The New Zealand government last week announced its latest climate change policy aimed at reducing carbon emissions towards the levels agreed under the Kyoto Protocol. It's a cap-and-trade scheme, which will be phased in for different sectors. Forestry will be the first to participate from next year; transport and major industy enter in 2009 and 2010; while agriculture (responsible for about half New Zealand's emissions) will have no commitments until 2013.
Even with the emissions measures in place, New Zealand is predicted to overshoot its Kyoto carbon emissions targets for the 2008-12 period by about 25.5 million tonnes.
The best analysis is from blogger No Right Turn , who looks at some of the implications as well as identifying some gaps and omissions. There's also a link to the full government document, The Framework for a New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. I guess at some point I'll be a good citizen and wade through it.
The Green Party and environmental groups such as Greenpeace criticised the announcement as too little too late, but the policy at least appears to have broad political support. Many of the proposals are similar to those in the 'Blue-Green' position paper released last year by the National Party -- who along with United Future and New Zealand First helped torpedo previous climate change measures such as a carbon tax and a 'fart tax' on animal methane emissions.
There are specific long-term targets for renewable energy and tree planting, as well as vaguer aspirational goals for things such as widespread use of electric cars.
Costs to the fuel and energy sectors are expected to be passed through to consumers, meaning an estimated 4-5% increase in petrol prices and power bills starting in 2009. The government has already promised that it will seek to compensate people on low incomes for these increased living costs.
Instead of further bureaucratically-managed subsidies, one option could be to cut tax from the first $5-10,000 of individuals' income. This is actually a Green party policy, but is also favoured by many economic liberals because it is simple, transparent and provides the right incentives. It removes tax from desirable things (earnings from work) and applies it to undesirable ones (emissions).
However, such an income tax cut is normally suggested as a tit-for-tat swap in conjunction with a carbon tax, rather than alongside a cap-and-trade scheme. Ironically, while some centre-rightists are now suggesting a carbon tax to be the most sensible anti-emissions measure, it is this part of the political spectrum which has consistently trashed the idea whenever it has been proposed.
Categories: climate change, New Zealand, Kyoto, carbon trading, carbon tax
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Sunday, September 09, 2007
The Nuclear Option
Around two years ago, I posted my dilettante-ish opinion that nuclear energy would need to be increasingly important if the world is to reconcile the goals of reducing carbon emissions and continuing international economic development.
That view is now firmly in the mainstream, as evidenced by the discussions at the APEC meeting in Sydney last week. Although it's a rare day when a liberal internationalist finds himself more or less in agreement with George W Bush and John Howard, this one groaned at statements by various New Zealand politicans that they would seek to 'water down' references to nuclear energy in a conference statement on climate change.
These comments were seemingly intended for a domestic audience, one that might by now be dwindling. New Zealand's 'anti-nuclear' stance was a flagship, nation-unifying policy in the 80s. But as I said in the previous post, surely that was "more a stroppy assertion of foreign policy independence than a reasoned rejection of nuclear technology".
The climate change declaration negotiated at the APEC meeting ended up being pretty motherhood-and-apple pie, with only 'aspirational' targets set But with the range of political, social and economic situations faced by the APEC countries, it's better than nothing for a week's work. While it's easy to be critical of non-binding targets, it has to be acknowledged that New Zealand and Canada, which ratified the Kyoto Protocol, have done worse at reaching their emissions target than Australia, which didn't.
However, some credit should be given to the New Zealand contingent at APEC for practicing what they preach. New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark was one of the five leaders who arrived on normal commercial flights The others were the prime ministers of Papua New Guinea and Singapore, the chief executive of Hong Kong, and, yes, Peru's austerity-promoting Alan Garcia.
On the other hand, the US contingent brought three special 747s, while they, China and Russia, demanded 'sovereign immunity' for their aircraft, exempting them from being inspected by Australian customs officials. So much for international co-operation.
