

My views on the Greenpeace 40% campaign are well known. And its use of celebrity endorsements, rather than rational arguments, for its campaign represents all the worst aspects of what should be a serious public policy debate.

How-ever it was an “unforced error” for John Key to tell Keisha Castle-Hughes to “stick to acting” even though I am sure he said it with a smile. Greenpeace should be the target of criticism for their celebrity driven campaign, not so much Castle-Hughes who is advocating for something she believes.

Part of this is common sense. The PM vs a young mother is a fight you can not win. Also the main outcome from it, is to give more publicity to Castle-Hughes and her advocacy. As I said I call it a rare “unforced error”.

I saw the interview with Castle-Hughes on Close Up and thought she composed herself well, and resisted taking shots back at the PM – instead focusing on the issue. Having said that Sainsbury did give her the kid gloves treatment and didn’t ask her questions about the economic impact of a 40% target, what would she say to farm workers who would lose their jobs etc etc, what her views were on flexible land use rules for forest replanting, why she advocates 40% not 35% or 45%, how she thought methane emissions from cows should best be reduced etc etc.

A reader reminds me to quote the Team America movie, and questions whether Keisha will be asked to join the Film Actors Guild, quoting their spokesperson Janeane Garofalo:

“as actors it is important that we read newspapers and then say what we read on television like it is our own opinion”

Heh. That was a great movie.

Yesterday I was at a Business Roundtable conference, giving a presentation on the media and public policy issues. The main topic I focused on was how well had the media done in covering and analysing the debate on what the emissions reduction target should be – especially the campaign by the Greens and Greenpeace to have it at 40% below 1990 levels.

I did my normal calculations of how this is actually a reduction from the business as usual case of 57%, and that to do this one would need to ban every car, bus and truck in NZ, close down every fossil fuel power plant and on top of that hire vigilantes to shoot every third cow.

After the presentation I went back to my laptop and found a new story on NZPA, about the Greens explaining how NZ could make the 40% target they want. My eyes goggled at this bit:

The Greens today floated de-stocking in the dairy sector

I thought I had been taking the piss. I was using humour to make a point. But blow me down, the little fruitcakes are serious. They do want us to shoot the cows. They just use the nice Orwelllian term of “de-stocking” instead.

Then my eyes hit the next part:

along with genetically improving herds toward less emission-prone cows.

Can anyone spell hypocrisy?

And in case you think NZPA got it wrong, the Greens own website says:

If we reduce the average dairy stocking rate from 2.83 cows/ha to 2.3 we save 2.2 Mt

This is a reduction in cows of 19%. I told the Business Roundtable in semi-jest that the Greens want to slaughter one in three cows. It seems that their official policy is to wipe out one in five cows – pretty close.

In 1999 we had around 3.5 million cows. So the Greens policy is to exterminate around 700,000 cows.

I am now a bit worried about the next step in their logic. You see in the 1970s Muldoon introduced “carless” days to conserve energy. Yes it was illegal to drive your car one day a week. Anyway (Sir) Bob Jones wrote a letter to the newspaper suggesting the Government scrap carless days and if they are serious about conserving energy, they merely shoot one in ten motorists.

Now humans don’t fart as much methane as cows, but our overall consumption drives a lot of carbon emissions. So I really hope the Greens refrain from adopting Bob Jones’ 1970s jest as policy.

Brian Fallow writes:

The sort of number the Government has been directing our attention towards, in a non-committal way, is a 15 per cent cut from 1990 levels. That would also be 15 per cent below the current commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.

But as New Zealand’s gross emissions are 24 per cent above 1990 levels, such a target would be a cut of nearly a third from where we are now.

Yes. This is talking gross emissions and a cut of a third in ten years is not some wimpy cop out but bloody ambitious. Some say it is not so hard as what counts is net emissions. Not quite that simple though. Apart from the fact by 2020 gross and net emissions may be similiar, as I understand it our target is always in gross emissions, but the amount we will have to pay will be based on net emissions. In other words the rest of the world expects us to actually cut emissions, not just plant trees.

