Greens have long been big on ideal but absent on credible costings for their policies. Until now they have not had to actually cost and budget for policies. Now they are in Government the cost of their primary policy, net carbon zero by 2050, gets important.
But does anyone have any idea what it will cost?
Some called (Stuff September 2017): What a zero carbon act means for New Zealand
HOW MUCH MIGHT IT COST?
The effects of runaway climate change will damage our economy much more than taking steps to reduce emissions. By joining the Paris Agreement, we’ve already committed to being part of the global transition to net zero emissions.
The zero carbon act will require the Government to set out a fair, sustainable and cost-efficient pathway for New Zealand to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. What will really cost is delay – delay in reducing our emissions, and in dealing with impacts of climate change that are already on our doorstep.
The longer we continue on our current path of emission growth, the more we lock in bad investments that will become stranded assets tomorrow. A smooth, well-managed transition is in New Zealand’s best interests – otherwise we’ll be forced to make a costly and abrupt transition later.
Insurers and local councils are also ringing the alarm bells that we need to get serious about adapting to climate impacts like sea level rise now. The longer we wait, the more risk and the more cost we are creating for ourselves.
That is alarmingly vague. There is no attempt whatsoever to cost the policy.
The author Leith Huffadine reveals in the article: . “We [Generation Zero]…”. Greens credited Generation Zero for the formation of the policy.
The Spinoff (May 2018): NZ has pledged zero carbon by 2050. How on earth can we get there?
The word ‘cost’ appears just twice in that.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s (BNEF) lithium-ion battery price index shows a fall from US$1,000 per kWh in 2010 to US$209 per kWh in 2017. This fantastic cost decline is a cause for celebration.
And:
Solar and wind offer a comparatively low-cost pathway to reduce emissions in most countries that currently have a high share of coal and gas-fired generation, but how we plug the gap between 95% and 100% in New Zealand isn’t obvious yet.
that was written by Briony Bennett: B.A. Political Studies, B.Sc. Physics, Mathematics, member of the Green Party, “I am for energy that is safer, cheaper and greener.”
What also isn’t obvious to me is how much extra electricity generation we will need if all our cars, trains, buses and trucks are run by battery (which need electricity to charge them). Important things like this don’t seem to have been quantified, or even estimated.
Earlier this month – Zero carbon: Policy meets science
For example, economics.
If “no further climate action is taken”, the per household national income will increase by about 55 per cent by 2050, models show.
No indication of what models show this.
If the the bill passes as roughly signalled, per household national income will increase by about 40 per cent, the same models show.
That’s a significant loss of economic activity and many have pointed out that New Zealand’s contribution to greenhouse gases is less than 2 per cent of global emissions.
Far less than 2% (actually less than 0.2%) according to New Zealand’s Environmental Indicators:
China produced 26 percent of global GHG (green house gas) emissions, nearly twice as much as the next- highest producer, the United States. New Zealand contributed 0.17 percent.
Today at Stuff: Zero-carbon economy may not be worth the cost
Before we decide if a zero-carbon economy by 2050 is worth the cost, we must know what the damage to our economy from global warming will be if we do nothing. Only then will we know how important and urgent action on global warming really is.
Estimates of the cost of global warming as a percentage of GDP to New Zealand are elusive. I drew a nil response when I asked for that information from James Shaw, the Minister for Climate Change, and from the Ministry for the Environment. Both said such an estimate was too hard to calculate.
Too hard to calculate?
Fortunately, the OECD rose to the challenge in its 2015 report on The Economic Consequences of Climate Change. The OECD estimated the cost of global warming to New Zealand and Australia between now and 2060 was a reduction of 0.9 per cent in their GDPs.
No details on that. And that doesn’t look at the cost of doing what will be required to get to zero-carbon by 2050.
James Shaw must come clean
It is time for the Government to fund an estimate of the cost of global warming to New Zealand.
Author Jim Rose (‘an economic consultant in Wellington‘) seems fairly negative about doing anything at all, but it’s more than fair to ask what it all could cost. there’s a lot of variables and unknowns, but surely there should be some estimates.
There are certainly risks of not doing anything, and also risks of spending a lot of money trying to do something.
I find the lack of information about possible costs quite alarming.