Member log in

Greens contradict Govt emissions claims with study

A 40 percent greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by 2020 is achievable at little or no cost if efficiencies are widely applied , the Green Party says.

The party today released results of its own study about how to achieve such a reduction in comparison with 1990 emissions levels, and took a swipe at National over its own analysis efforts.

Co-leaders Russel Norman and Jeanette Fitzsimons detailed options for creating efficiencies in the agricultural, energy, forestry and transport sectors.

The Government will next week take an emissions target to a United Nations climate change negotiations meeting in Bonn, Germany.

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith hasn't released that figure yet, but has said a 40 percent reduction on 1990s levels -- which international scientists say is necessary to keep global warming to around 2degC -- would be prohibitively expensive.

National campaigned last year on a 50 percent cut by 2050, which would equate to about 15 percent by 2020.

The Greens today floated de-stocking in the dairy sector, along with genetically improving herds toward less emission-prone cows.

Ms Fitzsimons said when it came to dairy farming, the focus was on volume of production over efficiencies.

Overall emissions were higher per head when cows were intensively stocked, and cutting from 2.83 head per hectare to 2.43 would make a significant difference in efficiencies.

"It should make farmers happy, but Fonterra not so happy," she said.

Retiring Huntly's coal-burning power station and restricting output at Taranaki's gas-fired station, while upping geothermal and wind-generated energy production, were identified as being huge emissions savers.

Introducing staggered fuel economy standards in vehicles and promoting an aggressive forest planting regime were also part of the overall plan.

Ms Fitzsimons said the Greens had worked hard on the study over the past couple of weeks when it became clear the National Party had apparently not moved to do one itself.

But Dr Smith said in Parliament that significant work had been done on mitigation options.

"I can assure the member the Government is getting as wide and accurate advice as possible."

Dr Smith said when it came to radically altering the likes of energy production and agricultural practices, the economic costs were too extreme.

He said de-stocking in the dairy industry could cost up to 50,000 jobs and about $6 billion in earnings.

Alterations to the primary energy production sector would also cost billions of dollars, setting consumers up for huge increases in power prices.

When it came to large-scale planting, Dr Smith said foresters were aware they would get credits at planting time, but there was also nervousness about the debits they could expect to be lumped with at harvest time.

The scale of change mooted by the Greens, and their emissions targets, were not realistic, he said.

"It's going to be a major challenge for New Zealand to even get back to 1990 levels."

Ms Fitzsimons said while the Greens had left their run late, the party would pressure the Government to take a 30 percent target to the Bonn meeting, with flexibility to up it to 40 percent if other countries also agreed.

Dr Smith this morning told reporters the Government was likely to take a target range to the Bonn meeting, which could change when other countries indicated how far they were prepared to go.

It would be "incorrect" to say the Government had already made its final decision on what that would be.

More by NZPA

More on:

Comments and questions
7

Right bed wrong room WATERMELON PARTY ,its time to concentrate on GLOBAL COOLING.

More delusional drivel from our green friends.

Here is a link to the study, if anyone wants to read it.

http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/BigAffordableClimateChange.pdf

This NZPA report contends that (unnamed) "international scientists" say that a 40% reduction below the entire world's 1990 levels of greenhouse gases is necessary by 2020 "to keep global warming to about 2 degC".

This is totally irresponsible. Maybe one scientist said that - and if so, who is she? It's certainly not within shouting distance of what the IPCC officially reported to the UN in 2007.

This 40% figures in a political campaign by Greenpeace. If NZPA wants to retain any credibility, it should start by recognising the difference between "international spin doctors" and "international scientists".

The Green Party paper argues that New Zealand could reduce 2020 purchases of Carbon Credits by 36.2Mt - with 21.65Mt (60%) coming from forestry.

Most of the world's Carbon Credits are expected to arise from forestry, and the international value will depend on global supply and demand.

The fact that some trees might be grown here doesn't affect the calculation of the cost of the 2020 target. There is obviously a cost to forest owners in planting, thinning, land purchase, etc - and the price payable by the government to the forest owners will be the world price.

The "optimistic and constructive" Green Party believes it can reduce New Zealand's emissions of greenhouse gases by a maximum of 14.55Mt by 2020. To achieve this, they would really pull out all the stops - reducing the dairy herd by 20%, closing Huntly, etc.

The MfE consultation paper says we will be using 88Mt by 2020, if we carry on as usual. The 1990 base year was 64Mt.

So, even the Greens can't see a way of getting our 2020 emissions to a point lower than 73.4Mt. Compared to the 1990 base year that's PLUS 15%. So why did the "sign up" to a 2020 target of MINUS 40%?

if the maximum conceivable reduction is 16.5% (14.6/88), why is Nick Smith talking about a reduction of 39% from 2020 levels?

The "optimistic and constructive" Green Party can see the possibility of reducing NZ's 2020 emissions by a maximum of 14.55Mt. This after pulling out all the stops - reducing the dairy herd by 20%, shutting down Huntly, etc.

The MfE consultation paper says we will emit 88Mt in 2020, on a "business as usual" basis. The 1990 base year emissions were 64Mt.

So, the biggest reduction we could aim for is minus 16.5% (14.6/88) on 2020, which is equal to PLUS 15% of the base year.

Why, then, have the Greens "signed up" to minus 40% from the base year?

Post new comment or question

Login to use your NBR member name
Full HTML is not supported but you can use the following tags in your comments:
Link: <url>link</url>
Quote: <quote>text</quote>