by Jeanette Fitzsimons
The revised “net position” of New Zealand’s Kyoto liability shows why forest sinks should never have been tradable against emissions from burning fossil fuels. This was a central argument at Kyoto in 1997 as the world struggled to set rules for reducing emissions internationally. The EU, and environmentalists, for different reasons, argued that forest sinks should not be part of the agreement at all. The EU, because they don’t have much room to plant more forests and saw it as a way of other countries avoiding reducing their emissions. Environmentalists, because of the difficulty in measuring carbon captured in vegetation, because of its impermanence, and because it blurred the focus on the need for sustainable energy policies.
But we did need to include land use change in the agreement, because it can be a big contributor to further global warming.
I remember arguing at the time that there should be two separate pools, tradable within each but not between them. Forest sequestration should be able to offset emissions from other land uses, such as animal emissions and nitrous oxide from soils, but not tradable against emissions from fossil fuels. You can trade like with like, but not between apples and oranges. Farmers could have neutralised their emissions from animals by investing in forest planting, often on their own land, or in association with commercial foresters. Deforestation would still be penalised. But the energy and industrial sector would have had to embrace new technologies faster – renewable energy and energy efficiency. They are not rocket science, and they will leave the economy stronger in the face of oil depletion and energy insecurity.
We have been told that the art of measuring carbon in trees has greatly improved since then. That may be so for a well characterised hectare of forest, but the latest figures show there are many other uncertainties. How could an annual recalculation take us from a deficit of 21mt to a surplus of 9 mt, and may well take us back again next year?
This provides fuel for those who argue, “the figures are so uncertain there’s no case for doing anything”. It hides the fact that the half of our emissions that come from industrial processes and fossil fuels are well understood and the estimates do not change from year to year. The actual emissions have grown 23% since 1990 and are set to grow more if the recession eases. That is our big risk – unlike methane, carbon dioxide is, on any human scale, permanent in the atmosphere. That is where we should be taking action first. The uncertainties around half our emissions should not stop us taking prompt action on the other half.
Stationary energy and industrial process emissions are, by law, due to face a carbon price from next January. But they won’t – because National’s delays in deciding how to change that law have now made it impossible to have the free allocation plans ready by then. Transport was originally due to come in at the start of this year, but Labour delayed it two years because of high petrol prices. Oil prices have now dropped by two-thirds, leaving no real incentive to get a smaller or more efficient car, take public transport, or cycle. Cars coming into NZ get less efficient every year because they are getting bigger.
What are our opportunities?
Bring transport in from January 2010, before fuel prices go up again, while it is still politically possible. Bring electricity and direct fuel use in from the same date as planned, but delay trade exposed industries and industrial process emissions a little longer until the allocation plans can be done.
Why not?
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Jeanette Fitzsimons on Mon, April 20th, 2009
Tags: ETS, forest, Jeanette Fitzsimons, kyoto, politics
More posts by Jeanette Fitzsimons | more about Jeanette Fitzsimons
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
I think for the Greens to sell this policy they need to do some cost analysis reflecting the price that the consumer will face for the increased costs of say transport fuels but also the underlyng transport cost for ALL good and services.
And then ask, can we as a country actually afford these.
For best results to get a trading policy underway and sold to the electorate is for the Greens to do a model of how the carbon trading scheme will impact on the people.
So far the average punter only sees price inceases and the Al Gores getting their 30% cut of any trade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And then if they are affordable, ask the question:
“How much will this affect the worlds temperature, and would that be for the better”?
If the answer is negative, we should stop wasting time on this nonsense and focus our efforts on real problems instead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Seeing as we don’t have any agreement on what one will look like, I don’t really see the point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, I don’t think it’s ever going to be framed like that (by this government), more of a foreign relations/trade question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – As someone who has a vested interest in forestry (albiet pinus radiata forest ) you’ll have a biased view of Jeanette’s proposals.
I’m interested to hear from you what those
you cite, are. I’m hoping you have something in the ‘environment’ field in mind (this being the blog of the Green Party and all).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jeanette sez “Farmers could have neutralised their emissions from animals by investing in forest planting”
The trouble is just what are the emissions from pastoral farming? Animal emissions, in isolation, are reasonably well documented, but no-one seems to have an idea of the whole farm carbon balance. If that figure could be worked out and each farm plant the appropriate % of the farm, then voila, carbon neutral farming!
So has anyone been able to get a handle on the whole farm balance?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
StephenR,
For goodness sake, if you dont have one what is the best example of one that the Greens would see in place?
What you are saying is we (the Greens) dont know what we want but we are working towards getting one.
Talk about “If you dont know where you are going, any road will take you there”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Should’ve said that in the first place! I agree that it’s a good idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Though it could be a lot of effort to produce something that the government will simply just rebuff, perhaps better to try and anticipate what they will want, and use their resources to ‘better’ it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Oil prices have now dropped by two-thirds, leaving no real incentive to get a smaller or more efficient car…”
Pump prices have only fallen by one-quarter, leaving a very real incentive to get a smaller or more efficient car.
