Zero Carbon Bill consultation

The Government is seeking input on the Zero Carbon Bill before it is introduced to Parliament. This bill will set a target and mechanisms for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and create a ‘Climate Commission’ of experts to advise government on how to get there. It is a crucial piece of legislation for NZ to arrest its rising emissions and get on track to becoming a low and eventually net-zero carbon (greenhouse gas) economy. Low Carbon Kāpiti’s response is included below which you are welcome to use as a guide.

We encourage everyone to make a individual submission . The deadline is 19 July 2018. All background info and the full submission form can be found here:  http://www.mfe.govt.nz/have-your-say-zero-carbon

1. What process should the Government use to set a new emissions reduction target in legislation?

Options

1. (Not specified)
2. The Government sets a 2050 target in legislation now
3. The Government sets a goal to reach net zero emissions by the second half of the century and the Climate Change Commission advises on the specific target for the Government to set later

Recommended option: 2

This will give a clear signal to the country regarding the direction of travel, minimise delay and uncertainty, and avoid the need for secondary processes – e.g. an amendment bill. The third option does not advance or develop the agenda, given that New Zealand has already ratified the Paris Agreement. It will also give the Climate Commission a clear mandate and allow them to focus on the steps necessary to achieve the target.

2. If the Government sets a 2050 target now, which is the best target for New Zealand?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Net Zero Carbon Dioxide – Reducing net carbon dioxide emissions to zero by 2050
3. Net Zero Long-Lived Gases and Stabilised Short-Lived Gases – Long-lived gases to net zero by 2050 while also stabilising short-lived gases
4. Net Zero Emissions – Net zero emissions across all greenhouse gases by 2050

Recommended option: 4

Deep cuts are required in all greenhouse gases, and the potential of cuts in the emission of short-lived gases (methane) to reduce global temperatures is extremely useful, given how much global temperatures have already risen and are projected to rise. Furthermore there is no certainty about what the stabilisation target for short-lived gases would be and if, when and how these would be legislated for. This gap would slow down action, when it is already clear action on short-lived gases is a necessity, and the pace of action is critical to the associated costs and chances of success. Methane emissions can arise from non-biogenic sources, external to carbon cycle (e.g. leaks from the natural gas extraction and supply) and therefore are not ‘short-lived’ at all, so this weakens the case for special treatment in primary legislation.

3. How should New Zealand meet its targets?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Domestic emissions reductions only (including from new forest planting)
3. Domestic emissions reductions (including from new forest planting) and using some emissions reductions from overseas (international carbon units) that have strong environmental safeguards

Recommended option: 3, with caveats

The Climate Commission should be given responsibility to advise Government on the amount and type of international carbon units that should be allowed to be used by NZ-based emitters to meet their obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The objective should be that by 2050 there is no further reliance on international carbon units. Other parts of the world (e.g. developing countries) are likely to have a greater need for them.

4. Should the Zero Carbon Bill allow the 2050 target to be revised if circumstances change?

Options

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2, with caveats

There should be a mechanism to strengthen the target(s) if the Climate Commission advises it. There should not be a mechanism to weaken the target – an Act of Parliament can be used to do this if the government of the day is determined to do it. Note the UK’s legislated target of 80% by 2050, set in 2007, needs to be strengthened, and it will take an Act of Parliament to do so – when this will rise high enough on the political agenda to actually happen remains to be seen. Note also that the Paris Agreement requires parties to maintain or increase their pledged level of reductions (‘nationally determined contributions’) every five years – the so-called ‘ratcheting up’ mechanism.

5. The Government proposes that three emissions budgets of five years each (i.e. covering the next 15 years) be in place at any given time. Do you agree with this proposal?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2

6. Should the Government be able to alter the last emissions budget (i.e. furthest into the future)?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes – each incoming Government should have the option to review the third budget in the sequence
3. Yes – the third emissions budget should be able to be changed but only when the subsequent budget is set
4. No – emissions budgets should not be able to be changed

Recommended option: 2, with caveats

The Government should have the option of strengthening the third carbon budget, if advised to by the Climate Commission. Option 3 creates the moral hazard of weakening the third budget while giving the justification of strengthening the fourth. This process could be repeated indefinitely to delay substantial action, when early action is critical to following an emissions pathway consistent with stabilising global temperatures in line with the Paris Agreement.

