Dont forget to submit on the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

Submissions of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill can be made til the end of tomorrow via the New Zealand Parliament Pāremata Aotearoa

By far the best submission I have seen so far is the submission from Generation Zero. Its very good.

Here is my submission

Detailed comments and recommendations

I wish to start my submission with this point from ‘Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report’ which states:

"Reaching and sustaining net zero global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and declining net non-CO2 radiative forcing would halt anthropogenic global warming on multi-decadal time scales (high confidence). The maximum temperature reached is then determined by cumulative net global anthropogenic CO2 emissions up to the time of net zero CO2 emissions (high confidence) and the level of non-CO2 radiative forcing in the decades prior to the time that maximum temperatures are reached (medium confidence). On longer time scales, sustained net negative global anthropogenic CO2 emissions and/ or further reductions in non-CO2 radiative forcing may still be required to prevent further warming due to Earth system feedbacks and to reverse ocean acidification (medium confidence) and will be required to minimize sea level rise (high confidence)."

To me the IPCC 1.5°C Report makes it clear that while emissions of the greenhouse gas methane need not be reduced to zero emissions, they must nonetheless be significantly reduced in conjunction with net zero carbon dioxide emissions in order to halt warming and to prevent future warming. There is no credible argument grounded in science for methane to have either no target or a target of zero.

Purpose of the legislation

The purpose of the bill should be explicitly consistent with Paris Agreement 1.5C goal that New Zealand has agreed to via our ratification of that agreement. I do not think the suggested new subclause (aa) is sufficiently clear in stating the purpose of the bill.

In Section 3 amended (Purpose) of the bill, I request that before section 3(1)(a), sub-clause: (aa)

"provide a framework by which New Zealand can develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies that contribute to the global effort under the Paris Agreement to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels"

be replaced with:

"The purpose of the act is to;
a) to limit the global average temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius above pre- industrial levels; and
b) to provide a framework by which New Zealand can develop and implement clear and stable climate change policies that give effect to the Paris Agreement and
c) to establish finite cumulative greenhouse gas budgets for New Zealand that are an equitable and fair share of a global finite cumulative greenhouse gas budget consistent with limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and
d) to establish a 2050 net zero target and a series of five year emissions pathway budgets consistent with these purposes."

Inclusion of waste sector methane in the definition of biogenic methane

The draft bill in Section 4 amended (Interpretation) defines biogenic methane as:

"...all methane greenhouse gases produced from the agriculture and waste sectors (as those sectors are defined in the New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Inventory)".

The New Zealand annual greenhouse gas inventory records at least three sub- categories of methane; methane from enteric rumination, methane from agricultural soils and methane from the waste sector.

Waste sector emissions in 2017 were 95% methane, 4.12475 million tonnes and 5% of total gross emissions. These are significant quantities of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions.

Why is the waste sector methane included in the biogenic methane target? It's not sourced from agriculture. None of the advocates of the split-gas target, like David Frame or Simon Upton, made any arguments about waste sector methane.

Also, the Productivity Commission, in it's 2018 report "Low Emissions Economy" thought waste sector emissions could be feasibly reduced (See page 451 of their final report; "Waste also represents a major mitigation opportunity"). If waste methane can be better addressed by improved recording and pricing policies as the Productivity Commission stated then there is no reason why it should not be in the net emissions budgets/targets.

I request that the words "the agriculture and waste sectors" be replaced with "the agriculture sector" so that the waste sector methane is not included in the lesser biogenic methane target/budget.

Remove all options for importing of international emission units/carbon credits for use in meeting emissions budgets by offsetting

Section "5S Interpretation" mentions the term 'offshore mitigation'. This term is not defined but is part of the definition of net budget emissions. 'net budget emissions means gross emissions, offset by removals and offshore mitigation' By context from the following sections, 'offshore mitigation' actually means the importing of international emissions units from linked emissions trading schemes (should there be any willing to link to New Zealand's emissions trading scheme.

Section "5W How emissions budgets to be met" states;

(1) Emissions budgets must be met, as far as possible, through domestic emissions reductions and domestic removals.

Section 5X (1)(d) & (e) allow importing of international emission units ('offshore mitigation') to meet emissions budgets.

This is a graph of the NZ emissions unit price showing how the price crashed from over $20 to a few dollars due to the influx of fraudulent Russian and Ukrainian units as described in "Climate Cheats" (Young, P. and G Simmons (2016). "Climate Cheats How New Zealand is cheating on our climate change commitments, and what we can do to set it right" The Morgan Foundation, April 2016).

If a future New Zealand government allows international importing of units with the same negligence as the former 2008-2016 National Government, then another price collapse will be repeated. Emitters would increase absolute emissions due to the minimal price incentive to reduce them. That will delay reductions and therefore undermine one of the purposes of the bill - to provide long term certainty and clarity of the emissions budgets to the private sector. It would allow a less committed Government to defer real reductions in absolute emissions in favour of creative accounting with emissions units.

I request that all references to 'offshore mitigation' and the importing of international emissions units to meet emissions budgets be removed from the bill so that emissions reduction budgets require absolute reductions in domestic New Zealand emissions.

