Growing support for New Zealand’s ‘Zero Carbon’ goal

New Zealand is seriously working towards dealing with reducing carbon emissions.

As James Shaw has been touring the country consulting on his ambitions for getting New Zealand to ‘Carbon Zero’ (net emissions) by 2050, support for the goal in principle at least is growing, with both National leader Simon Bridges and farming leaders committing to work with the government towards achieving some sort of goal.

Bridges last month Speech to Fieldays on climate change. And:

Three days ago (Stuff): Farmers on zero carbon: let’s do this

In a symbolic show of unity, the Farming Leaders Group has published to joint editorial statement with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, published today by Stuff.

While the piece is described the zero carbon initiative as “a very ambitious and challenging target” and said questions remained about what it meant for food production, it makes commits to working to achieving the goal.

“Today, farming leaders with the support of the Government are stating their support for this goal and the agri-food sector playing its part in achieving it,” it reads.

“The farming sector and Government are committed to working together to achieve net zero emissions from agri-food production by 2050.”

While the Farming Leaders Group is new and describes itself as “informal”, its members are luminaries of the sector, including the leaders of Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ, Beef and Lamb, the Meat Industry Association, the Fonterra Shareholders Council and Irrigation NZ.

It also has representation from major private companies, the Federation of Maori Authorities and Agriculture Trade Envoy Mike Petersen.

Today from Stuff: What is the NZ Government’s Zero Carbon Bill and will it do anything?

New Zealand politicians have a complicated history with climate change.

There has been little in the way of US-style denialism, but the debate on what to do about it has been just as fiery.

That debate has led to a series of arguable half-measures – like an Emissions Trading Scheme that omits our largest emitter – and no certainty for the country on what we are going to do to reach the far-off targets we have signed up to.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw is trying to fix all this and depoliticise the issue  so that, long after his Government is gone, parties from the Left and Right can continue efforts to fight climate change without it becoming a political football. He wants to do that by setting up a completely new legal and institutional framework for climate policy, with a Zero Carbon Act and an independent Climate Change Commission. Here’s what that would actually mean.

What exactly is a Zero Carbon Act?

At its most simple, a Zero Carbon Act would set greenhouse gas emissions targets into law.

Greenhouse gases are the primary cause of human-influenced climate change. Long-lived gases like carbon dioxide are the big ones globally, but down here in New Zealand we also have to worry about short-lived gases like methane from cows.

The argument goes that actually setting these targets into real law will give businesses certainty about the direction of the country, so they can plan long-ahead without having to worry about a new government changing the rulebook from under them.

But it is complicated, politically, economically and environmentally.

This is an ambitious long term goal and it will take a lot of work top get all significant players on board and on track.

 

 

42 Comments

  1. PartisanZ

     /  July 4, 2018

    We should maybe get ambitious, long-term and “all pull in the same direction” on a whole bunch of issues and problems?

    We will do well to remember that the catalyst for this multilateral cooperation (thus far) has been a Labour-led government and their Green Party coalition partners …

  2. admiralvonspee

     /  July 4, 2018

    Look no further than the flailing Energiewende project in Germany, for a crystal ball gaze into the future of this climate change/renewable energy shambles. If you thought Big Oil was shady, they won’t hold a candle to what Big Green is about to unleash.

    • PartisanZ

       /  July 4, 2018

      Looked …. don’t see flailing … don’t see no crystal ball … only plenty of studies which seem to support this daring initiative …

      Please elaborate on “shady Big Green”?

      What’s “business as usual’s” crystal ball look like … Black, sooty and opaque?

      • admiralvonspee

         /  July 5, 2018

        From Germany’s own Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy:

        The Energiewende has the goal of making Germany independent of fossil fuels in the long term. Coal, oil and gas were to be phased out, allowing drastic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. However, these goals have not even begun to be achieved.

        The Energiewende was only driven forward in the electricity sector, which, accounts for only one-fifth of energy consumption. There were hardly any successes in the heating/cooling and transport sectors. And so carbon dioxide emissions in Germany have been rising since 2009, even though well over a hundred billion euros have been spent on the expansion of solar and wind energy over the same period.

        Source: https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2018/06/1.6._Kompendium-der-Energiewende_Englisch_.pdf

        So, pray tell, if zee Germans are STILL struggling to make a fist of this sustainable future, while simultaneously leading their own people down the garden path, what makes you think we can?

