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 Dr Dave Bull
Organisation (if applicable) Private submission
Address
Telephone
Email
Objectives for the contribution
Do you agree with these objectives for our contribution? Yes
1b. What is most important to you?
Guiding New Zealand over the long term in the global transition to a low emissions world.
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?
Our electricity sector is renewable but it does still contain an element of thermal coal that could readily and
painlessly be eliminated. To do so would be perhaps the best example we could set for other countries.
Our agriculture sector produces NOx and methane because it is largely pastoral. Pastoral farming is an inefficient
way of providing food. If we were serious about feeding the world - a goal that we are still some way short of
meeting - we would grow more crops and fewer large animals.
Our gratuitous use of fossil fuel for transport is much, much greater than in many other countries, and since we
don't produce our own petrol it is also a huge drain on the economy. Commercial transport is key to the economy
but it is hard to argue that the right incentives are in place for petrol-driven single-user transport.
Finally, New Zealand used to be covered in forest. Large parts of the country are seriously erosion-prone and
would be more productive if returned to diverse forestry.
In short, economic considerations should not discourage us from an ambitious target such as 10 % below 1990
levels, we have plenty of options for emissions reduction. But they should certainly direct the kind of approach we
take.
How will our contribution affect New Zealanders?
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?
This is an ingenuous question. Following Lord Stern, what is the cost of not reducing our emissions? And you can't
be seriously suggesting that the cost will be the same on each household, the absolute dollar values in the
discussion document are quite misleading.
Can our existing (albeit scant) foreign aid be redirected toward afforestation projects, licensing out pastoral
emissions reduction, etc., at no cost whatsoever?
If the cost of using unsuitable land for pastoral purposes took account of externalities, might we not discover that
pastoral farming ran at a loss in some places, and therefore that agricultural emissions reduction was cost positive?
If we used less petrol (I didn't say diesel), would that improve our balance of trade and hence our economic
position.
What about the health benefits of reduced urban NOx and increased cycling? Even Cuba has reported good health
Consultation on setting New
Zealand’s post-2020 climate change
target
Copy of your submission
outcomes from an enforced fuel shortage.
And isn't our income all going on servicing absurdly inflated house prices anyway?
Let me just suggest that the level of (real) income reduction should not exceed the level of emissions reduction.
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?
Do the math - I have.
We cannot produce enough biofuel to replace our current liquid fossil fuel consumption. Not even close.
Unless someone invents tidal power, in which case we are sweet, we also cannot produce enough electricity to
replace our current liquid fossil fuel consumption.
We are physically and biologically able to plant new forests and use alternative means of transport. Those are
realistic goals, and would in the long term get us closer to a point where we could look at producing our own fuel.
Summary
5. How should New Zealand take into account the future uncertainties of technologies and costs when setting its
target?
Ignore it completely, of course. New technology isn't going to make it harder to meet an absolute reduction. If we
are lucky it might even help, so long as we retain some flexibility in our planning.
Other comments
6. Is there any further information you wish the Government to consider? Please explain.
In an overheated, less prosperous world, fewer people will be able to buy our goods and services, or to visit us as
tourists. Droughts and cyclones tend to be bad for agricultural economies, even pluvial ones - the term "disaster"
gets used a lot. Climate change will be a lot worse for the economy than a bit of reprioritising.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)