As the new National government charts its course toward the brighter future promised to the electorate, John Key and his team will undoubtedly be mindful of avoiding the imposition of unnecessary regulations and restrictions, but also reviewing and removing those that are unnecessary.

This is something for the incoming government to keep in mind when undertaking the review of climate change legislation announced at the weekend, since an emissions trading scheme was always going to be a major cost on New Zealand’s productive sector and a significant impediment to growth.

According to the National-Act agreement, “National agrees to a review by a special select committee of Parliament of the current Emissions Trading Scheme legislation and any amendments or alternatives to it, including carbon taxes, in the light of current economic circumstances and steps now being undertaken by similar nations. National further agrees to pass forthwith an amendment to the ETS legislation delaying its implementation, repealing the thermal generation ban and making any other necessary interim adjustments until the select committee review is completed.”

New Zealand is not alone in reviewing climate change legislation. The deepening global economic turmoil is impacting heavily on governments around the world that are concerned about the economic cost of environmental commitments.

Catherine Beard, executive director of the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, an organisation that represents New Zealand’s industrial sector, says in the wake of the global financial crisis, government commitments to climate change is crumbling:

“The resolve in Europe to make meaningful emission reductions is crumbling by the day in the wake of the financial credit crunch sweeping the globe, bringing with it fears of a global economic recession.

“The revolt is being lead by Germany, Italy and Poland, and includes all the former communist countries Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia. They are all fearful that the cost of additional emission reductions will harm their economies, forcing energy intensive industry to exit Europe and set up in parts of the world where there will be no carbon charge.”

(Her full article. “Resolve to Tackle Climate Change Crumbling Internationally,” is available here.) 

The European Union has always been at the vanguard of the climate change movement. With many Eastern European member countries having suffered from economic collapse during the 1990s, the EU’s Kyoto Protocol agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 8% below 1990 levels was not regarded as being too onerous. But with Italy and Spain threatening non-compliance as they struggle to meet their targets, and Germany leading the charge to demand major exemptions for energy intensive industries, the future of the EU climate change initiative looks increasingly shaky.

Add to that view increasingly held by developed countries that India and China (which is expected to double emissions over the next 20 years) must also agree to cut emissions if there is going to be any further global agreements, and the whole climate change edifice looks to be on the brink of collapse.

A big part of the problem for global warming alarmists is that although the United Nations and Al Gore told the world that catastrophic climate change was going to occur – unless the emissions of man-made greenhouse gases were reduced – the globe has not warmed but cooled. Since 1998, emissions have continued to rise and temperatures have continued to fall. This means that increasing numbers of people are becoming far more sceptical about global warming scaremongering and politicians jumping on the global warming bandwagon.

So where does it leave New Zealand?

First, the move to pass legislation to delay the implementation of the emissions trading scheme and to repeal the ban on thermal electricity generation is sensible.

Second, while the plan to hold a select committee inquiry is a good step in the right direction, it is crucial that it allows the opportunity for a wider debate on the scientific evidence in support of, or against, the existence of anthropogenic global warming. The review must also, as a priority, hold a proper investigation in the way that the Kyoto Protocol deals with agriculture.

Let me explain.

At school we learnt about the carbon cycle. It is a natural cycle which maintains a steady level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 0.038%. The cycle begins with plants absorbing carbon dioxide during photosynthesis and locking it up in plant tissue. When animals eat the plants, some carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere during respiration, with the remainder being used to build up animal tissue.

If the animal is a ruminant, like cows and sheep that chew their cud, friendly bacteria break down the plant cellulose in multiple stomachs emitting methane as a by product. Over an 8-10 year period this methane breaks down into carbon dioxide and water. When plants and animals die, decomposition returns carbon dioxide to the atmosphere - except when it gets buried for hundreds of years, and as a result of heat and pressure, turns into fossil fuels.

The point is that the carbon cycle is a natural cycle between plants and animals that maintains a constant level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As such, the fact that methane, which is an important part of that natural cycle, is treated by the Kyoto Protocol as a man-made greenhouse gas that needs to be reduced, is misguided – especially as New Zealand’s methane emissions make up over a third of our total greenhouse gas inventory.

This is an issue that has taxed many, including Professor David Bellamy and agricultural consultant Robin Grieve, who recently calculated that, by looking at the whole carbon cycle, dairy cows are not net emitters of carbon, but carbon sinks: “The cow has removed 25kg of CO2 from the atmosphere and emits 6 to 10kg of CO2 equivalents in methane. She is in credit between 15-19kg."

In other words, for each kilograms of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere through grazing, the cow discharges only one third of a kilogram of equivalent carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere, with the other two thirds being stored in milk, meat, and other bodily products. That means that livestock, rather than being regarded as net emitters of greenhouse gases, should be accounted for on the credit side of the Kyoto Protocol ledger!

To further illustrate how truly stupid the Kyoto Protocol is, Dr Grieve has calculated that according to their rules, mowing a lawn with a motor-mower is six times better for the environment than letting a sheep graze it: “The environmental impact of my sheep, as defined by Kyoto, is 19.65 kg carbon equivalent compared to a lawnmower’s 3.107 kg carbon. This means my sheep is 6.3 times worse for the environment than a lawnmower according to Kyoto."

All of this highlights the gross inaccuracies in the way that agriculture has been treated under Kyoto Protocol rules. But with the agricultural sector being such a key part of the New Zealand economy – as well as being an important global food producer – this is an area that demands an urgent review of the highest order since the findings will be of great international significance.

If the special climate change review select committee investigation incorporates agriculture and the scientific basis of climate change in its terms of reference, it will be a very important step in the right direction. This will allow New Zealand to become a follower rather than a leader in this fraught climate change area, and enable the government to focus its effort on the crucial matter of getting the economy right.

Muriel Newman is director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, a public policy think tank at www.nzcpr.com