Categories: APEC, nuclear power, climate change
That view is now firmly in the mainstream, as evidenced by the discussions at the APEC meeting in Sydney last week. Although it's a rare day when a liberal internationalist finds himself more or less in agreement with George W Bush and John Howard, this one groaned at statements by various New Zealand politicans that they would seek to 'water down' references to nuclear energy in a conference statement on climate change.
These comments were seemingly intended for a domestic audience, one that might by now be dwindling. New Zealand's 'anti-nuclear' stance was a flagship, nation-unifying policy in the 80s. But as I said in the previous post, surely that was "more a stroppy assertion of foreign policy independence than a reasoned rejection of nuclear technology".
The climate change declaration negotiated at the APEC meeting ended up being pretty motherhood-and-apple pie, with only 'aspirational' targets set But with the range of political, social and economic situations faced by the APEC countries, it's better than nothing for a week's work. While it's easy to be critical of non-binding targets, it has to be acknowledged that New Zealand and Canada, which ratified the Kyoto Protocol, have done worse at reaching their emissions target than Australia, which didn't.
However, some credit should be given to the New Zealand contingent at APEC for practicing what they preach. New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark was one of the five leaders who arrived on normal commercial flights The others were the prime ministers of Papua New Guinea and Singapore, the chief executive of Hong Kong, and, yes, Peru's austerity-promoting Alan Garcia.
On the other hand, the US contingent brought three special 747s, while they, China and Russia, demanded 'sovereign immunity' for their aircraft, exempting them from being inspected by Australian customs officials. So much for international co-operation.
Categories: APEC, nuclear power, climate change
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Global Waffling
The wilful doublethink about responses to global warming continues unabated. This Reuters article reports on the meeting of environment ministers in Montreal from November 28 to December 9 to discuss post-2012 plans for tackling climate change.
The article points out that the same old issues will persist--how to get the US and Australia to commit to emissions targets, and how to bring big developing economies like India and China on board.
As an example of the opposition to the whole damn circus, there's a quote from a rabidly anti-Kyoto think tank:
"... "To reduce carbon emissions you have to reduce consumption, and that can only be done by raising prices," Margo Thorning, head of the International Council for Capital Formation, said in an interview in London.
"It is wrong to put a country on an economic starvation diet. A good outcome in Montreal would be a decision to end Kyoto," she said, echoing the White House line that the answer lay in areas like new technology, clean coal, nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration...."
To its credit, Reuters does point out that the ICCF is "the European arm of the car and oil industry-funded American Council for Capital Formation". But it misses the blatant contradiction in the their statements. The point of "new technology, clean coal, nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration" is that they help reduce carbon emissions. So it is just not true to say that "to reduce carbon emissions you have to reduce consumption".
The real disagreement is not about technological vs. Luddite, "starvation diet" approaches, but between those who are prepared to accept targets and those who are not. So, here's a devils advocate position: It may be that the most promising technologies won't cut in for a few years, and Kyoto targets will be missed, but within a few more years we will see reductions far beyond those envisaged by Kyoto, leading to real, measurable checks on global warming .
In which case the dialogue ought to be about the kind of targets that are set, and how progress is measured, rather than whether to throw out targets completely.
However, Tony Blair is now talking about voluntary targets as being the only way to get the US and others in the room. If so, so be it, but this seems rather like throwing up the hands and saying "Ok lads, everyone do their best".
Whatever happens, it is probable is that as economies transition to using different technologies and releasing less carbon, there will be some losers, including some with a significant stake in the current system. The quicker this happens, the more stands to be lost (and gained, by those entrepreneurs who are ahead of the game) . So you do not have to look far for the vested interests with an incentive to slow the whole process down by spreading disinformation. You just have to be aware that that's what is going on.
Categories: Kyoto, New Zealand, climate change, global warming
The article points out that the same old issues will persist--how to get the US and Australia to commit to emissions targets, and how to bring big developing economies like India and China on board.
