Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the Government won’t be sending billions of dollars overseas to meet New Zealand’s targets under the Paris Agreement.
Under the Paris Agreement, every country sets out its own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) - this is to show the contributions countries will make towards delivering on the 2015 Paris Agreement climate goals. The obligations are to limit global warming to “well below 2 °C” and attempt to keep it to 1.5 °C.
Countries can transfer carbon credits earned from reducing greenhouse gas emissions to help other countries meet their climate targets.
A recently released Treasury paper called New Zealand’s Nationally Determined Contributions - Potential Fiscal Costs Associated with Offshore Mitigation, said when it came to the country's 2030 goal, "analysis shows that there could be significant fiscal costs associated with purchases of offshore mitigation."
"Under the scenarios examined, possible costs are modelled at between $4.4 billion to $5.0 billion."
More money may also be needed for NZ to meet its 2035 goals - with Treasury estimating offshore mitigation costs between $200 million and $1.6 billion depending on the scenarios.
'Show us the money'
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick sees this as Treasury putting a price tag on the Government's climate inaction.
“The Government keeps saying they will meet the Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement. We have known for about a decade doing that will require offshore mitigation, but the size of that offshore cost depends on how much we do onshore," Swarbrick said.
“This Government has robbed us all of investment in local climate action, which could also have reduced the cost of living and built our resilience. Instead, they’ve chosen to fund new fossil fuels and increased the price we’ve got to pay other countries to do the job we could do here.”
Swarbrick also called out Finance Minister Nicola Willis, who has previously said she did not believe it was in the best interests of New Zealanders to send billions of dollars offshore.
"It's time for Nicola Willis to be honest. If the Government is committed to meeting our NDC, they need to show us the money."
“If the Government is instead secretly planning on not meeting our NDC, then they need to be honest about that," Swarbrick said.
"Climate commitments are baked into our free trade agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union. If Luxon walks away from that 2030 target, he puts our trading relationships and exporters' market access on the line too.”
'Not here to chase emissions reduction as the end goal'
Speaking to reporters on Thursday at Fieldays in Hamilton, Luxon said: "I want to be clear, we're not here to chase emissions reduction as the end goal. Our goal is growth in this economy and growth in this country."
“We do not have the luxury to turn off growth, which ends up meaning that people don’t have incomes and people lose jobs. That's not happening.”
“We will do everything we can around NDC 2030," Luxon said.
He said NZ had realigned to its domestic goal of net zero 2050. “We’re making good progress on that … We are focused on growth and as a result we can actually grow and also be more sustainable.”
Luxon said he thought when former Minister for Climate Change James Shaw and former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern went off and set a target for 2030, “they got disconnected” from the country’s domestic track when it comes to emissions reduction.
“That wasn't right and that wasn't fair. Having said that, we'll do everything we can but I'm just acknowledging that we ain't sending billions of dollars offshore, and we're not going to make this country poorer as a consequence of it.”
Coalition partner, the ACT Party, has been outspoken about the Paris Agreement with leader David Seymour saying: “Paris needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave.” And on Wednesday, ACT released its climate policy which called things like a revisit of the country’s Emissions Reduction Plans and a proposal for a “split gas” emissions target.
Luxon has previously made it clear that New Zealand would not be leaving the Paris Agreement and he reiterated this on Thursday.
“We believe very strongly that actually New Zealand coming out of [the] Paris [Agreement] will disadvantage us because essentially other countries that we compete with in primary sectors will use that as an excuse to kick our products off shelves across supermarkets around the world," he said.
"It makes sense for us to be in [the] Paris [Agreement]."
11 Comments
"I want to be clear, we're not here to chase emissions reduction as the end goal. Our goal is growth in this economy and growth in this country."
Said the chief yeast to all the eager little yeasties.
I was trying to work out the difference between Luxon and Trump.
Trump doesn't chant mantra and thinks for himself.
I would've said hair. Synthetic or not.
They will just send billions offshore for LNG, fuels and bank dividends...
Wonder what secret emails are going to the PMs office via the backdoor from fonterra right now. ?
Not sure they'd be totally supportive of the position. Some of the documentation were being asked to submit to them would indicate more support for Chloe's position than National.
Firstly Mandy: We are focused on growth and as a result we can actually grow and also be more sustainable.”
You did reporting there - but you didn't do journalism; that's a higher bar.
Because, you see, growth and sustainability are incompatible. And a journalist would have pointed out the fudge-word in the spin - more. If he had left that word out, he would have been telling a lie. An untruth. Hence 'more'
This is the same thing as people claiming they're 'saving the planet by driving an EV'. No, they're damaging it less, but still damaging it. And that less still accrues over time, to become more.
And while we're at it - what is money? The stuff he doesn't want to send overseas, you know? Last time I checked it was keystroked into existence on bank computers, as debt. Who cares how much of that we 'send overseas'?
What we are sending, in real terms, is burned (from a half-depleted finite stock) oil. What we are keeping is degraded soil, degraded water and biodiversity lost. What a smart bargain. How stunningly intelligent.
No, we won't be sending billions offshore for NDC. We'll actually be sending billions offshore for BOTH fossil fuels AND NDC.
Lets build an LNG import hub to further bury ourselves in the old dirty ways of working.
Growth.More cheap workers from overseas. BAU. Carry on, nothing to see here.
Luxinda should just have made up carbon intensity - like not newsworthy China just did.
"On paper, the revision creates a gap of 700m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) per year, equivalent to the total emissions of Germany or South Korea."
Do you have grandchildren, Profile?
Just wondering...
Please don't start up on your creepy lynching crap.
The very epitome of failure…we need to spend additional $5b on renewables now (and enjoy the associated benefits of employment and reduced spending on fossil fuels in the interim) to avoid sending it overseas for nothing in return later (but soon!). How stupid are the people running this country?!
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.