sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Chief Executive Jo Hendy sets out the Climate Change Commission’s expectations for the Government’s first Emissions Reduction Plan

Public Policy / opinion
Chief Executive Jo Hendy sets out the Climate Change Commission’s expectations for the Government’s first Emissions Reduction Plan

By Jo Hendy*

Aotearoa New Zealand will enter a critical new phase in climate action when the Government releases its first Emissions Reduction Plan this month.

The Emissions Reduction Plan will outline the path the Government has decided to take over the next three years to achieve the country’s emissions reduction targets.

The Government will need to have considered the independent advice that He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission delivered last year, as well as evidence from its own public consultation, and the advice of a wide range of government ministries and officials.

It is an incredibly important piece of work and will have significant impacts for all New Zealanders.

The Emissions Reduction Plan needs to be able to deliver an immediate change in gears in our national response to climate change. We need strategies that will drive strong emissions reductions across all sectors, and that give certainty around the direction of travel for businesses, investors and communities.

So what should we expect to see in the first plan? In a few words: urgency, decisiveness, cohesion, and collaboration. A comprehensive plan with a clear pathway to meeting Aotearoa New Zealand’s first emissions budget, with Government working alongside business, industry and Iwi/Māori.

In more detail, here are some of the priority action areas that we will be looking for in the ERP:

Strengthening the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS)

The Government must outline work to improve the operation of the NZ ETS, the flagship policy tool of climate action in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This includes reviewing industrial allocation, establishing effective market governance, and developing levers that ensure the NZ ETS drives the reduction of gross emissions.

It’s also imperative to identify complementary policies to address the barriers or market failures preventing emissions reductions that the NZ ETS will not overcome.

A clear plan will be needed for the recently announced Climate Emergency Response Fund, made up of $4.5 billion of proceeds from the NZ ETS.

Treaty partnership and a Māori Emissions Profile

Government should provide detail on how it will partner with Iwi/Māori to develop and implement plans and policies across all aspects of the transition to a climate resilient, low emissions future. This will need to uphold the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi to manage impacts and ensure an equitable transition for Iwi/Māori.

All agencies need to ensure that Iwi/Māori have the tools and resources they need to equitably participate in the transition, and to ensure the Crown-Māori partnership is upheld.

A distinct Māori Emissions Profile should be developed, which quantifies total Iwi/Māori contributions to national emissions and emissions reductions, to help address inequity in the evidence and information used to inform policy.

Research and development should be directed towards mātauranga Māori, to enable innovation and an equitable knowledge base.

Funding should be available to support Iwi/Māori that are not economically able to transition equitably.

The role of forests and accelerating a bioeconomy

Forests have an important strategic role to play but we need to make sure we have ‘the right trees in the right places’. The Government needs to support landowners to significantly expand native forests along with scaling up pest control. It’s important for the Government to get the policy settings right so we don’t see uncontrolled afforestation of permanent pine forests. A strategy is needed for accelerating the bioeconomy, and should outline the role that forests and other crops could play in supplying it. This should include research and innovation to drive down costs and to test out commercial applications, and collating data on existing biomass resource supply and demand to identify potential supply chains and to enable industry to plan.

Reducing biological emissions from agriculture

We need to reduce agricultural emissions. The Government should accelerate change through an agricultural emissions pricing mechanism, extending services to support changes to on-farm practices, targeted investment in research and development, and assisted deployment of new technology.

Action on transport

The Government needs policies that ensure all light vehicles entering New Zealand by 2035 (or 2030 if possible) are low emissions, and to accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles.

There should also be policies to help local authorities encourage and enable more walking, cycling, public transport and shared transport to displace vehicle use.

New Zealand needs to fully decarbonise heavy transport and freight by 2050. To set us on that path, the Government needs to work in partnership to develop a national low-emissions freight strategy. The strategy should cover ground transport, shipping and aviation.

Transitioning to a low-emissions energy system

The Emissions Reduction Plan needs to include plans for a National Energy Strategy. The energy transition in Aotearoa will require a coordinated approach to support low-emissions technologies, infrastructure, regional development, and workforces, while making sure our energy system is reliable and affordable. This transition and transformation require partnership with Iwi/Māori, and collaboration with business, industry and other stakeholders.

The strategy should include a commitment to phase out coal for electricity generation, the introduction of a renewable energy target of at least 50% of energy consumption and scaling up investment into energy efficiency to help firms and ratepayers save money and lessen demands on the electricity grid.

