There is a new Cabinet paper to read; "A Review of the Emissions Trading Scheme", 28 pages, by the Office of the Minister of Climate Change
What use is a Cabinet paper when the key policy options are redacted?
Last Wednesday 22 March 2023, the Ministry for the Environment announced yet another review of the My-Eyes-Glaze-Over New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme.
For some reason, I downloaded the Cabinet paper.
For some even more masochistic reason, I actually read all 28 pages.
It was largely a waste of time.
I can't even use the metaphor that the Cabinet paper was "rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic" as I have already used that title on a blog post on a past consultation on industrial allocation.
The first paragraph of the Cabinet paper tells us what the paper is about. So far so good.
"This paper seeks agreement to the scope and process of a review of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS). This review is in response to Cabinet’s decision to prioritise gross emissions reductions in New Zealand’s first emissions reduction plan (ERP), and Cabinet’s in-principle decision to at agree to the Climate Change Commission’s recommendations to strengthen the incentives for gross emissions reductions in the NZ ETS."
The fourth paragraph states;
"Enabling a just transition to a low-emissions, climate resilient future is a Government priority..."
Okay. I am all for a just transition. I'd like the transition to help those with low incomes instead of being corporate welfare for emissions intensive industry as in the case of the dreaded industrial allocation.
Back to the Cabinet paper. Who is being mean to the emissions trading scheme saying it needs more reform? It's the naughty He Pou a Rangi/Climate Change Commission. The Cabinet paper says in paragraph 50 that:
"In their 2021 advice, the Commission highlighted the risk that the NZ ETS would drive relatively low-cost net emission reductions through exotic forests, rather than gross emissions reductions needed to put us on track to net zero by 2050".
For emissions nerds who have tracked the emissions trading scheme since it's inception in 2007, this isn't just a future risk. It is exactly what has already happened in the 2008 to 2012 period of the Kyoto Protocol. Gross emissions rose in proportion to economic growth but "Net Kyoto" emissions (that included "afforestation and reforestation" sequestration credits that were not in the 1990 baseline) were less than the baseline.
This was before the fraudulent hot air emission units from Russia and Ukraine flooded into New Zealand. Here is Geoff Simmons in the Spinoff.
The Cabinet paper continues with a lot of background to the emissions trading scheme that is probably unnecessary. For example its not like Chris Hipkins would read that. He couldn't remember any details of other Cabinet papers where policies had consequences measurable in emissions.
Finally, I got to paragraph 79 on page 11. Maybe the officials who wrote the paper would finally mention where they see this reform proposal going. That would be new information. For example, what do the officials think are the possible high level options for amending the emissions trading scheme? Great, they are going to say what they think. Here is paragraph 79.
"However, in my view there is value in identifying some of the potential, high-level options Ministers may be presented as an output of the review. This will help give a sense of the kinds of options that could support balancing gross and net emissions reductions in the NZ ETS."
I turned the page expecting to be mildly enlightened. Okay that is sarcasm. It would have been nice to learn something new though.
This is paragraph 80. And 81 and 82.
Yes the potential, high-level options have been redacted! The whole point of downloading and reading the Cabinet paper was really to find out the possible options or new directions for dealing with known problems.
I kept plowing my way through the paper. Several pages are dedicated to the peculiarities of the inter-departmental 'process' to be followed. Remember the emissions trading scheme involves several government departments: principally Ministry for the Environment on policy, but also the Environmental Protection Authority for operating the emissions trading scheme, the Ministry for Primary Industries for foresty, MBIE for energy sector emissions and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for international climate agreements.
These departments interact in accordance with the their own perceptions of relevant interests. I add the observation that such interactions may not be in the direction of 'no more than 1.5C warming' or 'net zero carbon by 2050. The Cabinet paper leaves that unsaid.
However, such interactions are implicit as on page 14 paragraph 100, as the paper proposes some 'governance terms of reference' to presumably make the public servants play nicely.
I am reminded of the italian novelist Umberto Eco's explanation of the behaviour of the crusading Knights Templar religious order. The historic reality of knightly behaviour in the Holy lands was best understood by considering the order's offical commandments. For example, "thou shall not be drunk on a horse blaspheming the name of the Lord" was in fact the proof that such behaviour was the rule and not the exception.
So yes I am mildly interested in the 'governance terms of reference'. Here are the relevant paragraphs.
Yes the 'governance terms of reference' have been fucking redacted!
So I logged onto FYI.org.nz, the online transparent and open portal for requesting official information from public agencies. And I requested a complete copy of the Cabinet paper with all 26 redactions restored all their improbable glory. The 26 redactions are probably not earth-shatteringly egregious but the point of principle is - do there need to be any redactions if the Government is pursuing emissions policies consistently with their own professed value statement of a "just transition"?
I was so mad about that point that I started writing an email to Minister for Climate Change James Shaw asking him that exact question. The email turned into a three page letter. Oh well, push the send button, and try not to forget what the issue was when I finally get a reply after waiting a month or two for a reply. Of course, the same proviso applies to my Official Information Act request at FYI.org.nz. The Ministry may well extend the timeframe, or transfer the request to the Minister's office, or just ignore the timeframe - or a combination of all three.
Of course, in terms of climate change policy responses, we don't have time for this shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment