Transcript Kennedy Graham

NZ Emission Trading Scheme:
How agriculture, horticulture & forestry will
cope with what is required
Green Party Viewpoint
Kennedy Graham, MP
NZIAHS Forum,
Lincoln University, 22 August 2012
Authorised by Kennedy Graham, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.
Overview
I. What is required (globally; nationally)?
II. Coping (nationally) - NZ ETS
III. Agric., hortic., forestry ‘coping’
IV. Other countries ‘coping’
I. What is required?
Not just problem of climate change - Ecological crisis
― E.F. crossed Earth-share (= bio-prod. capacity pc) in 1981;
overshoot:
18% in ’92;
50% in ‘10.
― Over-consuming planet’s resources
= permanent ecological theft from the next generation.
― US lifestyle sustainable population = 2.2 b. [2012 = 7 b., 2050 = 9 b.]
― Biodiversity loss = 100 - 1000 times above natural rate.
― GHG emissions rising = ‘dangerous anthrop. interf. with climate system’
MGT (13.9°C)
+ 2°C (difficult) to +6°C (intolerable).
Global Ecological Crisis
Inter-locking series of 9 planetary boundaries.
3 exceeded:
climate change
biodiversity
nitrogen removal
1 recovering:
stratospheric ozone depletion
3 approaching boundary
freshwater
ocean acidification
land use
2 lack sufficient data
chemical pollution
atmospheric aerosol loading
What is required (focusing only on climate change)
1992 UNFCCC Objective:
— stabilisation of GHG concentrations in atmosphere at level avoids dangerous
anthropogenic CC
2010
Cancun COP-MOP
UNFCCC objective = + 2°C (MGT) above ore-industrial level (1750)
[0.8°C already; 0.7°C committed = 1.5°C certain = 0.5° left]
= 450 ppm concentration
Global carbon budget (80% prob. of + 2°C)
Potsdam:
565 Gt. Further GHG emissions
WWF:
1990-2100 GCB = 1600 Gt CO2e (net);
2009-2100 = 870 Gt.;
= 9.5 Gt /yr. (=20% of current)
Known global fossil fuel (FF) reserves
=
2,795 Gt.
Therefore:
To avoid dangerous Cl.Ch.
= can extract / emit only 20% FF reserves
= switch to low-carbon econ. (betw. 2030 – ‘50)
What is required (focusing only on climate change)
Global emissions reduction curve (annual emission levels)
Year
CO2e (Gt. = billion tonnes)
Required
[2°C]
1990
[34]
2010
48
2020 UNEP
(WWF)
44
(36)
2050 UNEP
(WWF)
26/21
(7)
BAU
Voluntary
Pledges
Emission Gap
56
50
6
Current global emissions profile
Carbon Dioxide 77%
Energy
(stationary)
25%
Methane
15%
Transport
14%
Nitrous Oxide
7%
Deforestation
11%
Others
1%
Agriculture
14%
World Resources Initiative (2009)
What is required (focusing only on
climate change) – NZ
New Zealand Emissions (million tonnes, Mt)
Actual
Projected
1990
2010
2020
2050
Gross
61
76
77 / 79
/ 88
LULUCF
- 19
- 20
+2 / - 16
/ -25
Net
42
56
79 / 63
/ 63
NZ 5th Comm., Table 5.1 (2009) /
Review Panel Report (2011)
Responsibility Target
NZ Voluntary Pledge:
2020
52 Mt.
15 %
2050
30 Mt.
50 % (below 1990 levels)
From 77 to 52 (33%) in transition period 2012-20:
through (KP2?):
(a)
emission cuts
(b)
net removals (LULUCF)
(c)
international credits
From 77 to 30 (61%) in ‘global legal agreement’ (LCA) 2012-50
NB:
NZ pledge = inadequate for ‘global emissions gap’
NZ ETS: NZ = 100% 2008-12 (av. ann.) / 1990
Kyoto Protocol Performance (2008-12 = 5 years)
=
61.9 x 5 = 310 Mt.
Mt.
%
Energy (incl. liq. fuels)
162
44%
Industry
23
6%
1/1/13
Waste
10
3%
Post-’15
Agriculture
171
47%
Emissions
EIF
1/7/10
Total gross
1/1/08
Forestry (92 sinks – 6 defor.)
366
86
Total net (incl. LULUCF)
280
Assigned Balance
Initial AAUs
310
Less unit transactions/PFSI
5
Proj. assigned amnt. bal.
303
NZ Net Position (units)
(Assigned balance > emissions)
23.2
NZ Net Position (NZ$)
(€5.03 = NZ$8.27)
+$192 m.