Urban form and buildings

The Emissions Reduction Plan can reduce emissions by setting out how we change the way we plan and build our environment, our homes, workplaces, towns and cities.

We hope to see policies and approaches to enable this, including measuring the emissions impacts of urban development decisions, and using this information to drive better decisions across infrastructure, buildings and transport systems.

The plan should set out how the Government will drive the transition to higher performance, lower-emissions buildings, including retrofitting existing buildings, and how it will increase energy efficiency assistance to low-income households, to ensure they can benefit from lower emissions, lower energy costs and healthier buildings.

Reducing waste and developing a circular economy

The country’s waste strategy needs to be updated. The new strategy should set goals to reduce biogenic methane, ensure all landfills that accept organic waste have gas capture, and prioritise ongoing data collection across the waste sector.

The recently launched consultation for “Transforming Recycling” is a welcome step and we look forward to further actions to move Aotearoa to a more circular economy, with a clear governance structure including tasking a minister and lead agency.

Reducing industry emissions

The ERP will need to demonstrate how the Government will work alongside industry to reduce barriers for switching away from fossil fuels and improving energy efficiency for process heat. There should be support and funding for innovation to decarbonise hard-to-abate industrial sectors, such as steel, cement and aluminium.

An equitable transition

The transition will impact some communities, sectors and regions more than others. These impacts need to be managed to ensure the transition is equitable.

The ERP will need to show how Government will partner with businesses, workers and Iwi/Māori in industries such as agriculture and oil and gas, to develop industry transformation and emissions reduction plans. These should outline investment, innovation, objectives and skill needs.

There also need to be policies to support workers in impacted industries to retrain and move into low-emissions industries, and to support new and evolving low-emission industries.

Assessing progress

Of course, the ERP is just the beginning.

Later this year, the Commission will start work to monitor the Government’s progress towards meeting its emission budgets, the emissions reduction plan, and the country’s 2050 targets.

It will be essential for the Government to gather quality information that helps the Commission understand whether the goals of policies are being met – so we can learn about what works and what doesn’t work for future ERPs, policies and programmes.

The Emissions Reduction Plan will be a major leap forward for Aotearoa New Zealand but, of course, it is just a plan and it is the first one.

Most important will be the step change in our country’s climate response and emissions reductions that need to follow – ensuring that the transition is moving in the right direction, and at the right pace.


*Jo Hendy is Chief Executive of the Climate Change Commission. This article first appeared here.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

38 Comments

....and Jo Hendy talks about population as much as I expect the Govenment to. Nothing....

Up
17

"Funding should be available to support Iwi/Māori that are not economically able to transition equitably."

This is a bizarre and divisive statement, and concerning it should appear in a summary by the CEO of the Commission....surely if we are to transition equitably then funding should be available to all who are not "economically able to transition"

Does not bode well.

Up
17

Seymour will do well next election 

Up
5

The strategy should include a commitment to phase out coal for electricity generation, the introduction of a renewable energy target of at least 50% of energy consumption

the other 50% being non-renewable...

given that we're already at 40% renewable, this doesn't seem very ambitious

 

Up
5

Probably realistic though.

Get rid of Tiwai point and forget the hydrogen ripoff and we can just about make it for no change and carry on living just as we are.

Yeah rite

Up
2

your info is wrong. direct renewable consumption, mostly geothermal, is around 6% and renewable share of electricity consumption is around 20% . so in total,  NZ's total consumer renewable energy is only 26% and this number has not changed since 1990.

 

source: energydashboard.mbie.govt.nz

Up
0

Xingmowang, your thinking is muddled
False economies is correct.
NZ's electricity is approximately 80% from renewables.
Overall renewable energy (electricity and other) is approx 40%. 
That information is available from the MBIE dashboard.
KeithW

Up
5

primary energy supply is different from consumer energy demand or energy consumption.

 

if you use % for consumer energy demand, you will get it.

Up
0

sorry, i can't make any sense of what you are saying... can you rephrase it and clarify your definitions?

(and thanks for the link, hadn't seen that before)

Up
0

i am struggling to understand the definitions on that site. 

it mentions renewables and % electricity from renewables separately, and in one graph geothermal is the highest % (higher than hydroelectric?) and in another wood...? 

can someone please enlighten me

Up
0

I'm guessing it's related to the definition of energy. Energy doesn't just mean electricity, for example, one may choose to heat their house with an electric heater (the electricity coming from either renewable or non renewable sources) or with wood. Both consume/convert energy.

