Loomio

Should we strengthen the ETS to get rid of bogus credits and include all industry?

TH
Tane Harre Public Seen by 497

In 2002 the Labour government passed the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008. It doesn't cover some industry (farming), and it has been criticised for allowing the purchase of bogus credits and having no base price.

Some history

The Act

CE

Colin England Thu 13 Jul 2017

Fraudulent credits should be illegal. This means that there needs to be a process to go through to determine if the credits are fraudulent and then to put those credits on the banned list.

The other option is just to go for a carbon/GHG emission tax. The ETS regimes seem to be more of a profit making venture (usually through some form of fraud) ATM than a means to limit use of GHG emission processes.

IA

idiom axiom Mon 31 Jul 2017

The only people wanting a base price are those looking to extort. The price should go to zero as soon as we hit carbon unity.

TH

Tane Harre Fri 4 Aug 2017

As an idea toward fixing the bogus credits problem why not mandate that credits can only be bought in NZ and at the same time allow credits to be generated by regenerating bush.

This would also help pay for the DOC estate and encourage owners of marginal land to let it grow back into forest.

It could also link in with this thread as additional income for farmers through forestry.

CE

Colin England Fri 4 Aug 2017

…allow credits to be generated by regenerating bush.

That's already allowed. In fact, in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations NZ pushed for it. Since then, though, we've decreased the amount of forest we're planting and our farmers have been rapidly converting to dairy because they make higher profits doing that.

TH

Tane Harre Sat 5 Aug 2017

Really? Because they make no mention of it in their 2016 annual report that I can find.

CE

Colin England Sat 5 Aug 2017

Yes, really:

The Emissions Trading Scheme in the context of the ETS Bill has, understandably,
grabbed much of the headlines to date. Conceptually, it offers owners of land that was not in forest in 1989, the opportunity to enter the ETS scheme with an existing or to be established forest with the juicy carrot of accruing tradable New Zealand Units on the basis of their forest’s ability to sequester CO2. In other words, a new source of pre-harvest income.

This is the problem with 'incentives' rather than simple law. Things change and the incentives no longer work.

TH

Tane Harre Sat 5 Aug 2017

That would explain why they don't make any money then. I imagine most of DOCs forests were there pre-1989. Another dead idea..........:)

IA

idiom axiom Mon 14 Aug 2017

"This is the problem with 'incentives' rather than simple law. Things change and the incentives no longer work."

Whereas law magically stays relevant.

CE

Colin England Tue 15 Aug 2017

In context we'd still have a Carbon Tax to encourage reduction of GHG emissions. With the ETS we don't and our GHG emissions are going up.

IA
CE

Colin England Tue 15 Aug 2017

You didn't actually read that did you? Here, I'll quote the relevant bit for you:

In 2014, New Zealand’s gross greenhouse gas emissions increased 1 per cent since the previous year to 81.1 Mt CO2-e.

Since 1990, New Zealand’s gross emissions have increased 23 per cent (15.3 Mt CO2-e).

And here's something a little more recent:

New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions in 2015 were 24.1 percent higher than 1990 levels - a far cry from the country's commitment in the Paris agreement.

Yep, still going up.

IA

idiom axiom Wed 16 Aug 2017

10 years. Means they are lower now than they were 10 years ago, not 30 years ago or one year ago.

Our per capita emissions peaked in 2000 and are down 10% since then.

TH

Tane Harre Wed 16 Aug 2017

Per capita is not emissions. You are both talking about different units.

From my point of view the emissions should not be measured per capita. We are trying to reduce the absolute emissions of the country. Per capita allows you to say we have reduced emissions when in fact you have increased them overall due to there being more people.

CE

Colin England Wed 16 Aug 2017

10 years. Means they are lower now than they were 10 years ago, not 30 years ago or one year ago.

Dude, they're up from one year ago. A year before that they were from the preceding year. Going all the way back to 1990.

That because absorption is decreasing.

I'd ask for citations but @taneharre link shows that emissions have been static over 10 years and rising over the last few. The overall trend is still up.

IA

idiom axiom Wed 16 Aug 2017

Absolute total emissions are down from ten years ago.
Per capita are down 10% from their peak.

The general trends are downwards. It doesn't fit with the calamitous narrative required for draconian changes however.

TH

Tane Harre Wed 16 Aug 2017

I don't know where you are getting your information from but the general trend isn't downwards at all. Also if you look at the net emissions (total emissions minus emissions absorbed) they are rising sharply.

My information is from here.

IA

idiom axiom Wed 16 Aug 2017

That because absorption is decreasing. Doesn't mean emission is rising.

IA

idiom axiom Mon 21 Aug 2017

Per Tane's source,

Peak emission was 83.7 in '06. In '14 it was 81.1

Peak absorption was 33.39 in '08. In '14 it 24.41.

CE

Colin England Sat 2 Sep 2017

Net emissions:

1990 = 31.6
2014 = 56.69

Absorption:

1990 = 28.93
2014 = 24.41

That's an increase an increase in emissions far greater than the decrease in absorption.

IA

idiom axiom Sat 2 Sep 2017

Emissions is no longer at its peak value. What does that tell you?

CE

Colin England Sat 2 Sep 2017

Not a hell of a lot as a single value does not make up information. We need to look at the trend and the trend from 1990 to now is up.

IA

idiom axiom Sun 3 Sep 2017

If the peak was in the past then the trend is down. How is this hard?

CE

Colin England Sun 3 Sep 2017

Because it's been rising again which means that the trend line needs to be from 1990 to now.

TF

Tāne Feary Fri 1 Sep 2017

The ETS is not effective. Treasury should fund a bold climate policy. NZ can invest in things like tidal energy. Climate minister should crowdsource a bold plan. Have an annual climate summit.

TF

Tāne Feary Sat 2 Sep 2017

100% clean energy and free public transport would = massive emissions reductions. Farming sector needs help to transition too.