        • Griff

           /  July 5, 2018

          Nuclear
          Germany decided that it is to risky after Fukushima’s melt down.
          That’s why they have not done as well as they would have if they had not decided to wind down nuclear energy .
          But facts often get in the way of gibbering …EH

          GWPF
          A source of bullshit for the terminally stupid.

          what makes you think we can?
          NZ is already 85% carbon free when it comes to electricity.
          Transport will be mostly electric within two decades.
          Renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil fuel and still declining in cost .

          • admiralvonspee

             /  July 5, 2018

            On German wind farm subsidies…

            …in 2020, the funding for 5700 plants with a total installed capacity of 4500 megawatts (MW) expires. In the following years, it should be between 2000 and 3000 MW, for which the state subsidization is eliminated. The German Wind Energy Association estimates that by 2023 around 14,000 MW of installed capacity will lose production, which is more than a quarter of German wind power capacity on land. How many plants actually go off the grid depends on the future electricity price. If this remains as deep as it is today, more plants could be shut down than newly built.

            Src: https://bazonline.ch/ausland/europa/abbruchstimmung-in-deutschland/story/18862585

            Ouch.

          • admiralvonspee

             /  July 5, 2018

            Renewable energy is already cheaper than fossil fuel and still declining in cost .

            No need for subsidies then….riiiiiiiiight?

          • admiralvonspee

             /  July 5, 2018

            Transport will be mostly electric within two decades.

            Two pertinent questions:

            1) Is there a second-life market for lithium-ion EV batteries?
            2) Are there any economic incentives to recycling EV batteries?

            If the answer to both is no, then consider the Zero Carbon goal dead in the water.

            PS. If the findings of the IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute on lithium-ion battery production emissions (excludes raw material mining) is accurate (150-200 kg of CO2 equivalents generated for every kilowatt the battery stores) then “mostly electric in two decades” is debatable. (Source: http://www.ivl.se/download/18.5922281715bdaebede9559/1496046218976/C243%2BThe%2Blife%2Bcycle%2Benergy%2Bconsumption%2Band%2BCO2%2Bemissions%2Bfrom%2Blithium%2Bion%2Bbatteries%2B.pdf)

            • Griff

               /  July 5, 2018

              ROFL
              More bullshit sourced from the gwpf.

              A typical petrol passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Even for a Tesla P100D thats less than 5 years at your highest number before the electric car is cleaner.
              As a P100D is a large performance sedan a typical car would be far less .

              1) Is there a second-life market for lithium-ion EV batteries?
              Try buying one.
              . Even In NZ we already have an industry recycling electric car batteries .
              In about eight years my 20.4 kwh lead acid battery bank will expire.
              I fully expect to replace them with ex car lithium units.

              2) Are there any economic incentives to recycling EV batteries?

              yip even if totally dead the metals they contain have a value.

              https://auto.howstuffworks.com/can-electric-car-batteries-be-recycled.htm

            • admiralvonspee

               /  July 5, 2018

              Even In NZ we already have an industry recycling electric car batteries

              There is a difference between being able to do something and it making economic sense.

              yip even if totally dead the metals they contain have a value.

              From: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/10/electric-cars-big-battery-waste-problem-lithium-recycling

              Francisco Carranza, energy services MD at Nissan, says the fundamental problem is that while the cost of fully recycling a battery is falling toward €1 per kilo, the value of the raw materials that can be reclaimed is only a third of that.

              That’s a strange incentive…spend more to extract less. Quids in!

            • Griff

               /  July 5, 2018

              Economy of scale.
              The more you do the cheaper it gets.
              As we presently only have 3,000,000 electric cars globally most of which are less than two years old* is there any wonder that recycling is not yet happening in economic quantity’s.

              I also note you ignored the fact that your link also says that batteries can be reused for storage
              Funny that you are looking for any way to attack electric cars even if your links contradicts your previous position.

              A ICE car uses heaps of stuff that is not recycled.
              Used spark plugs to cam belts most goes straight to land full.
              I dont see you worrying about that waste.

              *The number of electric cars is growing at over 60% a year

            • admiralvonspee

               /  July 6, 2018

              Economy of scale.
              The more you do the cheaper it gets.

              Sure, if there’s enough value capture in the business model. For lithium-ion the challenge is materials-related not economies of scale.

              I also note you ignored the fact that your link also says that batteries can be reused for storage

              I know they can be used for storage, the issue is economic incentive, cost and reliability, especially around factors like disaster recovery. Just because they can be used in such a way doesn’t mean there’s a market for it.

              Funny that you are looking for any way to attack electric cars even if your links contradicts your previous position.

              Quite the contrary. I’m simply pointing out the real issues that people tend to gloss over, having fallen for the romance of EV promises.

              A ICE car uses heaps of stuff that is not recycled.
              Used spark plugs to cam belts most goes straight to land full.
              I dont see you worrying about that waste.

              Of course they do and as above – I’m just pointing out the inconvenient truths of EVs which gets glossed over far too frequently in these discussions.

            • Griff

               /  July 6, 2018

              Google it mate.
              I cant be smegged wasting my band width doing it for you.
              Nissan has solar street lights based on used batteries.
              Renault and BMW have just built grid scale storage systems based on used ev batteries.
              Drive past a marina every one of those boats has heavy expensive lead acid deep cycle batteries that last only a few years and can only be cycled 50% same goes for motor homes. . Tesla just signed a contract for a 1gwh grid connected storage system . The market for electricity storage is huge and the cost of present technology high. Used ex EV electricity storage already has a ready market.

  3. Zedd

     /  July 4, 2018

    Natl agreeing on Climate Change reduction targets; dont make me laugh.. Im guessing most are still CC deniers.. 100% pure B-S & politicking from ‘team Bridges’ sez I 😦

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  July 4, 2018

      People who don’t believe that we can change the weather and climate when this is cyclical are not deniers of climate change itself.

  4. Griff

     /  July 4, 2018

    Fossil Fuels Are Likely To Go Bust Regardless Of Climate Action

    Wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles are getting cheaper and more abundant by the day, which is hurting demand for coal, oil and natural gas. As demand falls for conventional fuels, so will prices. Companies that laid claim to coal mines or oil wells, won’t be able to turn a profit by digging up that fuel. They will default on their loans, pushing banks to the brink of failure. Prices are likely to crash before 2035, costing the global economy as much as $4 trillion, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
    ……….
    As with everything, there will be winners and losers. Countries that import large volumes of fossil fuels — namely China, Japan and much of Europe — would likely be better off, having transitioned to cheap, renewable power and electric cars. They would likely also be spending more money on clean technology produced at home and sending less money to fossil fuel producers overseas.

    On the other hand, countries that produce and export a lot of oil, coal or gas — namely the United States, Canada, Russia and much of the Middle East — would face economic upheaval. Canadian tar sands and American shale oil operations, which produce the most expensive oil, would be hardest hit. Middle Eastern countries, which produce the cheapest oil, would likely fare best. Mercure expects OPEC countries would meet most of the remaining demand for oil.
    ……
    Viñuales laid out five goals for investors and policymakers. “First, don’t invest more resources in fossils,” he said. “Second, if you have fossil fuels already invested, try to divest them, at least significantly. Third, if you’re a fossil fuel company, try to diversify as much as you can while you’re still alive. Fourth, if you’re a policymaker, don’t adopt policies that are conducive to more investment in fossil fuels, because that is going to be bad for your country. Fifth, if you are in the geopolitical game, you have to consider what could happen to you.”

    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/03/fossil-fuels-are-likely-to-go-bust-regardless-of-climate-action/

    • Grimm

       /  July 4, 2018

      “Wind turbines, solar panels and electric vehicles are getting cheaper and more abundant by the day, which is hurting demand for coal, oil and natural gas”

      Actually, none of that is true. Makes the rest of your post tldr.

      Coal is back to being Australias biggest export earner. Oil and gas demand has never been higher.

      In the mean time the carbon footprint of electric cars is bigger than petrol cars in their lifetime, whilst they are destroying third world environments mining the resources for them.

      Now that China is backing away from solar subsidies, the industry is collapsing everywhere.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 4, 2018

      It’s a bold claim to make as the use of Oil, Gas and Coal are all still increasing year on year world wide and fossil fuel power plants are going up as fast as ever.

      I’m sure there will be a point when technology catches up and energy storage issues are resolved, but the Tesla-esque over promising and under-delivering on clean energy will continue for some time yet.

  5. Kitty Catkin

     /  July 4, 2018

    Unless James Shaw is walking or biking around, he is all hui and no do-ey.

    • Grimm

       /  July 4, 2018

      And that’s the entire issue in a nutshell.

      I think that some sort of AGW is very likely. But there’s a huge amount of conflicting evidence that gets written off by the “liberal” need to shout down anything that doesn’t fit the brainwashing. So it’s easy to conclude it’s just a political leverage tool.

