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

Labour promises to restore ‘credibility and certainty’ to the carbon market with the aim of generating revenues that can be invested in affordable energy and resilience

Public Policy / news
Labour promises to restore ‘credibility and certainty’ to the carbon market with the aim of generating revenues that can be invested in affordable energy and resilience
A composite image of a forest overlayed with dollar signs and Labour leader Chris Hipkins.
A composite image of a forest overlayed with dollar signs and Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Composite image source: Unsplash, 123rf.com, Mandy Te and interest.co.nz

Labour says fixing the “broken” Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be an urgent priority if it's elected to Government in November's election.

On Tuesday morning, the party reaffirmed its commitment to the Paris Agreement and announced it would urgently review the ETS and move quickly to make changes following the review.

Through the review, the party will identify changes to incentivise genuine emissions reductions rather than relying on offsets, reconsider the role of forestry and ensure the ETS supports New Zealand’s Paris Agreement targets.

The review would also develop new rules to prevent whole-farm conversations while new forestry registrations in the ETS would be paused while this work is completed.

The ETS prices emissions by requiring certain sectors of the economy to have "surrender obligations" for the greenhouse gases they release into the atmosphere. These sectors include forestry, liquid fossil fuels, stationary energy, industrial processes, synthetic greenhouse gases, and waste.

The ETS was initially set up to help NZ meet its 2050 net emissions target and international obligations under the Paris Agreement. Recent changes to climate change law removed a provision which stated the ETS unit volumes and price control regulations must "accord with" Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) under the Paris Agreement. 

Labour leader Chris Hipkins says the ETS is broken.

“The carbon price is too low to drive meaningful emissions reductions. Under National, climate pollution is the only thing that has got cheaper over the last three years.

“Current ETS rules also make it cheaper to plant exotic forests than to grow food. That doesn’t create jobs or help our economy.”

Hipkins says if elected into Government, Labour will ensure the ETS does what it is supposed to do and maintains a genuine price on emissions.

“We will restore credibility and certainty to the carbon market, generating revenues that can be invested in affordable energy and resilience,” he said.

“We will stop the short-term political tinkering that undermines business confidence and puts us all on the back foot.”

In a report released last month, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton described the ETS as “rudderless” - calling for major reform, cross-party consensus and a fundamental rethink of forestry’s role.  

The Paris Agreement

Hipkins says his party is fully committed to the Paris Agreement and “will put New Zealand on course to meet its targets”.

“The Paris Agreement is essential for bringing countries together to address a problem affecting every country, every community and every generation. Walking away from it, as National and its mates are planning to do, would be giving up on our kids’ future and impose huge costs on our economy.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, who is National Party leader, has repeatedly said there was an economic argument to stay in the Paris Agreement and recently shared it was a bottom line in any coalition negotiations after the election.

But Luxon does think there will be a bigger conversation coming in the future, saying; “The top 25 countries are going to have to ask some questions about their delivery of their Paris target as well.”

Coalition partners NZ First and ACT have been pushing back on the Paris Agreement, with NZ First wanting to pull out of the agreement while ACT has made it clear that; "if Paris will not accommodate a fairer approach for New Zealand, we should be prepared to leave".

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.

‘Climate change is one of the greatest challenges we face’

Labour climate change spokesperson Deborah Russell says: “New Zealanders deserve a government with a plan - one that understands climate action and economic growth go hand-in-hand.”

“Climate change is one of the greatest challenges we face, but it is also one of the greatest opportunities available to New Zealand,” Russell says.

“We can deliver cleaner and more affordable energy, gives businesses the certainty to invest, and help our farmers to compete in global markets by building on New Zealand’s reputation for world class sustainability.”

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.

22 Comments

Yes, climate change is one of the risks we face. 

But not the greatest - and Labour are sounding like they've learned nothing since the 'hydrogen' days. 

Simply put, modernity requires higher EROEI (lower entropy) energy than 'renewables' alone, can supply. So we need to reconfigure - and that discussion, at this moment. is beyond the Overton stretch. 

The greatest risk facing us, is ENTROPY. And its stablemate; the Limits to Growth. 

Up
1

Under the Paris agreemen every country sets out it's own nationally determined contributions (NDCs)

And that is the nub of the issue for me. 

Those who determined NZ's NDCs ideologically ignored provisions to exclude food production. Imposing a massive brake on the core export revenue generating heart of the NZ economy. 

Coupled with the I'll conceived ETS and carbon sink forestry plantings that essentially allow offshore interests to continue emitting at real cost to NZ both in payment of carbon credits earnt and in the future legacy: mature, unmanaged, pine forests of little or no wood value, no longer attracting carbon credits, yet generating grossly increased wild fire risk and environmental degradation on waterways due to exotic  monoculture forest cover on extensive tracts of otherwise productive land classes.

It's a catastrophe with the highest burden falling on the rural regions that have historically been significant contributors to export earnings and to regional NZ social cohesion. 

NZ cannot afford to be a predominantly urban nation until alternative major export revenue generation enterprises establish and remain on NZ soil. Primary production will continue to be the underpinning of the NZ economy into the foreseeable future and that requires viable rural populations. 

Up
6

Those virtue signalers who determined NZ's NDCs also ideologically ignored the fact that NZ is a net carbon sink while contributing ~0.08% of global CO₂ output and about 0.15% of total global greenhouse gas emissions (which include agricultural methane).

With the USA now out, the Paris accord is dead in the water & should be sunk.

Up
6

Two of the most sensible comments I've seen on this topic in a long time. What a complete waste of time & money the Paris accord has been. Let's decommission the Climate Commission while we are at.    