Up
2

yep i get that, but if you look on the renewables tab it says geothermal is more than hydro.... really? 

plus i don't really get why renewables are 40% of the TPES (total primary energy supply) but only 6.8% of the energy consumption by fuel. maybe I'm just being thick?

Up
2

from the renewables tab

 

Additionally, primary supply of geothermal energy is estimated based on the supply of hot water and/or steam being extracted and its conversion to energy. It is important to note that due to the relatively low conversion of geothermal heat to energy, the primary energy supply of geothermal is relatively higher in comparison to other energy types.

?!

Up
1

The explanation  is that electricity from geothermal is woefully inefficient 

About only 5 units of electricty out for every 100 units of geothermal energy in.

Up
2

there is so called efficiency factor for different energy tranformed into electricity, for example, hydro is 1 such as 1pj of hydro is converted into 1pj of electricity, however, the factor for geothermal is 0.15.

 

we know how much electricity are produced from them, then work out the amount of energy supply from hydro or geothermal using the efficiency factors. this will give ppl the illusion high share of renewable energy supply.

 

as i.siad, this is just an illusion. the consumer.energy demand tell the true story.

Up
2

Thanks both. got it now

Up
1

and still no mention of population size...

Up
12

None of the political colours get it. A growth in population from here, means a sharp decline in living standards for most NZers, yet we still keep accepting their deliberate path in this direction. Perhaps if there was actual accountability, rather than being able to walk away after a few years of appalling management in government, with a cushy pension and a high paying job waiting? 

Up
5

I never get this perspective.

Few if any countries will handle depopulation effectively.

People complain about prices in NZ, and lack of industry, which are directly attributed to the inefficiencies of such a small population.

Someone needs to pay for a ballooning aging population.

Wanted: Government that performs miracles.

Up
1

It is easier to manage growth than decline (my father spent his entire life working for British Railways [British Rail]).  Most countries including NZ have areas where the population has declined. Even the large cities of the USA and the UK have a mixture of growth (eg Leeds) and decline (eg the cities surrounding Leeds such as Bradford).  It can be done and should be done.  OK it is tricky closing the library, secondary school, asking teachers or cleaners to find other employment. On the other hand eternal growth in anything is impossible - the high it goes the bigger the potential crash. 

Up
2

I'll never understand this perspective either.

Ultimately population will stop growing, so we will manage it, either well, or badly. It's just a question of how unpleasant living conditions get before that point is reached? 

Up
3

Palmtree08,

I tend to agree. We have lots of evidence that as women in developing countries have better access to education and healthcare including contraception, birth rates fall dramatically. In the developed world, many countries now have reproduction rates which ensure a falling population.

What those who say that overpopulation must be dealt with right now never do is tell us how that should be done, though pdk seems to propose more war and pandemics as a means of doing so. At least there is a degree of honesty there, though little humanity, but others are reluctant to spell out just how they would go about a rapid and substantial reduction in the global population.

 

 

Up
0

To get a rapid reduction in the world's population without war

1. the wealthy countries should stop immigration from fast growing countries

2. the wealthy countries should pay for teaching girls in poor countries

3. the wealthy countries should pay pensions to childless elderly inhabitants of poor countries

4. increase student loans and charge interest

5. matriarchal societies / feminism / women's rights

Up
2

Mandatory contraception; max 2 then chop/snip.

:)

Up
1

Mandatory might be a bit draconian. But a tax incentive or lump sum payout would be a good enough incentive for most. 

Up
1

NZ does not possess a single NEW green energy tech IP, still increasingly reply on fossil fuel to run economy, and needs either gas or coal to generation electricity during dry years.

 

where is  the confidence from? pipe dream?

Up
1

...a man who complains so much ... but offers no constructive solution is less useful than a fat belching cow  ... at least it gives milk  to offset all it's hot air production  ....

Up
1

Takes one to spot one.

Take a holiday, why don't you?

:)

Up
0

... why don't you ? ... 

Up
0

Will there be an emissions profile for different race then? typical humans bring race into everything and trying to complicate saving humanity. I wonder if we are going backwards in this country. 