      Back to your point, hundreds of millions has been spent sending thousands of folk to expensive places for talk fests in the last 20 years, and what effect has it had on C02 emmission? ZERO. Of all the countries that signed up to Paris, how many of them have actually done anything meaningful about C02 emissions? NONE. Well. maybe Merica, but, you know, Trump.

      So, none of the leaders on this so called global crises are doing anything meangful in their own lives, but we all should. We should all ride bikes, but they will have private jets and limos. Its classic socialism.

      #walkaway

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 4, 2018

        I know someone who says that the Greens would like us all to have Fred Flintstone cars 😀

        I wonder how many of The Greens have done anything like make a house from tyres ? They make great houses, reuse the tyre mountains and save new raw materials.

        I wonder (tangent) if the heavy rubber mats from India are made from tyres. They feel like it. If so, why can’t NZ do this ?

        It was very disillusioning to see that Lenin, whose original modest room/s I have photos of in a book of Russian houses ended up with his own fleet of (Rolls Royces ? ) and lived as he condemned the aristos for living.

        The comrade class can kiss my arse, I’ve got the leader’s job at last.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 4, 2018

        I saw some people proudly using painted card shapes instead of balloons in an anti-plastic move. One small flaw in their smug belief that they were cuttng down plastic use; balloons are not made of it. Ordinary ones, anyway, those foil monstrosities are.

        I’d guess that the cardboard shapes were cut with scissors with plastic handles, painted with paintbrushes ditto and painted with paint in plastic containers or with plastic lids.

      • PartisanZ

         /  July 5, 2018

        @Grimm – “And that’s the entire issue in a nutshell.”

        Wrong: That’s the entire NUT in a ‘(tortoise)shell issue’ …

    • PartisanZ

       /  July 5, 2018

      It’s hard to find your perfect human being Miss Kitty …

      “Unless James Shaw is walking or biking around, he is all hui and no do-ey.”

      The obverse of this ‘self-justifying ignoramus, highest-order bullshit’ is: If I don’t want to or can’t do it perfectly I can escape any responsibility at all.

      How does that apply, for instance, to parenting?

      In fact, would you care to make a list of ANYTHING it DOES apply to?

      Lots of professions, like an ethical environmentalist – an anti-violence campaigner – there are countless of them – a cancer researcher – should be trying to do themselves out of a job … but to expect them not to use the technology of the day to do so is to renounce thought …

      Pigeon Post anyone?

      • Grimm

         /  July 5, 2018

        Cancer researchers aren’t smoking cigarettes.

        All of the household names in AGW have got rich from it. As has James Shaw. All of them are hypocrites. All of them have a vested interest in the rest of us paying into their slush funds.

        • PartisanZ

           /  July 5, 2018

          Some individual researchers probably do smoke … and some, perhaps many cancer researchers are trying to create a drug or pill to cure cancer so we can go on poisoning the environment and our bodies, creating a external & internal cancerous environment using everything from Roundup to food additives to MacDonalds …

          MacDonald’s pay their guilt money back into society, don’t they?

          Try searching: Cancer research funded by tobacco companies …

          FFS, the neoliberal paradigm has made everyone into a hypocrite …

          Do you seriously think the big money trader ShonKey and his cronies AREN’T hypocrites?

          So the point becomes: What is the ultimate goal or outcome of any hypocrite’s actions?

          • Grimm

             /  July 5, 2018

            Adding “neoliberal” to every post is redundant, we get it, Roger Douglas is your father.

            Your point about hypocrisy is well made, don’t need the neo liberal gibberish.

            The difference with the AGW/Green Industrial Complex, is that they are demanding Trillions of dollars in wealth transfer via policy prescriptions that are based on “science” that is constantly being challenged (by scientists), and not even close to being “settled” …as if that’s even a thing in science.

            Closer to home, the current plantation owners in Labour and the Greens, are wanting to lead the world in mitigation policy. It’s all a waste of time and money, because none of it will make difference, so can only be virtue signalling. At our cost.

            If it’s real, the scarce resources we have need to be spent on adaptation.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 5, 2018

              There is no connection or relevancy to being a parent. James Shaw doesn’t drive because he disapproves of fossil fuel blah blah blah.

              I see no difference ethically between going in someone else’s car and going in one’s own car, or between driving and being driven. The petrol is not less consumed, nor is the oil. What does his stance prove ? He uses fuel anyway.