50%
50%
NZ Sectoral Analysis
1990
2007
2010
2020
Energy/transport/industry/waste
29.6
39.6
39.2
37.8
Agriculture
31.3
35.8
36.9
39.1
Total (gross)
60.9
75.4
76.1
76.9
Forestry
-19.2
-18.5
-20.1
+1.9
Total with LULUCF (net)
41.7
56.9
56.0
78.8
NOTE: (1990-2020)
1. Gross emissions
+26%
2. Net emissions
+ 89%
3. Agric. Emissions
+ 25%
ETS – Outline
‘08 Act
‘09 Act
‘11 Review
‘12 Bill
Price cap ($/tonne)
$25
$12.50
$30 / ’13
$50 / ‘17
$12.50
indef.
Free allocations
60% / 90%
60% / 90%
Phase-out
8.3%
1.3%
EIF
Forestry
1/1/08
En./Ind./Fish
1/1/10
1/7/10
Transport
1/1/11
1/7/10
Agriculture
1/1/13
1/1/15
1:2 1/1/15
1:1 1/1/19
no date
ETS – Latest Development
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other
Matters) Amendment Bill
2011 Review
2012 Bill
Agriculture
1. Mand. reptng. 1/1/12; surr. 1/1/15)
Remove date for surr. obligations
2. PoO = farmer, not processor
No longer relevant
3. Free allocations = 90% @ 1.3% from
1/1/16
4. Promote TT for existing mitigation
options
ETS – Latest Development
2011 Review
2012 Bill
Forestry
1. Change forestry rules, unilaterally
Yes
2. Pre-Kyoto offset planting
Yes
3. Claw-back for 2nd tranche of preKyoto
Yes
Conclusion:
2009 weakening of a weak ’08 Act, further weakened by 2012 Bill
= will not meet the test of ‘what is required’
The 2012 Bill
Objectives:
1. Ensure ETS ‘more effectively supports NZG economic growth
priorities’
2. ETS flexibility for transition (2013-20)
3. Improve ETS administration
4. Change current treatment of synthetic gases
Primary Measures:
1. Maintain 1 for 2 surrender obligation beyond 2012, indefinitely
2. Maintain $25 price cap, indefinitely
3. Agriculture: defer indefinitely
4. Forestry: (a) offsetting for pre-Kyoto foresters
(b) Claw back 2nd tranche of allocation to pre-Kyoto foresters
The 2012 Bill
Primary Measures (cont.):
5. Allow auctioning on NZUs allocated, or covered under a future
global agreement
6. Extend ban on export of NZUs (except foresters)
7. Remove requirement to ‘back’ all NZUs issued, with a Kyoto
unit
8. Align NZ-ETS with latest international-accepted GWP potentials
(forcing metrics)
9. Remove ETS obligation on imports of synthetic GHGs (SGGs) &
substitute levy (cars; goods)
10. Other measures pertaining to SGGs
Other Countries ‘Coping’ - Sweden
EU Target
Sweden
= 20 %
= 40 % reduction in national emissions not covered
by the EU scheme
9% drop in gross emissions from 1990 to 2007 and average economic
growth of 2.3% per annum when New Zealand’s growth of 3.1% over
that period was based on a 30% increase in gross emissions
Might the reason be that Sweden has, to quote its Government,
“succeeded in breaking the link between economic growth and
greenhouse gas emissions” – that is, succeeded with decoupling when
New Zealand demonstrably has not?
Other Countries ‘Coping’
Gross emissions
(agric. emissions)
Economic growth
Dairy herd
Sweden, Ireland, NZ (1990-2007)
Sweden
Ireland
- 9%
+ 25%
- 10%
- 7%
+2.3%
-34%
‘reductions’
NZ
+30%
+16%
+3.1%
+45%
“Sweden has broken the link betw. econ. growth & GHG emissions.”
=
decoupling
Measures
carbon tax
ETS mkt. pr.
(NZ$175)
($5)
Targets (2020)
EU = 20-30%
Sweden = 40%
EU = 20-30%
10-20%
Ireland – Agriculture Measures
Methane & Nitrous Oxide Reductions
1. Single Payment Scheme
2. Rural Environment Protection Scheme
3. Organic Farming (1% agricultural land; target = increase 5% p.a.)
4. Cross-compliance
5. Disadvantaged Areas Compensatory Allowance Scheme
6. Lower Slaughter Age
7. Commonage Framework Plans
Animal Husbandry
Animal Diet Research
Manure Management & Agricultural Soils
1. Legislation
2. Nitrates Directive
3. Anearobic Digestion
4. Bio-energy
Green Policy
Target: 40% reduction (2020/1990)
=
Electricity
Industry
Transport
Agriculture
Dairy stocking rate
2.2
NO reduction (sheep, beef) 0.5
Forestry
25,000 ha/y pine/exotics
10.1
5,000 ha/y indigenous
0.8
Pest control (219,000 DOC) 8.7
Pest control (priv. indig.)
2.0
5.3
1.9
4.7
2.7
21.6
48.0 Mt.
36.2 Mt. from domestic