Up
5

The muppets are actually going to count Maori emissions and reductions separately. 
What a waste of effort, doubling every task. Cant wait to the next election to vote against Labour. A time will come when people will stand up against this and its usually during a recession from what I have seen in other countries with political divides.

Up
4

 

The ERP will need to show how Government will partner with businesses, workers and Iwi/Māori in industries such as agriculture and oil and gas, to develop industry transformation and emissions reduction plans.

Yet they have proposed that landowners won't be able to convert their marginal land into carbon forestry...and it's iwi that have a very large proportion of the marginal land and a desire to do just that.

Up
3

Measuring emissions is back-to-front. Why monitor a thousand exhaust-pipes, when you can monitor one inbound tanker? It's nonsense - and too complex to achieve, so we won't.

We need to be addressing energy - it's availability, it's use, our efficiency.

 

Up
1

The ETS is ludicrous, and if it is our flagship policy then we really need some new thinking.  All it does is give free money to forestry owners.  A straight up carbon tax would provide the same penalty to emitters and the money could be used to fund clean energy and electric cars etc.  Actual stuff that would reduce emissions, giving it to forestry owners just makes them richer and does nothing to reduce emissions.

It's almost as if emissions are a sideshow and the experts think accounting tricks are going to solve climate change.  The money needs to being going directly into tech that will help us transition away from fossil fuels, not backhanded into some of the worlds biggest money funds - who own most of our forests.

Up
3

Basically what James Shaw is worried about. Too large a planting of pines means the carbon price doesn't rise enough to encourage emissions reduction.

Up
0

The carbon price inevitably gets capitalised into land value which is usually NZ owned. Unfortunately, 'right tree, right place' has been turned into a political rather than a science led decision. The native / exotic dichotomy doesn't help either, creating a 'pure' native forest is expensive and doesn't sequester carbon fast enough. A hybrid system is the better option and there will be other environmental benefits as well.

Up
2

The carbon tax was originally proposed  - fought tooth and nail by Fed Farmers who wanted a market based mechanism - they got what they asked for - an ETS.

Its not just taxing emissions - we cant reduce them fast enough, as we have muddled around for 30 years doing nothing and actually increasing them, so we need to suck it out as well.

Trees are the only tech available to suck out carbon - all other carbon capture efforts have been futile to say the least and SO expensive. 

We have given grants to land owners to plant trees for decades with little to show - in fact vigorous protest about planting of any trees - see 1BT.

The cold reality is humans addiction to money drives action. Only now are we actually getting some planting going - all those against want to maintain the status quo pretty much which is making the problem worse. 

The ETS is available to any landowner - vast majority NZers.

The higher carbon price will also drive change in tech on emissions - again price is the only tool that works. Cars, boilers etc etc.

I have been going to ETS/climate change conferences for 20 plus years - there is a direct correlation on how many people and companies attend versus the carbon price. Low carbon price = low numbers (I can remember one with 8 people!!) - High carbon price = place is sold out many times over.

We are going to need every bit of Tech / Forests (of all types) / reduced consumption by all of us etc to have a chance in hell of avoiding serious damage.

 

Up
0

"Treaty partnership and a Māori Emissions Profile

Government should provide detail on how it will partner with Iwi/Māori to develop and implement plans and policies across all aspects of the transition to a climate resilient, low emissions future. This will need to uphold the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi to manage impacts and ensure an equitable transition for Iwi/Māori.

All agencies need to ensure that Iwi/Māori have the tools and resources they need to equitably participate in the transition, and to ensure the Crown-Māori partnership is upheld.

A distinct Māori Emissions Profile should be developed, which quantifies total Iwi/Māori contributions to national emissions and emissions reductions, to help address inequity in the evidence and information used to inform policy.

Research and development should be directed towards mātauranga Māori, to enable innovation and an equitable knowledge base.

Funding should be available to support Iwi/Māori that are not economically able to transition equitably."

Surely - Enough is enough! How will NZ ever progress into being a modern forward thinking economy when it is being constantly weighed down by this constant idiocy and entitlement mentality.

I want NZ to be an advanced technologically literate society along the lines of the Nordic societies and we have seriously still have to deal with this ongoing stupidity and destructive thinking?

It has to end NOW! There is NO WAY FORWARD for NZ if it doesn't.

My God this Labour govt ideology is going to be destroyed at the next election. Vote National or even NZ First, whatever you do make sure you have National as a majority govt...

Up
0