The simple task of setting a carbon target

Colin James's column for the Press for 18 July 2009

New Zealand must put up a target in the next negotiating round in Bonn in mid-August or risk accusations that it is not a player. All except Russia among other "Annex I" countries (those committed to 2008-2012 targets under the Kyoto protocol) have stumped up a figure.

Advocates of a 40 per cent reduction from 1990 levels have been crowding Smith's meetings. Opponents of a 40 per cent reduction say that would cripple the economy (though their models exclude unpredictable growth possibilities). John Key has said the economy must trump the environment when the two clash. So 40 per cent is most unlikely.

But what exactly is the target?

First, the "reduction" is a figure net of offsets, such as trees' absorption of carbon dioxide. Planting and growing trees is the same as reducing emissions.

Second, the target is a "responsibility" target. New Zealand takes responsibility for the reduction but can buy reductions in other countries under an internationally approved scheme -- say, paying for indigenous forest not to be chopped down in a developing country.

On the most recent (rubbery and constantly changing) computations, New Zealand will more than meet its Kyoto commitment for 2008-12 of net emissions at the same level as in 1990 because, although our gross emissions are around 23 per cent above 1990 levels, enough trees were planted in the 1990s to offset this (though forest owners might claim some of those credits and taxpayers would then have to buy matching foreign credits).

The recession has also helped. We emit less when business is slack.

The 1990 tree plantings are projected to keep our net emissions around 1990 levels until 2016. But from then the trees start to be harvested and by 2020 our net emissions are projected to match our gross emissions -- 41 per cent above 1990. After 2020 the figure soars.

So to get to 40 per cent below 1990 levels in 2020 we would have to cut by around 60 per cent compared with going on as we are ("business as usual") -- or buy a swag of credits offshore, which may be very expensive if other rich countries are also buying for their "responsibility" targets. Or, some argue, we could plant masses of trees, starting now.

Advocates of 40 per cent say that is the cut rich countries need to make to keep the global rise in temperature under 2 degrees and that, as a rich country we should pitch in.

But in fact we are third least rich among Annex 1 countries. And a good part of our increase in emissions since 1990 has been the result of growth in our population, which has been the second highest among Annex 1 countries. More people equal more emissions, all other things being equal.

New Zealand also has a most unusual emissions profile among rich countries because agricultural emissions account for about half the emissions. That argues for a lower national target because right now the only way to reduce the methane which sheep and cattle breathe out is to stop the animals breathing, though there are ways to reduce the climate impact of their effluent and farmers' excess fertiliser use.

Farmers argue that agriculture should be extracted from any target, because food is critical to life. And there is a strong case for accounting for methane differently from the current international standard because it stays in the atmosphere far less time than carbon dioxide.

Moreover, the Kyoto rules on forestry and land use change disadvantage this country, without a climate benefit.

But that is not the end of the story. We have a clean-green brand to maintain, we need to keep our international reputation for cooperating on major international issues and our per capita emissions are the eleventh highest in the world.

Is that complex enough? Well, there's more.

The European Union has not put down one reduction target, but two: 20 per cent regardless of what the rest of the world does and 30 per cent if other countries make comparable commitments. The Australians go one further: 4 per cent regardless, 14 per cent if other major parties come to the party and 24 per cent if there is a global agreement that includes developing countries (which so far insist they have a right to catch up with United States' standard of living and the emissions that go with that and rich countries should pay to help them contain emissions).

So should New Zealand put down one figure or a base figure plus one or conditional ones and/or one conditional on forestry and/or land use rule changes -- or one which excludes agriculture? There are arguments all ways.

Does your head hurt yet?

Well, that's not all. The government has a 2050 target of 50 per cent below 1990. The slower the start in the 2020 the faster the cuts later. But Smith and Key will not be setting targets then.