It would be the equivalent of eliminating, within 10 years, all emissions from transport and electricity generation, and then some. Transport accounts for 20 per cent of national emissions, the electricity sector 9 per cent.

That is for a target of 15% below 1990. Remember that when the Greens claim anything less than 40% is a cop out.

“The nightmare for the Government is that even what looks like a very modest target is incredibly challenging, because we are starting 24 per cent behind the eight ball,” says Climate Change Minister Nick Smith.

Thanks Helen. Despite her carbon neutral rhetoric, emissions grew faster in NZ under Clark than in the US under Bush, compared to 1990 levels.

There are three ways New Zealand can meet its target: physically reducing emissions within the country, expanding the forest area or buying carbon credits on the international market – which represent emissions reductions which have occurred somewhere else in the world.

All three methods cost money. How much is educated guesswork: all the economic modelling tells us is that the more ambitious the target and the higher the international carbon price, the greater the cost will be.

Yep. The greater all the targets are for reduction, the higher the price per unit and hence the price consumers and businesses will pay in NZ.

Satellite and aerial mapping has confirmed an increase of 566,000ha in the area of plantation forest, which the Government expects will just about cover the increase in gross emissions over the same period.

But most of those trees were already in the ground when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997.

Net afforestation has collapsed since then, and the trees planted in the 1990s will be ready for harvest in the 2020s, turning the forestry sector from a net sink for carbon into a net source.

This is why reliance on our net emissions being at 1990 levels is little comfort for the 2020 target.

Unless, that is, the rules for counting forest emissions are changed. At the moment the carbon sequestered in trees is deemed to be all released to the atmosphere when the tree is felled, which is nonsense if it is used for building timber.

New Zealand is seeking a number of changes to the rules relating to LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry). Groser said that within the range of environmentally credible or defensible rules the difference between the best and worst case outcomes on the rules from a New Zealand perspective could swing the country’s emissions by as much as 70 per cent. The rules will not be finally decided at Copenhagen.

Those potential rule changes are of huge significance.

Labour’s climate change spokesman Charles Chauvel says it is better to be bold than timid.

“We will be a target-taker, let’s face it, when we get to the negotiations. The benefit about being bold in setting a target now is that it will obviously be provisional given that we are going into negotiations and we will effectively be given a target by bigger players.

With all respects to Charles this is a pretty stupid strategy. As he points out there will be international negotiations and in those negotiations big players will try and push up what our target should be. Now knowing this is likely to happen, why would you go in with a target already at the top end of what is possible, as this then removes any flexibility from the negotiations. Sure our initial negotiating target has to be credible, but this talk of boldness (and note Labour refuse to say what target they support) is silly fluff. Ask any negotiator if your starting bid should ever be your final position.

The NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development has promoted an ambitious but not impossible target:

They propose a 20% reduction in gross emissions unilaterally. That is gross not net. Means planting trees won’t do it. As we are currently at 123% of 1990 levels it means a cut by around one third in just a decade.

They say this could go up to 30% if the following conditions are met:

1. Competitors of our trade-exposed, emission-intensive industries are exposed to a price on carbon (vital)
2. There is overwhelming participation by developed countries in taking responsibility for 25 – 40% reductions in emissions by 2020 from a 1990 base
3. Major developing economies, including China and India, agree to significant reductions in the growth of their emissions below BAU (and they have to be significant, or it is all pissing into the wind)
4. The rules for forestry and soil carbon be amended to recognise that equivalent replanting can occur for pre-1990 forests in locations other than the site of the felled forest (also very important and sensible)

I think this is at the upper end of what Government thinks is achievable, let alone affordable. As I said it would be very ambitious to cut gross emissions by a third in a decade.

Guyon Espiner interviews Nick Smith on Q&A this morning. I thought it was a good performance from Nick:

GUYON  What about here in New Zealand.  What sort of climate effects are we going to see here and by when if we don’t get this under control?