7. Should the Government have the ability to review and adjust the second emissions budget within a specific range under exceptional circumstances?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2, with caveats

Government should have the option of strengthening the second emissions budget under exceptional circumstances – these circumstances might be a rapid global temperature rise and/or worsening of climate change impacts, or an improved understanding of the thresholds of climate feedback loops that would lead to this. Exceptional circumstances that might justify weakening the second emissions budget could be related to a recovery effort following a major natural disaster such as earthquake. However, in such circumstances there is likely to be legislation passed under urgency to deal with the situation, and changes to the second emissions budget could be included in that if necessary. Therefore including provisions within the Zero Carbon Act to allow for weakening the second emissions budget (or the 2050 target) are neither necessary nor desirable, given the potential for them to be misused.

8. Do you agree with the considerations we propose that the Government and the Climate Change Commission take into account when advising on and setting budgets? (See p44 Our Climate Your Say)

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2, with caveats

We support the stated considerations but the weighting of considerations needs to favour sufficient action – taking a goal-oriented approach and recommending action which is sufficient to meet it, rather than recommending what is easiest to achieve in the short-term.

9. Should the Zero Carbon Bill require Governments to set out plans within a certain timeframe to achieve the emissions budgets?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2

10. What are the most important issues for the Government to consider in setting plans to meet budgets? For example, who do we need to work with, what else needs to be considered.

Low Carbon Kāpiti response: Each action plan should be demonstrably adequate to meet the emissions budget and seek to mitigate uncertainties by reducing reliance on factors outside the government’s control (e.g. market forces relating to the availability and price of critical technologies). The plan needs to include and mobilise all those parties that can meaningfully contribute – local government, industry, businesses and communities.

11. The Government has proposed that the Climate Change Commission advises on and monitors New Zealand’s progress towards its goals. Do you agree with these functions? See p42 Our Climate Your Say

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2

12. What role do you think the Climate Change Commission should have in relation to the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS)?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Advising the Government on policy settings in the NZ ETS
3. Makes decisions itself in respect of the number of units available in the NZ ETS

Recommended option: 2

We would expect the number of units available in the ETS and the current carbon budget to be properly aligned by the Government. It should not be the responsibility of the Climate Commission to try and bring these into alignment, especially while other settings of the ETS remain outside of their control. Such a division of powers could create an unusual and potentially damaging dynamic between the Government and the Commission.

13. The Government has proposed that Climate Change Commissioners need to have a range of essential and desirable expertise. Do you agree with the proposed expertise? See p45 Our Climate Your Say.

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2

We note that if the Commission is given responsibility for adaptation, the number of commissioners appointed should be made sufficiently large so that between them they encompass all the expertise that is required. Given mitigation and adaptation are distinctly different disciplines, it is unlikely that there are many suitable people available who are qualified experts in both.

14. Do you think the Zero Carbon Bill should cover adapting to climate change?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2

It is expedient to include adaptation in the Bill and the Commission, rather than doing it all separately.

15. The Government has proposed a number of new functions to help us adapt to climate change. Do you agree with the proposed functions? See p47 Our Climate Your Say

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2

16. Should we explore setting up a targeted adaptation reporting power that could see some organisations share information on their exposure to climate change risks?

Options:

1. (Not specified)
2. Yes
3. No

Recommended option: 2, with caveats

The adaptation power should be used to collect the information needed for the national risk assessment and adaptation plan. It should be targeted in such a way as to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy and compliance costs – for example at large organisations (in particular those with critical public service functions such as utilities, food supply, transportation and health) and in relation to the most acute risks (inundation due to sea level rise and more extreme weather).

The Government should also consider obliging certain organisations to disclose not just their exposure to climate change impacts, but also their greenhouse gas emissions and liabilities. This would be their organisational greenhouse gas inventory, that they would be required to calculate to a recognised standard and publish on an annual basis.

Other comments:

The Zero Carbon Act should include a requirement that if the Government decides to deviate from or otherwise fails to follow the statutory advice provided by the Climate Commission, it must publicly provide a full explanation why. The Act should also set a timeframe by which the Government must publicly respond to the Commission’s advice.