            • PartisanZ

               /  July 5, 2018

              There’s nothing wrong with calling the ruling paradigm by the ruling paradigm’s name …

              Pseudo-neoliberalism would be a better description …

              And its changing … We won’t have to use the term for that much longer.

  6. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 4, 2018

    What on earth does setting a target into law mean? I suspect it means giving some bureaucrats carte blanche to issue and enforce any regulations they like in supposed pursuit of that target. Which in turn means NZ will be poorer.

  7. Kitty Catkin

     /  July 4, 2018

    James Shaw is doing his bit by not having a driver’s license or owning a car, so that he doesn’t have driving on his conscience.

    • PartisanZ

       /  July 5, 2018

      It’s sort of like an ethical dumb-dumb bullet …

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  July 5, 2018

        More like an unethical own goal than a dumdum bullet, I’d say.

        • PartisanZ

           /  July 5, 2018

          I mean the blanks that you’re firing Miss Kitty … dumb-dumb …

          Explained better further up this topic … “self-justifying ignoramus highest-order bullshit” …

          Let the perfect politician, let alone human being, please step forward …

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  July 5, 2018

            I said nothing about anyone being perfect. But to decry the use of fossil fuels and not hold a driver’s license on principle while allowing other people to drive you is hypocritical. I can’t see how it’s any more virtuous to travel in a car as a passenger than it is to drive one. The fuel consumption is the same.

            I won’t buy Twinings’ tea because of their human rights’ abuses. If I gave someone the money and had them buy it for me, wouldn’t that make me a hypocrite ?

            The bullets are dumdums, I think.

            • PartisanZ

               /  July 5, 2018

              Yes, you’re expecting James Shaw to be perfectly non-fossil fuels in a fossil fuel world …

              What about the people who can’t afford Twinings or any other ‘branded’ tea … They have to buy Value or Budget … and forget the human rights abuses …

              Do you buy Ecuador or Bonita bananas?

              Is Don Brash perfectly tolerant of ‘racial difference’ in a world of racial difference?

              The answer is resoundingly no. Don Brash is racist in a world of racial difference.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 5, 2018

              I don’t expect him to be, but he shouldn’t act as if not owning a car himself makes him less of a consumer of them when he uses as much as anyone else and more than most.

              Don Brash is not racist. I know him. He is not remotely racist.

              He was married to a Chinese woman, remember ?

            • PartisanZ

               /  July 5, 2018

              He fronts and belongs to anti-Maori race-fear-and-hatred groups Miss Kitty … That makes him a racist …

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  July 6, 2018

              What slanderous rubbish. Prove it !

  8. PartisanZ

     /  July 6, 2018

    In answer to ________’s challenge about Muriel Newman and Don Brash’s use of the term “daughter-slaughter”. There’s an old saying Mr Parker, “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck: It’s a duck”

    If a person clearly displays their name on a race-fear-and-hatred website – Kiwi Frontline – and links their organisation’s website to it, as Newman does NZCPR directly, and Brash Hobson’s Pledge by ‘celebrity transfer’ – they ascribe to Kiwi Frontline’s terminology, give it credence, support and affirmation.

    The Kiwi Frontline website has as one of its ‘a10 Enlightenments’ pages a page entitled ‘Female Infanticide’, headed-up by a graph supplied by yet another race-fear-and-hatred group, John Ansell’s Treatygate, purporting to show that “Maori holocaust against Maori” and “Daughter-Slaughter” were the sole reasons for Maori population decline 1800 – 1900. Dr. John Robinson is responsible for the ensuing article. He’s not a medical doctor. No mention of European introduced diseases.

    The words “daughter-slaughter” are there in plain sight, in the public domain. Newman and Brash assent by membership and association. They might as well say it themselves. It’s a duck.

    This despicable term arises again on ‘a10 Introduced Diseases’ – the obvious rejoinder – which states, “only 13,000 maori deaths between 1801 and 1840 were by disease and other causes” – how would anyone know? – and “Dr John Robinson states in his book ‘When Two Cultures Meet’ that if maoris had not of practised daughter slaughter then the breeding stock would have been sufficient to withstand the ravages of war and disease.”

    I call this a racial insult, plain and simple; therefore racist. By-the-bye it’s an insult to my and arguably anyone’s intelligence too.

  1. Growing support for New Zealand’s ‘Zero Carbon’ goal — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition