Member log in

NZ leads the world with its ETS ... or does it?

Politicians usually at the front of the scrum when claims are made that New Zealand leads the world have been noticeably shy about the nation's emissions trading scheme (ETS) which kicks up several notches on July 1.

Climate Change Issues Minister Nick Smith proclaimed in Parliament last September that "this emissions trading scheme will be the first of any country outside Europe, and on July 1, 2010 will be the most comprehensive by including transport, industrial, and energy emissions".

"There is a cost (to taxpayers) in reducing the immediate impact on fuel and electricity prices ... but there are also savings as a consequence of reducing allocations earlier," he said.

But his Prime Minister, John Key, said last month that of the 38 countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol, 29 have an ETS: "When people say to you, 'gosh New Zealand's going to lead the world and they'll be the only one with an ETS', not true".

Since his predecessor Helen Clark voiced an "aspirational" goal of making New Zealand carbon neutral and leading the world in sustainability, Mr Key's colleagues have argued that leading the world in the war against greenhouse gases also means leading the world in the price of fuel and energy.

So the Government's climate change information on the ETS presses the point that schemes in other countries cover more of their emissions than New Zealand's will this year. It says the only area in which the Government is seeking to lead the world is in its work with the global research alliance working on agricultural greenhouse gases.

According to Mr Smith, the EU's scheme covers 43 percent of its emissions, compared to 23 percent in New Zealand, EU schemes have been in place for five years, and emissions per head of population have dropped 9 percent below 1990 levels as compared to New Zealand's 23 percent increase.

"We are closer to leading the developed world in increasing our emissions than in reducing them," he said.

And Mr Key is confident that other Kyoto treaty nations -- including even Australia -- will join NZ with ETS-type responses.

So, how does our scheme compare with the rest of the world?

NEW ZEALAND:

Mandatory ETS that will cover all sectors and all greenhouse gases by 2015 with different "entry dates" for different sectors: forestry has been in for two years, and stationary energy, industrial processes and liquid fossil fuel emissions enter next Thursday. Agriculture enters in 2015, but some farmers hope a review in 2011 will let them avoid accountability.

A transition period will operate to the end of 2012 with the price of New Zealand emissions units (NZUs) capped at $NZ25, and only one unit to be surrendered for every two tonnes of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions, effectively a cost of $NZ12.50/tonne.

The Government has said moving to a full obligation in 2013 and bringing in additional sectors are conditional on progress in international agreements.

EUROPEAN UNION:

The EU ETS is the world's first and largest mandatory trading scheme for CO2 emissions, and started in 2005, capping the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from large industries such as energy, ferrous metals, mineral industry and pulp and paper -- about 46 percent of the CO2 emissions.

Aluminium smelters and some steelworks, and chemical industries are proposed to start reporting both carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, and to account for nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbons from 2013.

The EU scheme doesn't yet include transport, though a few countries in Europe do have separate carbon taxes on transport. All domestic and international flights between EU airports will be accountable from 2011, as will emissions from all international flights that arrive at or depart from an EU airport from 2012 (including flights to and from New Zealand).

Free handouts of emissions to some firms have been rorted for windfall profits, but the EU cut emissions by about 2 percent in the first couple of years, though design flaws limited the effectiveness of the scheme. The initial total allocation of allowances actually exceeded emissions and drove the carbon price down to zero in 2007.

The current phase is expected reduce emissions by about 2.4 percent this year and for 2013 to 2020, there are proposals for an overall EU cap, with allowances allocated to member countries, tighter limits on the use of offsets, and a move from allowances to auctioning.

AUSTRALIA:

The Garnaut Climate Change Review recommended in 2008 an ETS that included transport but not agriculture, with compensation for living cost increases for poor families and no handouts of emissions permits to carbon polluters. When Kevin Rudd became prime minister in Australia, he promised an ETS in 2010, then delayed it until 2011, then last month further delayed it until 2013.

JAPAN:

A voluntary ETS with incentives for participants started in 2005, covering CO2 combustion from participating companies.

NORWAY:

A cap and trade scheme for CO2 emissions from large direct emitters took effect in selected industries from 2005 to 2007, and fully linked to the EU scheme since 2008.