I am now working in viticulture hence my ignoring the other two options you provided. Almost half of NZ’s road travel is classified as ‘rural’. Unless I’ve misunderstood the National Traffic Database classification of ‘rural’ that does suggest more fuel efficient cars and utes is half the answer and PT, walking and cycling are the other half. Last year did provide evidence that kiwis need the psychological impetus of petrol breaking the $2 barrier before they embrace ride sharing and trip chaining in significant numbers.
ride sharing/trip chaining
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
An excellent analysis from Jeanette (as usual) …
but please tell us what the abbreviation “mt” stands for in this context:
“How could an annual recalculation take us from a deficit of 21mt to a surplus of 9 mt, and may well take us back again next year?”
metric tonne?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
always assumed it was ‘mega’ tonne(ton?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But aren’t the demands from our emitters (for NZUs) and from overseas emitters (for AAUs) much much much greater than what the supply of forest credits will ever be?
There is likely to be only 1 million tonnes of 2008 NZUs avilable this year – which is a fraction of demand from local emitters.
One thing to consider – many forest owners will hang on to a lot of their credits because they need to use them if they harvest – its about forest management for some of these guys
I don’t agree on the seperateness of credits you refer to – there needs to be complete fungibility between credits to create an efficient market. Restrictions just reduce volume and with reduced volumes – prices will be more volatile.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
npb
I agree. UNless we’re going to mstop the interexchangability of $10 and $20 notes!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly buzzes in from a fresh ban on KiwiBlog….
Forestry interests aren’t anywhere near the level of my interests in other areas, but you’re never one to pass up the opportunity to build a straw man, huh.
What other issues could we be focusing on? Maintaining a pleasant environment, balanced against remaining competitive in the export sector.
I’m not interested in Al Gore and his myth/money making activities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP has you there, greenfly. He’s an expert on straw men, having resorted to them so often himself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
there are actually some great opportunities in Forestry – its changed the dynamic of that game – tress have gone from being 30 year investments with no return until maturity to more like shares that pay an annual dividend.
I do agree with JF re “Farmers could have neutralised their emissions from animals by investing in forest planting, often on their own land, or in association with commercial foresters.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen – “mega” tonne is conceptually right, as it means “Million Tonne” in reality. We usually reserve “mega” for statements of capacity, like electricity and nuclear blasts, but the meaning is essentially the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shouldn’t megatonne be “Mt”? “mt” would be millitonne, aka kilogram.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>He’s an expert on straw men, having resorted to them so often himself
I’m convinced all this climate change tax “strategy” is total bonkers. The activities aren’t linked to outcomes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Maintaining a pleasant environment’ BluePeter? That’s it? That’s what you see as ‘real problems’ that are more pressing than reducing emisions internationally?
Could you expand a little on your comment? What do you mean by ‘maintaining a pleasant environment? Sounds very nice, but hardly a rallying call to environmentalists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’m convinced all this climate change tax “strategy” is total bonkers. The activities aren’t linked to outcomes.”
Now come on Peter, you want this stuff to make sense! Stick with ‘bonkers’ (a collective noun isn’t it?).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Totally bonkers is what I meant
>>that are more pressing than reducing emisions internationally
It isn’t pressing. The jury is still out on you AGW notion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Come on BluePeter, you’re not still playing that old, old dodge-the-question game, are you? It’s time for you to play straight. Here’re my questions again:
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – up to his usual avoidance tactics. Sorry, mate, the jury is in on AGW, and the verdict is that there is a 90% or better probability that humans are causing dangerous changes to the climate in the form of rapid warming.
But I suppose that real probabilities are beyond your black and white view of the world?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maintaining a pleasant environment means not creating a cesspool. Like they did in Russia:
“In the Soviet system, environmentally threatening incidents such as the bursting of an oil pipeline received little or no public notice, and remedial actions were slow or nonexistent. …..about 40 percent of Russia’s territory (an area about three-quarters as large as the United States) as under high or moderately high ecological stress”.
>>black and white view of the world
I don’t have a black and white view of the world. That just a mischaracterisation so I can be pigeon-holed more easily. You could also imagine a fat cat smoking a cigar, if that helps.
>>verdict is that there is a 90%
IPCC again. huh.
Depends who one listens to….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So you don’t believe in probabilities then? I suppose you would rush right onto an Air New Zealand flight that had a 90% probability of falling out of the sky, because Air New Zealand is such a small company it wouldn’t really affect the flight safety statistics of global airlines, so there is no point worrying about it, eh?
Oh, and you pigeon hole yourself with your mindless and contradictory logic without any help from me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter – again I have to ask, is that it !