Up
8

Sensible = good for me? 

My dictionary disagrees. 

Up
2

Joining the Paris accord has not made one iota of difference to me or anyone around me. The same will apply when we eventually leave the silly accord. 

What is has done is consume far too much airtime. Move on, we have far more important things to be doing such as energy security, stopping poo flowing into Wellington Harbour, getting tourists & events back to NZ, and selling our amazing produce to the world.  

Up
0

In other words, pursuing growth via the depletion of the resources of a finite planet. 

Good luck with that - entropy might be a useful subject to learn about, methinks. 

Up
1

I'm not inherently against the Paris Agreement, just against the manner ideologues made it forking difficult for the NZ economy to thrive.

Up
2

Lou - you cannot have a 'thriving economy' without burning fossil energy; nothing else gives enough bang for buck (so to speak). 

Sorry about that. 

20 years ago, I though you could. I kept learning. 

Up
1

Yes, PDK. Fossil fuel is part of everything.

My gripe is as how transition is managed. Short term ism, or long term ism. Monoculture exotic reforestation is very short term. And in the meantime the general populace and majority of politicians seek to maintain steady exponential growth (perhaps an oxymoron) and 'better' living standards for the population. 

As export food production reduces (I'd  argue that with the continuing reduction in the breeding ewe flock, there is no way NZ will fill the export lamb/mutton quota into Britain), export earnings will decline in real terms while imports consumption will continue to rise to match demand from a growing urban population. Until alternative major export earnings initiatives establish to displace primary production exports pre-eminent contribution, the standard of living in NZ will become more constrained. And the population and politicians are delusional to argue otherwise. 

Some will point to tourism as the saviour. But my gut instinct tells me that tourism has a pretty fat carbon footprint and is a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

Economics is social science. The solutions for the future (if indeed there are any) must be located within that social, societal, context. Geographical location of viabl communities are important considerations within the solution framing and design.

The current hollowing out of small rural communities is a big negative for NZ as a whole. I note, that in the EU one argument for agricultural subsidies was to maintain rural populations and food production. But those EU countries also have major industrial strings in their economic bow. Primary production remains as NZ's major string and is not subsidised.

Up
2

If NZ is a net carbon sink how does it contribute 0.08% of global CO2?

Up
3

Because it isn't a net sink.

It had/has a status-quo, to which it adds dug-up fossil stock. 

It's simple math - and it gets worse when you realise that air/shipping aren't counted (they're offshore) and that neither is a lot of our whiteware/infrastructure (again, offshore). 

And as I recall, it was soil erosion (taking our topsoil 'offshore') which was the basis for the claim. 

I debated Dymond once...   small world

 

Up
2

Because the sink is much larger than the 0.08% contribution. But I think you know this.  

The South Island has the same population density as Russia and it's only major industry runs on hydro for starters. We just don't move the dial. We are a massive sink without even taking our continental shelf CaCO3 deposition in to consideration.

"We present a comprehensive assessment of the natural and anthropogenic carbon (C-CO2) fluxes for Australasia as a whole, as well as for Australia and New Zealand individually, for the period from 2010 to 2019, using two approaches: bottom-up methods that integrate flux estimates from land-surface models, data-driven models, and inventory estimates; and top-down atmospheric inversions based on satellite and in situ measurements.

...New Zealand was a net CO2 sink of −38.6 ± 13.4 million tonne C yr−1.

...In addition to the territorial carbon budget quantified using the bottom-up and top-down approaches, we estimated non-territorial emissions, which are the emissions associated with the net trade of fossil fuels, crop, wood, and livestock to and from other countries."

A Comprehensive Assessment of Anthropogenic and Natural Sources and Sinks of Australasia's Carbon Budget

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GB007845

Up
0

"ignored the fact that NZ is a net carbon sink while contributing ~0.08% of global CO₂ output and about 0.15% of total global greenhouse gas emissions (which include agricultural methane)."

"Because the sink is much larger than the 0.08% contribution. But I think you know this."

and I think you understand the term 'net'

Up
1

'while biospheric processes such as the CO2 uptake by forests and revegetation remove CO2 from the atmosphere.'

But not from the above-ground biosphere. 

Sleight of hand.  

How climate denialism finds its way to the US's highest office

(explains where/what Profile channels). 

Up
1

Yes, as per the paper linked. What hair are you trying to split? NZ sinks a lot of carbon and has a tiny population with a comparatively large land area and massive continental shelf. Why pretend it doesn't? "New Zealand was a net CO2 sink of −38.6 ± 13.4 million tonne C year−1."

Up
0

Lou - I'm sorry, but if those exports were FF-delivered, they were putting out the fire with gasoline. 

Up
1

that requires viable rural populations. 

Better get them breeding fast as they are shrinking and ageing before your eyes as it is all around the world. 

Might help if this "productive hill country" was "business profitable" as well. Ask any top banker for the real truth.

If you look at the ETS only around 90,000ha of exotic is classed as permanent forest.

Some people have never been in an old forest or read any peer reviewed research on the ecology.

Pointless discussing.

Up
0

ACT and NZF have proved themselves bludgers on the young folk and yet to be born. Well done Hipkins for fronting parts of our problems.

Up
1

CHippy has already failed in the below portfolios:
- Health
- COVID-19 response
- Police
- Prime Minister

It is hard to believe the track record of both the party that he heads, and him personally by sheer underperformance.

 

Up
0

Another review rather than any ideas about how things might change. 

Up
1

Good on ya Chippy. With comments like that it will ensure you never get elected!

Up
0