As an example of the opposition to the whole damn circus, there's a quote from a rabidly anti-Kyoto think tank:
"... "To reduce carbon emissions you have to reduce consumption, and that can only be done by raising prices," Margo Thorning, head of the International Council for Capital Formation, said in an interview in London.
"It is wrong to put a country on an economic starvation diet. A good outcome in Montreal would be a decision to end Kyoto," she said, echoing the White House line that the answer lay in areas like new technology, clean coal, nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration...."
To its credit, Reuters does point out that the ICCF is "the European arm of the car and oil industry-funded American Council for Capital Formation". But it misses the blatant contradiction in the their statements. The point of "new technology, clean coal, nuclear energy and carbon capture and sequestration" is that they help reduce carbon emissions. So it is just not true to say that "to reduce carbon emissions you have to reduce consumption".
The real disagreement is not about technological vs. Luddite, "starvation diet" approaches, but between those who are prepared to accept targets and those who are not. So, here's a devils advocate position: It may be that the most promising technologies won't cut in for a few years, and Kyoto targets will be missed, but within a few more years we will see reductions far beyond those envisaged by Kyoto, leading to real, measurable checks on global warming .
In which case the dialogue ought to be about the kind of targets that are set, and how progress is measured, rather than whether to throw out targets completely.
However, Tony Blair is now talking about voluntary targets as being the only way to get the US and others in the room. If so, so be it, but this seems rather like throwing up the hands and saying "Ok lads, everyone do their best".
Whatever happens, it is probable is that as economies transition to using different technologies and releasing less carbon, there will be some losers, including some with a significant stake in the current system. The quicker this happens, the more stands to be lost (and gained, by those entrepreneurs who are ahead of the game) . So you do not have to look far for the vested interests with an incentive to slow the whole process down by spreading disinformation. You just have to be aware that that's what is going on.
Categories: Kyoto, New Zealand, climate change, global warming
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Green Folly or: Bash Kyoto
The Kyoto accord continues to be routinely bashed by all and sundry in the New Zealand mainstream media. It's described as a "billion-dollar bungle", presented as idealistic environmentalism and "big government" regulation, and opposed stoutly by grandstanding politicians. The Australian papers deride their flaky New Zealand cousins for signing up, and their articles are sheepishly reprinted here, with nary a dissenting voice.
The latest piece of scoffing comes from (who else) Roger Kerr. In a Business Roundtable press release on "Why the Greens Charm Offensive Failed", Kerr dismisses the Green Party's recent attempt to engage business leaders in constructive discussion. Among the policies he gives a once-over lightly critique is "another iconic Green policy, the Kyoto Protocol".
The Greens, says Kerr "seem unwilling to accept that Kyoto is not going to happen - one country after another looks set to ignore its commitments - and that the US approach to global warming, based on research and technology, is likely to carry the day".
Kerr goes on to accuse the Greens of not wanting to engage with "well-documented criticisms of doom-mongering, such as the work of Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg". If the Greens want improved dialogue with business, he recommends they put "more emphasis on market-based solutions to environmental problems instead of central planning and regulation".
So, was Kyoto drawn up by a bunch of Luddite, economically naiive, tree-hugging greenies? Actually no--it was negotiated by teams of international scientists and economists, and is exactly the kind of technology-favouring, "market-based solution" that Kerr claims to favour. Moreover, the compromises struck in its development are exactly the kinds that Lomborg argues for in his writings.
The Kyoto accord established a goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, to help hold global warming to the less drastic end of possible scenarios. But rather than set heavy handed, one-size-fits-all regulations, a market-based system was devised, which allowed the trading of emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions are acknowledged to produce a long-term cost for everybody. So the system was designed to make that cost be factored into economic decisions. This favours technology development, because if you can come up with smarter, cleaner technology to help reduce emissions, you won't have to pay the cost of the excess emissions.
If, however it won't be economic for you to hit the emissions targets just yet, you can buy credits off somebody else--essentially paying them to be more efficient or cleaner on your behalf.
However, most developing countries don't have the flexibility to make these kind of trade offs. As Lomborg points out, for most of them, worrying about global warming is less of a priority than food, clean water, sanitation, proper housing and medicine for their citizens. With much lower per capita emissions than rich countries, they simply need to be able to develop their economies and improve their overall standard of living. To quote National Party environment spokesperson Nick Smith: "if you want to be clean, first you've got to be rich".
So it was agreed that developing countries would be exempt from the Kyoto targets for the "first commitment period" up to 2012. Like most international agreements, the accord was imperfect, pragmatic and provisional. But in 1998 most everyone found it acceptable, including the USA and Australia.
Later, of course, Bush and Howard backed out. Despite the fact that as big, rich economies, the US and Australia are among the best-placed countries to make the necessary changes--such as fast-forwarding new technologies--they decided they couldn't possibly handle the short-term adjustment costs or, God forbid, lose competitive advantage to developing countries.
Recently it was annouced that the US, Australia, India, China, Japan and South Korea had signed a pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through technology development and sharing. This is what lies behind Kerr's reference to "the US approach to global warming, based on research and technology". For those who were consistently fed the idea that Kyoto=whacky green Ludditism, this looked like good old George and John goin' it alone and trumping 'em again. Research and technology beats woolly, anti-growth environmentalism.
Except that Kyoto already promotes and incentivises research and technology. And the US-driven pact does not make any commitments or set any targets. Critics say it is mostly an attempt to protect export markets and help the coal industry (pact signatories include the four biggest coal-producing nations). It looks rather like an attempt to gesture at doing something about what is now a univerally acknowledged problem, without playing by the same rules as everybody else.
This is in fact a far from universal attitude in the countries in question. A number of American states, counties and cities have set themselves emissions targets, and groups of businesses have even been lobbying the federal government to set clear regulations (no, really!). They figure there will be regulations at some stage (maybe when we get a Democractic administration), and they would like some certainty.
With respect to future outcomes, Kerr may well be right--if the US and Australia don't formally sign up, Kyoto may not fly. There are also some principled arguments about flaws in the emissions trading system, or the particular Kyoto-related measures the NZ government has tried to implement here--the doomed "fart tax" on animal methane, and the current carbon tax.
But it's utterly misleading and disingenuous to present Kyoto as idealistic green-ism, in opposition to technology and market-based approaches. And it's lamentable that the media lazily allowes this to become the received wisdom, so the likes of Peters and Dunne can can gain votes by their grandstanding.
Kerr could express qualified enthusiasm for the kind of law-governed market system of which Adam Smith would have approved, and suggest ways to make it work better. Instead, he and his ilk simply choose to bash and obsfucate. So, rather than being engaged in a genuine debate about our alternatives, the public is pushed back into the good old Kiwi attitude of "she'll be right". Which effectively translates as: "let somebody else deal with the problem; we'll freeload".
Categories: Kyoto, New Zealand, climate change, global warming
The latest piece of scoffing comes from (who else) Roger Kerr. In a Business Roundtable press release on "Why the Greens Charm Offensive Failed", Kerr dismisses the Green Party's recent attempt to engage business leaders in constructive discussion. Among the policies he gives a once-over lightly critique is "another iconic Green policy, the Kyoto Protocol".
The Greens, says Kerr "seem unwilling to accept that Kyoto is not going to happen - one country after another looks set to ignore its commitments - and that the US approach to global warming, based on research and technology, is likely to carry the day".
Kerr goes on to accuse the Greens of not wanting to engage with "well-documented criticisms of doom-mongering, such as the work of Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg". If the Greens want improved dialogue with business, he recommends they put "more emphasis on market-based solutions to environmental problems instead of central planning and regulation".