SWITZERLAND:

A voluntary ETS started in 2008, with an exemption from proposed mandatory CO2 taxes covering CO2 emissions from large companies or groups of companies that opt in.

BRITAIN:

Some UK companies participate in the EU ETS, and the British government proposes a carbon reduction scheme for CO2 emissions from large businesses which are not energy-intensive and not covered by the EU. The mandatory auction-based cap and trade scheme covers CO2 emissions from direct and indirect (electricity) consumption, and applies above a threshold for electricity consumption. Emissions covered by UK Climate Change Agreements are excluded.

UNITED STATES:

The 2010 US federal budget proposed to support clean energy development with a 10-year investment of $US15 billion a year, generated from the sale of greenhouse gas emissions credits, with all emissions credits auctioned off to generate an estimated $US78.7 billion in additional revenue in the 2012 financial year, increasing to $US83 billion by 2019.

Seven northeastern states have a regional greenhouse gas scheme to trade CO2 emissions from fossil fuel electricity generators above a size threshold of 25MW, and credits from offsets from other sectors and gases may be used to comply with obligations. The first phase is due to run to 2015, with a second phase proposed from 2016-2020.

Another collaboration between seven western US states and four Canadian provinces plans ETS reporting from this year and trading from 2012 covering all six Kyoto greenhouse gases in sectors including electricity generation, commercial and industrial combustion, and industrial process emissions (above a 25,000 tonne threshold). Household, commercial and industrial fuel combustion (below the 25,000 tonne threshold will join in 2015, and other sectors may be included via "offset" projects in a bid to help cut emissions for the region to 15 percent below 2005 emissions by 2020.

In some states renewable energy certificates, or "green tags" have been issued for each 1000kWh of energy a wind turbine or hydro generator sells into the electrical grid. The certificates can be sold on the open market for profit to companies which want to show corporate responsibility, though the certificates are unregulated, with no national registry to avoid double-counting.

More by NZPA

More on:

Comments and questions
19

No country has now or will ever have an ETS scheme that includes food production, EXCEPT New Zealand. Economic suicide, with commodity prices turning lower in a deflationary environment. This is going to end in tears.

Perhaps ''perchance'', our cabinet will see the foolishness and also a rudd in NZ. This is simply like the supertax Kevin Rudd used to his demise. We do not need ETS in NZ. Many many people are struggling and it will tell as the man in the street faces all the higher living costs.
Perchance our personal people suicide rate will increase with all the other increases.?.

Of 193 countries which are members of the UN, only 38 undertook emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Of those 38, ALL were from Europe except New Zealand, Canada and Japan.

New Zealand was the sole representative of the Southern Hemisphere.Three continents were not represented at all. None of the world's three largest emitters accepted any obligations, either then or since.

Kyoto is a European scam. Why is 1990 the base year? Because 1991 saw the arrival of North Sea gas (replacing coal) in Western Europe, and the collapse of Soviet industry in Eastern Europe.

Europe's energy outlook is very messy, but this can be turned into a competitive advantage if they can persuade the rest of the world to adopt their expensive energy policies - and accept 1990 as the base year.

NZ's economic collapse 39.4 months. ETS + GST = effective GST of 20.1% now incorporating the rises to OCR and impacts of interest.

Either way there's a Kyoto Bill to pay. We will not meet our 2012 target.
A well-designed ETS could make the polluter pay and force a change in behaviour but not this one. There are too many hidden subsidies so the taxpayer will have to pay the difference.

Well Jimbob, we could take a European approach instead. In Denmark, farmers have to go to their equivalent of MAF with their proposed fertiliser plan and the agency will tell them what fertiliser they can put on which paddock. The Europeans prefer to directly regulate their farmers rather than rely on emissions pricing. Emissions pricing or direct regulation which do you prefer?

the word on the street is the National hacks have done their research apparently if they dropped Nick Smith's delusional ETS they would loose 2% off the vote and if they dropped the INSANITY they would loose 7%

VERY SAD NATIONAL AND John Key IM now a true ACT VOTER and will never vote National again

Farmers are actually very short sighted as most of them can benefit from carbon credits if they open their eyes farm holistically. Food should be produced and priced according to the total impact on the environment not just the on farm inputs. Nearly every farm has an area that can be put into trees to gain carbon credits and many farms would be more profitable. Famers made the same moaning noises about subsides being taken away but now condem any other country fo having subsidised farmers. Wake up - the worlds environment is under threat!

CO2 is not a pollutant, but a valuable trace gas which acts as an aerial ferilizer. We are still emerging from a mini ice age which ended around 1850 but could plunge back any time. The first 30 parts of CO2 per million are what does the most warming, after that the warming is neglible. Still if Smith and the AGW cultists we elected want us to have a new ice age, good for them. We are ruled by utter morons.

The National party has clearly turned on the farmers on this ETS nazi BS.

And which of the crap rural-damaging policies that Labour dumped on the country have National actually rescinded? ... very few, if any.

Two cheeks of the same International socialist agenda bottom.

The sole sanction for failing to meet Kyoto targets is that the shortfall may be carried through to the next commitment period. There is no "bill", or debtors prison.

It now seems highly improbable that there will be any further commitment period beyond 2012. International agreements (if any) await the outcome of the South Africa conference in 2011.

You say that European Emissions per head have dropped by 9% while NZ's emissions have increased by 23%. That is misleading. NZ's absolute level of gross emissions have increased by 23%, from 61 million tonnes of CO2 ( or its equivalent) to 74 million tonnes, but our population has gone from 3.4 million in 1990 to 4.3 million in 2008, so while our actual level of emissions has gone up, our per capita rate has actually gone done marginally. However if you then adjust for CO2 absorped by forest our actaul level of NET emissions has also dropped, and our net emissions per captia dropped dramatically.

So it is very misleading to compare a 9% reduction per capita in Europe with an absolute 23% increase in TOTAL emissions in NZ. If you wish to quote per capita figures, you should do it for both.

Good on the ACT party, have given up on National and their socialist policies all this household will be voting ACT at next years election.
It's only the Maoris that are running the country now.

I want to know how these emission levels are worked out ( ie explain to the public in very clear simple terms) I also want to know how the Europeans do it --are we all the same. Just think of how CPI figures are all worked out differently.
When Labour first talked about it there was going to be $500 mill gained per year. Then about 9-12 mths later it was a $500 mill loss ( only a $1bill turn around !!! ) . We were told in the PR spin articles recently that emissions from electricity generation had increased 90 - 120 % since 1990( depending on the article !! ). I could not understand this until I found a list of all the major power stations and the outputs. The only way I could get any where near these figures was to include Huntly and Whirinaki , which I thought were standby /emergency stations and hardly ever used . If you take these two stations out only about 10 % of our power comes from nonrenewable sources.
So I repeat , if we are going to be lumbered with these huge costs then Smith should come clean on how the figures are arrived at, and stop treating the public as fools. If he wants to help his forestry mates , give them the tax breaks they have had in the past -- at least that is open and honest ( even we don't agree with it ).

What ever you do - DON"T INVEST IN INSURANCE.
German reinsurers Munich Re state that economic losses from natural disasters increased 800% from the 60's to the 90's. And about 80% of this increase resulted from extreme weather related events. They predict that by 2065 damages will outstrip global assets.

John Boscawen is right and some of the Anonymous comments too. But the last Anonymous comment regarding insurance is laughable. I work in forestry and my job requires looking well into the future, But for insurers to suggest that they can predict the level of insurance claims 55 years ahead and imply that they are somehow related to climate change is ludicrous. Weather trends and insurance claims do not follow tidy predictable curves. In fact not much does.

Surprised to read that John Key was given a standing ovation at the Federated Farmers conference.
It wasn't a slow clap was it?

Your alternative being?

NZ has been a test ground for global government for a long time. Carbon Tax and the ETS is one of the key pillars to bring it in. It is a social political control tool. The science of Man made global warming has been proven to be wrong time and time again. Climate change (we don't call it global warming anymore, ever wondered why?) is natural,always has been and always will be. www.friendsofscience.org

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>