NICK Well if we take the sort of estimates that have been made by NIWA scientists, you know we’re looking sea level rises over the course of the century of about .6 of a metre, we’re looking at temperature rises of about two degrees. 

Great to have a politician not exagerrate the impacts. Nick correctly quoted the IPCC consensus of around 60 cm increase over 100 years. You get all sorts of hysterical nonsense about eight metre increases from some politicians.

NICK  Well the government’s commissioned this report from Infometrics and NZEIR to try and get a feel for what those numbers would be if we went for the target that Greenpeace is promoting of minus 40, that indicates a cost of about you know 15 billion dollars per year at 2020, you know that’s more than the entire expense of our health system,

This is what the Green Party is campaigning for. To spend more money on this, than we do on Vote Health. And that is $15 billion a year – not one off.

The report from NZIER is here – NZIER Infometrics Report 26 July 2009.

Their model basically says that the cost would be $3,000 per person per year for a 40% reduction. That is $60 a week.

NICK   Yeah I do, I think that argument is incontrovertible, you know how can we, emitting about 17 tonne a year, per New Zealander, say to the Bangladeshi who’s doing a tonne a year, hey guys you’ve gotta get your emissions down because we’ve got a global problem.  But the other part we have to understand is this, even if every one of the developed countries signs up to a zero target which is totally unrealistic, and you see the continued growth in emissions from China, India, Brazil, those countries, we are not going to beat this problem, you know the projections are that you’d get emissions up to sort of 650 parts per million, even with zero from the developed world, and so that really shows how important it is in Copenhagen that we get the developing countries to come on board. 

This is key. An agreement must include China, India and Brazil.

NICK   I want to reassure you, that in the government making its decision both on the ETS and the 2020 target, that needs to be at the front of our mind.  You know if we look at the new bill that’s in the United States Congress, they’ve specifically made provision there for tariffs against countries that don’t take climate change seriously, and so what the sort of balance that the government’s going to have to strike here, is one that has us not getting out too far of the pack.  What that economic report shows if you get too far out, the costs really escalate.

GUYON         So we could face a trade ban, so your 15 billion dollars pales into nothing if we are getting our goods boycotted by an international trading ban. 

NICK   Absolutely, and that’s why I say to farmers in the agricultural sector, look guys climate change has gotta be taken seriously, not only is it an environmental risk, it is a trade risk, and that’s where New Zealand needs to find this balance, recognise that we’ve got a tough job, but saying that look too far ahead, costs get too high, too far behind and the costs get ugly as well.

It is a balance. If we do nothing we will get hammered. If we try to be the most pure country in the world we will just get a lot poorer and possibly outsource our emissions to China.

I despair for the people who will see the cute Greenpeace ads on television about how we need to cut our carbon emissions 40% by 2020, and say you should text your name in support. They fail to point out what sort of country we would live in, if anyone was insane enough to agree to such a goal.

On NewstalkZB I described it as this:

First you would have to stop all transport emissions. So all cars and buses are gone. Then you would have to stop all electricity emissions. So NZ would have no cars and no electricity. But even that would not be enough to get emissions in just a decade to 40% below 1990 levels. You would have to hire gangs of vigilantes to hunt down any cows they can find and shoot a decent proportion of them.

Now you may think I am exaggerating. But not really. No one should think one can cut greenhouse gas emissions by around a half in just a decade without a massive impact on NZ society. Hopefully someone somewhere has hired some economists to work out what the consequences and costs would be of such a dramatic reduction over such a short period of time.

Colin James looks at what the reduction should be:

Advocates of a 40 per cent reduction from 1990 levels have been crowding Smith’s meetings. Opponents of a 40 per cent reduction say that would cripple the economy (though their models exclude unpredictable growth possibilities). John Key has said the economy must trump the environment when the two clash. So 40 per cent is most unlikely.

Too right.

On the most recent (rubbery and constantly changing) computations, New Zealand will more than meet its Kyoto commitment for 2008-12 of net emissions at the same level as in 1990 because, although our gross emissions are around 23 per cent above 1990 levels, enough trees were planted in the 1990s to offset this (though forest owners might claim some of those credits and taxpayers would then have to buy matching foreign credits).