So, was Kyoto drawn up by a bunch of Luddite, economically naiive, tree-hugging greenies? Actually no--it was negotiated by teams of international scientists and economists, and is exactly the kind of technology-favouring, "market-based solution" that Kerr claims to favour. Moreover, the compromises struck in its development are exactly the kinds that Lomborg argues for in his writings.
The Kyoto accord established a goal of lowering greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, to help hold global warming to the less drastic end of possible scenarios. But rather than set heavy handed, one-size-fits-all regulations, a market-based system was devised, which allowed the trading of emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions are acknowledged to produce a long-term cost for everybody. So the system was designed to make that cost be factored into economic decisions. This favours technology development, because if you can come up with smarter, cleaner technology to help reduce emissions, you won't have to pay the cost of the excess emissions.
If, however it won't be economic for you to hit the emissions targets just yet, you can buy credits off somebody else--essentially paying them to be more efficient or cleaner on your behalf.
However, most developing countries don't have the flexibility to make these kind of trade offs. As Lomborg points out, for most of them, worrying about global warming is less of a priority than food, clean water, sanitation, proper housing and medicine for their citizens. With much lower per capita emissions than rich countries, they simply need to be able to develop their economies and improve their overall standard of living. To quote National Party environment spokesperson Nick Smith: "if you want to be clean, first you've got to be rich".
So it was agreed that developing countries would be exempt from the Kyoto targets for the "first commitment period" up to 2012. Like most international agreements, the accord was imperfect, pragmatic and provisional. But in 1998 most everyone found it acceptable, including the USA and Australia.
Later, of course, Bush and Howard backed out. Despite the fact that as big, rich economies, the US and Australia are among the best-placed countries to make the necessary changes--such as fast-forwarding new technologies--they decided they couldn't possibly handle the short-term adjustment costs or, God forbid, lose competitive advantage to developing countries.
Recently it was annouced that the US, Australia, India, China, Japan and South Korea had signed a pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through technology development and sharing. This is what lies behind Kerr's reference to "the US approach to global warming, based on research and technology". For those who were consistently fed the idea that Kyoto=whacky green Ludditism, this looked like good old George and John goin' it alone and trumping 'em again. Research and technology beats woolly, anti-growth environmentalism.
Except that Kyoto already promotes and incentivises research and technology. And the US-driven pact does not make any commitments or set any targets. Critics say it is mostly an attempt to protect export markets and help the coal industry (pact signatories include the four biggest coal-producing nations). It looks rather like an attempt to gesture at doing something about what is now a univerally acknowledged problem, without playing by the same rules as everybody else.
This is in fact a far from universal attitude in the countries in question. A number of American states, counties and cities have set themselves emissions targets, and groups of businesses have even been lobbying the federal government to set clear regulations (no, really!). They figure there will be regulations at some stage (maybe when we get a Democractic administration), and they would like some certainty.
With respect to future outcomes, Kerr may well be right--if the US and Australia don't formally sign up, Kyoto may not fly. There are also some principled arguments about flaws in the emissions trading system, or the particular Kyoto-related measures the NZ government has tried to implement here--the doomed "fart tax" on animal methane, and the current carbon tax.
But it's utterly misleading and disingenuous to present Kyoto as idealistic green-ism, in opposition to technology and market-based approaches. And it's lamentable that the media lazily allowes this to become the received wisdom, so the likes of Peters and Dunne can can gain votes by their grandstanding.
Kerr could express qualified enthusiasm for the kind of law-governed market system of which Adam Smith would have approved, and suggest ways to make it work better. Instead, he and his ilk simply choose to bash and obsfucate. So, rather than being engaged in a genuine debate about our alternatives, the public is pushed back into the good old Kiwi attitude of "she'll be right". Which effectively translates as: "let somebody else deal with the problem; we'll freeload".
Categories: Kyoto, New Zealand, climate change, global warming
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)