Download Consultation on setting New Zealand`s post

Consultation on setting New
Zealand’s post-2020 climate change
target
Copy of your submission
Contact information
Name Anne Aylwin
Organisation (if applicable)
Address
Telephone
Email
Objectives for the contribution
Do you agree with these objectives for our contribution? Yes
1b. What is most important to you?
It is vital to set an ambitious target - the risks of global warming of more than 2 degrees are extreme. For example,
the World Banks's 2012 report 'Turn Down the Heat: why a 4 degree warmer world must be avoided' describes
warming of 4 degrees as "devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production;
unprecedented heat waves in many regions ...; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased
frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodivesristy,, including coral reef systems. "
The report goes on to state that "scientists agree that countries' current ... emission pledges and commitments
would most likely result in a 3.5 to 4 degree warming. And the longer those pledges remain unmet, the more likely a
4 degree world becomes."
Kevin Anderson of the UK's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research warns that "There is a widespread view
that a 4 degree future is incompatible with an organised global community [and] is likely to be beyond 'adaptation' ".
Furthermore, ambitious action must be taken now - too much time has been wasted in the last 25 years. The
International Energy Agency said in 2011 that "the door to 2 degrees is closing", and that strong action needs to be
taken by 2017 ("if stringent new action is not forthcoming by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place
will generate all the carbon dioxide emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035, leaving no room for
additional power plants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would be extremely
costly.")
What would be a fair contribution for New Zealand?
2. What do you think the nature of New Zealand’s emissions and economy means for the level of target that we
set?
New Zealand is in a strong position - we have a good 'head start' in renewable energy. We could easily have a
greater proportion of our electricity come from renewables (as shown, for example, by how keen renewable energy
companies to expand their business with the advent of electric vehicles). We are world leaders in this area - we
should see this as an opportunity, not a disadvantage as your paper seems to suggest.
Emissions in the transport sector could be cut through a variety of measures, such as greater public transport,
better urban planning, and greater uptake of electric vehicles with those vehicles powered by renewable energy.
Also, we need to remember that one of New Zealand's strengths is our 'clean, green' brand - this will surely suffer if
we set an unambitious target.
How will our contribution affect New Zealanders?
Consultation on setting New
Zealand’s post-2020 climate change
target
Copy of your submission
3. What level of cost is appropriate for New Zealand to reduce it's greenhouse gas emissions? For example, what
would be a reasonable reduction in annual household consumption?
I think your analysis of costs is inaccurate because it does not consider that the economy would change in
response to requirements/ signals (eg via a stronger Emissions Trading Scheme) to reduce greenhouse gases. We
should consider the opportunities of transitioning to lower emissions, such as growth in renewable energy and
transport based on it, and IT services to support this.
Where costs do occur, we should consider that these are likely to be temporary as part of the transition to a lower
emission economy, and will decrease as the economy adapts. Furthermore, the longer we delay acting on these
issues, the greater the costs, as explained by economist Nicholas Stern in his 2006 report for the UK Government.
The International Energy Agency has also warned that "delaying action is a false economy" (stated in their 2011
'World Energy Outlook', page 40).
Also, from what I understand of the modelling (published on your website) on which your costs analysis is based, if
we had a 40% target as opposed to no target, that would lead to less than one year's delay in reaching the same
level of GDP.
4. Of the opportunities for New Zealand to reduce its emissions (as outlined on page 15 of the discussion
document), which do you think are the most likely to occur, or be most important for New Zealand?
I think that all of the opportunities set out on page 15 of the document are important and show how transitioning to
a lower emission economy could provide many economic benefits. We should not be afraid to set a strong target
and seize these opportunities! The Government should be taking a lead signalling how New Zealand can move
forward in a positive way on these issues.
Summary
5. How should New Zealand take into account the future uncertainties of technologies and costs when setting its
target?
The technology for increasing renewable energy is already in existence, and with greater economies of scale the
costs are decreasing. Growth in renewable energy, such as wind and solar power has grown exponentially in many
countries in recent years. Battery technology for electric vehicles will also improve further in the next few years. So
I think we don't need to be overly cautious about technology. Let's move forward and embrace new technologies
and new economic opportunities.
Other comments
6. Is there any further information you wish the Government to consider? Please explain.
I urge you to set a target of a minimum of 40% lower than 1990 emissions, by 2025.
As the World Bank said in 2012: "A 4 degree world can, and must, be avoided ... Climate change affects
everything".