The recession has also helped. We emit less when business is slack.

The 1990 tree plantings are projected to keep our net emissions around 1990 levels until 2016. But from then the trees start to be harvested and by 2020 our net emissions are projected to match our gross emissions — 41 per cent above 1990. After 2020 the figure soars.

So Colin correctly points out that if no changes are made our emissions in 2020 will be 41% above 1990 level. So if we were to follow Australia and say we will get emissions down to 5% below 1990 levels by 2020, that would be a reduction from 140% to 95% – still a massive reduction.

So to get to 40 per cent below 1990 levels in 2020 we would have to cut by around 60 per cent compared with going on as we are (“business as usual”) — or buy a swag of credits offshore, which may be very expensive if other rich countries are also buying for their “responsibility” targets. Or, some argue, we could plant masses of trees, starting now.

So a 60% reduction over the business as usual scenario. And now look at our emissions profile:

1. Agriculture methane 30%
2. Transport 20%
3. Agriculture nitrous oxide 16%
4. Stationary energy 15%
5. Electricity generation 9%
6. Industrial processes 6%
7. Waste 2%

So as I said, let us say we get rid of every car and bus in New Zealand. We all walk to work, video-conference, cycle or take the solar powered train. That takes out 20%. Only a third of the way there.

Then we decide to join Great Barrier Island and survive off solar power. We close down all the power plants and turn off the electricity supplies. It’s candles for warmth in winter. That gets a another 9%. 29%.

To get to 60% we also really need to wipe out those agricultural methane emissions by shooting every evil cow we can find. That gets us to 50%. Yes I know it will mean no more dairy exports. In fact we may even need to import our milk and butter, but hey we will have met our target.

There is an upside though. Our incomes will all drop by thousands of dollars as we wipe out the agricultural sector. And it is tough having less money to spend. But as cars would have been outlawed, and there will be no electricity bills, as we have no electricity, then that should allow you to survive the drop in income a bit easier.

Now of course technology may make the job easier. I certainly hope so. But consider how much of an impact technology can have in just a decade. By 2050 I think technology will have allowed us to make much more significant reductions. But 2020 is not far off, and even if within a few years someone does work out how to stop cows emitting methane, it would take many years to produce and roll out the technology.

No Right Turn blogs:

The UK government has just announced an ambitious plan to meet its 34% by 2020 climate change target. The details look like nothing less than a green revolution:

Now you may look at this and think hey the UK is going for a 34% by 2020 target, so why not have NZ go for a 40% by 2020 target.

But here is the key difference. This is about how much below 1990 levels you can get. Now as of 2007 NZ was around 20% to 25% above 1990 levels. So in fact we would be having to go from 120% of 1990 to 60% of 1990 – in other words cut our emissions in half in just a decade. It simply can not be done without shooting a hell of a lot of cows.

The UK in 2006 was already 20% below its 1990 level. So the UK has to just go from 80% to 66% (a 14% reduction on 1990 levels), while NZ would have to go from 120% to 60% (a 60% reduction on 1990 levels).

This is why I call a 40% target by 2002 madness. It ignores where we are at today. It would lead to a huge number of jobs destroyed, and could well lead to increased emissions from other countries as they would take up our drop in agricultural production.

a massive investment by electricity companies in home insulation – £3.2 billion over four years to insulate 7.5 million homes.

This sounds a lot. But the UK economy is 20 times the size of the NZ economy. So in NZ terms that is the equivalent of spending 160 million pounds over four years or NZ$409 million.

And National’s 2009  budget announced $320 million over four years for home insulation. So in fact the UK commitment is only 25% greater.

I personally believe that the IPCC is basically right with its conclusions that, if nothing else changes, ever increasing levels of greenhouse gases will lead to a rise in global temperatures. It is pretty basic science.