Maintaining a pleasant environment means not creating a cesspool
is that the depth of your thinking on environmental issues – don’t create a cesspool?
It’s very dissapointing to have to press you to reveal your thoughts when you usually offer them so freely when you are calling the shots. I guess you could continue to dodge and weave until everybody gives up on trying to debate in a reasonable manner with you, then you can revert to your ‘snipe and run’ commenting, but it’s gotten very old.
Putting aside the issue featured on this thread, what environmental issues do you consider the Greens should devote their considerable knowledge and energy to?
btw – therer are two questions in my comment here. Take the tiger by the tail Blue, and have a go at answering them
There’s no shame in not knowing something. We are all friends here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I guess you could continue to dodge and weave until everybody gives up on trying to debate in a reasonable manner with you, then you can revert to your ’snipe and run’ commenting, but it’s gotten very old”
Oh the hypocrisy of that statement!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I guess you could continue to dodge and weave
I suspect the problem is you just don’t like my answers. I have provided them, you just don’t like them.
>>the Greens should devote their considerable knowledge and energy to
Finding a centerist position New Zealanders could actually relate to.
It’s not that hard, really, it just requires that you show the red members the door.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Big Bro – your hypocrisy detector has always been a bit skew-whiff. Give us one real example of what you are alluding to and we’ll agree with our old mate BB. No wild generalizations, broad sweeps of unsubstantiated rhetoric or veiled accusations, old Bro, just the facts! Are you up to it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Blue, Blue, Blue! I asked,
‘ what environmental issues do you consider the Greens should devote their considerable knowledge and energy to? (emphasis added)
to which you replied,
‘Finding a centerist position New Zealanders could actually relate to.’
You are making this way too easy for me, Blue. At least put up a fight.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Air New Zealand is such a small company it wouldn’t really affect the flight safety statistics of global
A more suitable comparison might be a guy dancing in the rain with an octopus.
“Sir, why are you dancing in the rain with an Octupus”?
“To make it stop raining!”
“But Sir, that won’t make it stop raining”
“It might! At least I’m doing something! What are you doing?”
“Sir, I’m going to get my umbrella….”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>what environmental issues do you consider the Greens should devote their considerable knowledge
You mean when you start taking time out from treaty issues, food issues, race issues, housing issues, etc?
You tell me…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter said: we should stop wasting time on this nonsense and focus our efforts on real problems instead.
I said,
I’m interested to hear from you what those real problems you cite, are.
BluePeter responds,
You tell me…..
Lame, lame, oh, so lame. I hoped for straight, got a pretzel. PretzelPete.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You love it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
lame
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html
So the ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic has been expanding for 30 years. Curse this global warming!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Famous photo of three subs bobbing around in water at the North Pole in 1987:
http://www.john-daly.com/NP1987.jpg
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What’s the Greens position on an emissions trading scheme vs a carbon tax these days?
I guess an ETS provides more certainty in the outcome, that you know what the CO2 emissions are each year and you go about lowering them by removing credits (perhaps 5-10% drop off each time they’re traded). However, on the down-side of an ETS you get confusion as to how it works, you get confusion like the whole “how to measure forestry”, you get uncertainty regarding what the cost of a tonne of carbon is.
With a carbon tax I guess it’s way simpler, you have a certainty of cost…. but you don’t have a certainty of outcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat, is ice extent more important than ice volume>
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat, that Australian article doesn’t say anything new and it doesn’t offer any evidence against AGW…
here’s a tip, if a discussion of sea ice in Antarctica doesn’t refer to winter maxima or summer minima (or anomalies) then it’s clear the journalist doesn’t understand what they are referring to. Here’s the latest sea ice extent graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
as you can see there is much more seasonal variability than the year to year variability
yes the Antarctic sea ice in 2008 covered a greater area than the 30 year mean, but that is thought to be because the ice shelves are shedding bergs at an accelerated rate.
I don’t know where you get your ice in the Arctic has been growing.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
shows clearly that Arctic sea ice 2007 was well-down on the 30 year mean, while Antarctic 2008 is up on the mean.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stuey,
What I should have said is that the Antarctic ice has been growing steadily, while the Arctic and Antarctic (meaning the combined total) has been steady.
http://regmedia.co.uk/2008/07/03/ice_change_large.jpg
As the main article below reminds us, the AGW theory predicts enhanced warming at the poles.
It is probably the major fingerprint of the theory, and yet it is entirely absent: polar ice extent hasn’t changed for thirty years.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/goddard_polar_ice/
Nor has the Antarctic shown any appreciable warming.
The absence of enhanced polar warming invalidates the AGW theory.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thank you all for the group effort over what “mt” was meant to denote.
I agree with toad’s suggestion … that it probably should have been written as “Mt” with a capital “M” to denote “Mega” tonne.
Any advances on that?
eredwen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)