I think there is uncertainty about the “if nothing else changes” because we don’t know for sure how the rest of the climate system reacts to the increased warming from greenhouse gases – does it exacerbate the problem (as IPCC thinks) or does it mitigate the problem (as some believe). On issues such as this, there is little hard data – it is mainly forecasts and theories.

Overall I think prudent steps to reduce emissions is sensible. However the notion that if we do not act with a few years the world is doomed is hysterical scaremongering – the IPCC itself forecasts an increase in sea levels by 2100 of only 19 to 69 cm.

The Herald reported on a recent consultation meeting on what our emissions target should be. And I just detest those who try and demonise those with a contrary viewpoint. It is like modern day witch burnings – but without the fire.

In another moment of silliness, electricity consultant Brian Leyland – seemingly the only climate change sceptic in the room – was heckled by Mr Lee, the man who was supposed to be keeping the meeting in order. “We have a flat earther here,” he joked.

Great. The so called neutral chairman insults and denigrates someone who has taken the time to turn up and have their say. What fucking arrogance.

For a minute it seemed Mr Leyland might have a saviour – climate scientist Jim Salinger protested that the sceptic should be given his chance to speak.

But seconds later Dr Salinger, too, put the boot in, comparing his opponent to a Holocaust denier. “And I can say that because of my ethnicity.”

No you can’t. You should be ashamed of yourself to compare someone debating forecasts and predictions of future climate change, to neo-Nazi racist hate filled Holocaust deniers. If you do not know the difference between a massively well documented and witnessed historical event, and forecasts and predictions of future change, then you are stupid or malicious.

Most people in the packed meeting room at the Hyatt Regency hotel had turned up to say they supported Greenpeace’s target of cutting emissions 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – likely to be considerably bolder than what the Government ultimately commits the country to.

Of course the Government will not commit to 40% by 2020 – they are not suicidal. This is barely ten years away, and as we are already 20% or so over 1990 levels, it is really calling for a halving in a decade.

Now half of our emissions come from agriculture. So if a Government was stupid enough to sign up to 40% reduction by 2020, it would either need to totally eliminate agricultural emissions (which can only be achieved by shooting every cow in NZ) or totally eliminate non-agricultural emissions – yes in just a decade every power source that emits carbon would need to be replaced. Or some combination of the two.

You think 8% unemployment is tough. You just try and reduce our emissions by 50% in a decade. And think how proud we will be with 20% unemployment but hey we reduced our contribution to global emissions from 0.2% to 0.1%. But in the meantime China (which will not sign any reduction agreement) has doubled its emissions. I would have to check but I think the weekly growth in China’s emissions is more than our 50% reduction would be.

Again, I support reducing our emissions – both for reasons of trade, but also to contribute to reducing global emissions. But the 40% target by 2020 is simply not achievable without a huge reduction in output – or in other words a massive reduction in income levels and employment.

The Government is consulting on what should be New Zealand’s 2020 target for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

I know some think there should not be any reduction, as the science is doubted. But the reality is there will be a target, unless we want to risk losing trade access. And in case you think this is unlikely, I quote Colin James today:

Mr Key demurred. He asked the Feds if keeping agriculture out of the ETS would actually serve farmers’ interests. What if New Zealand got a poor reputation abroad on climate change and consumers, retail chains and governments put up barriers to New Zealand products?

(He had a point. The ETS bill which passed the United States House of Representatives on June 26 included provision for tariffs on imports from countries deemed backsliders on climate change.)

This is pretty significant. The US legislation includes such protectionist measures, and I have little doubt Europe will. NZ is far too small to survive if our trade access is blocked.

So what is a reasonable target for 2020? 1990 is the base year everyone measures against. Our Kyoto target was to keep emissions at 1990 level. They actually grew 22% to 2007, but were mainly offset by increased forestry plantings. And out 2050 target is a 50% reduction by 2050.

On a purely linear calculation, based on an ETS taking effect from 2010, the annual reduction needed is from 122% – 50%/40 years = 72%/40 years = 1.8% a year. Hence emissions in 2020 on a linear basis would be 18% less than the 122% we are at, or 104%. In other words if we manage to reduce emissions to 1990 labels by 2020, we would be on track (on a linear basis) to have a 50% reduction by 2050.

Aiming to return to 1990 levels is what Obama is aiming for by 2020. Canada is aiming for 3% below 1990 and Australia 4% below 1990 (unless there is a major international agreement in which case more). The EU is going for a 20% reduction.

The Greens are calling for a reduction of at least 30% by 2020. This is sheer madness. With agriculture making up half our emissions – the only way we’d reduce by that amount in just over a decade is by a huge reduction in agricultural output. You think the current recession is bad – just wait until the Green recession. They are basically saying we go from 122% to 70% or less in just ten years.

Personally I think we should go close to Australia. Say a unilateral reduction of 5%, but greater reductions if there is an international agreement and even greater if China, India and Brazil agree to limit emissions. Those three countries are now responsible for close to 30% of global emissions (the EU is only 13% and US 18%) and since 1990 have had emissions growth respectively of 121%, 80% and 55%.

Labour and Greens are going on about how awful it is the Government has killed off the carbon neutral public service programme run by the Ministry of the Environment:

Nick Smith points out:

The Carbon Neutral Public Service was just a feel good slogan cooked up by the previous Government. Its only achievement was to cost this country millions of dollars. Ironically, since the programme was launched by the previous Government, emissions from the Ministry for the Environment increased from 656 tonnes in 2005/06 to 766 tonnes in 2007/08.

That is hilarious.

Humans tend to cause carbon emissions. So the quickest way to have a carbon neutral public service to to sack everyone

The UN has just published the 2006 greenhouse gas data. It will be another two years for us to see the full impact of Helen’s legacy of total rhetoric and no action. But here are how different countries compare between 1999 and 2006.

Helen talked of reducing net emissions to zero. Kyoto is about getting them back to 1990 levels. But surely Helen managed to at least keep them constant? Nope. From 1999 to 2006, this is the net increase (including offsetting with land use and forests) for various countries:

1. Sweden -61.8%
2. Norway -31.8%
3. Estonia -23.4%
4. Monaco -21.4%
5. Finland -9.2%
6. France -6.3%
7. Belgium -5.3%
8. Hungary -4.6%
9. Slovakia -4.5%
10. Poland -4.3%
11. Denmark -3.4%
12. Netherlands -3.2%
13. United Kingdom -2.6%
14. Germany -2.0%
15. European Community -0.9%
16. Portugal 0.9%
17. Japan 0.9%
18. United States 0.9%
19. Italy 2.7%
20. Ireland 3.0%
21. Liechtenstein 3.9%
22. Iceland 5.3%
23. Bulgaria 6.2%
24. Greece 7.0%
25. Australia 8.2%
26. Czech Republic 8.6%
27. Switzerland 8.8%
28. Canada 11.0%
29. New Zealand 12.0%
30. Spain 18.0%
31. Turkey 33.3%

Only two industrialised countries (excluding those who are below their Kyoto targets) have a worse record than New Zealand under Helen Clark.

We are also at 33% over our 1990 Kyoto target. The US is only 14% over, and Australia 7% over. The United Kingdom is 16% under.

If Labour try to claim any sort of moral high ground on climate change, just remember these facts. Helen Clark’s record was one of the worst in the world on carbon emissions.

The NZ Herald fact checks John Key and finds carbon emissions in NZ have grown even faster than what he said in the debate (mind you I think he was referring to emissions under Clark’s Government while the Herald is referring to since 1990).

Peter Neilson of the NZ Business Council for Sustainable Development defends his former Caucus colleague Helen saying:

As the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development points out it is all a bit more complicated than it seems.

Chief executive Peter Neilson said that while the reality was that New Zealand emissions had been increasing, that was because our economy had been growing.

Many of the countries with reduced emissions were in recession .

So this means that the Government is now sucessfuly reducing emissions, by having the economy go into recession. Hey if we turn the recession into a depression, then we’ll make our 1990 target easily!