For example; Section "5W How emissions budgets to be met", amend subsection (1) from;

(1) Emissions budgets must be met, as far as possible, through domestic emissions reductions and domestic removals.

to;

(1) Emissions budgets shall be met through reductions in gross domestic emissions.

Remove all references to meeting emissions budgets by domestic offsetting via removals

Section "5S Interpretation" gives the definition of net budget emissions.

'net budget emissions means gross emissions, offset by removals and offshore mitigation'

In other sections, emissions budgets are to be stated in terms of 'net' emissions. In the NZ Greenhouse Gas Inventory, net emissions are defined as absolute (or gross) emissions less carbon dioxide removed or stored or sequestered by the sector called 'Land use, land use change and forestry' (LULUCF). These 'removals' are stored in commercial pine forests, protected native forests and soil. Under an (simplified) ideal form of emissions trading, all owners of forest would accrue valuable emissions units equal to the growth of carbon stock. An efficient market under a fixed cap or emissions budget, would set a price that incentivised sufficient foresters to sell units to industrial or other emitters to allow their absolute emissions exceed the net cap.

The Hon. Simon Upton, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, has reminded us that the original plan for the Kyoto Protocol and the NZ emissions trading scheme (where he played a role as a Minister) allowed New Zealand to use forestry credits to allow growth in absolute emissions for the 2008-2012 period (compared to a 1990 gross emissions baseline). These forestry credits would allow New Zealand to have 'form over substance' compliance with its Kyoto 2008-2012 zero growth goal, while absolute emissions increased. (In retrospect, New Zealand ended up with a multi-million unit 'surplus' of emissions units for the Kyoto Protocol period 2008-2012 made up mostly of the Russian/Ukrainian emissions units as well as the domestic forestry credits.)

Allowing absolute domestic emissions to be 'offset' in each emissions budget period by removals from the land use and forestry sector invites a less committed future government or Minister to tinker with emissions trading scheme settings and again allow absolute domestic emissions to increase in the short term. Also the scientific equivalence of fossil carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere with carbon stored in forestry is questionable. One fifth of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere stays for millennia with an accumulating climate forcing, but carbon stored in forests, particularly commercial rotation forests, is only stored for a harvest cycle which may be as short as 25 years for pinus radiata.

This domestic offsetting will also undermine one of the purposes of the bill - to provide long term certainty and clarity of the emissions budgets to the private sector.

I request that all references to net budgets and to meeting emissions budgets by domestic offsetting via domestic removals, be removed from the bill. And are replaced with separate emissions budgets for gross or absolute emissions and for removals/storage from the landuse, landuse change and forestry sectors.

Remove "banking and borrowing" provisions from "Section 5ZC Power to bank or borrow"

Section 5ZC "Power to bank or borrow" allows emissions budgets to be exceeded by either 'borrowing' emissions from future budgets to cover deficits or by carrying forward 'surpluses' from earlier budgets to cover deficits. This "banking and borrowing" option undermines one of the purposes of the bill - to provide long term certainty and clarity of the emissions budgets to the private sector. It would allow a less committed Government to defer real reductions in absolute emissions in favour of creative accounting with emissions units.

As the Morgan Foundation point out in their report "Climate Cheats" (Young & Simmons 2016) as how the National Government allowed the influx of low-priced fraudulent Russian and Ukrainian units into the NZ emissions trading scheme. I request that all references to banking and borrowing of units in Section 5ZC Power to bank or borrow and else where in the bill be deleted.

Make the Climate change committee an independent office of parliament

As some past governments have failed to enact either scientifically informed emissions targets or effective emissions reduction policies, I consider that the Climate change committee will inevitably at some stage have to give politically unpalatable advice to a recalcitrant future government. For that reason, the independence of the Climate change committee will not just be important but will be crucial. I request that the bill is amended to make the independent Climate change committee an office of parliament not an entity reporting to the Minister.

Remove S99 the secrecy clause from Climate Change Response Act

Clause 10 of the bill reads as follows:

Section 99 amended (Obligation to maintain confidentiality) (1) "After section 99(1)(a), insert: (ab) to the Climate Change Commission, in respect of the performance of its functions or exercise of its powers under Parts 1A to 1C; and..."

This appears an innocuous clause. It is not. Section 99 of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 is a secrecy provision. For the EPA's functions, the section ousts the jurisdiction of the Official Information Act 1982.

Several years ago I asked the EPA to provide me the number of emission units surrendered under the ETS by several large New Zealand companies. The EPA refused to provide that information. The Office of the Ombudsmen formally advised they had no jurisdiction to review the refusal decision under the Official Information Act 1982 because Section 99 ousted the jurisdiction of the OIA. This is in contrast to allocations of free emissions units to the same industries which are openly published on the EPA website.

Clause 10 therefore will prevent the application of the OIA to the climate change committee's powers under Parts 1A to 1C, from Section 5A to 5Z, meaning all sections of the bill describing the committee, emissions targets and budgets.

This is secrecy can be invoked which is not reviewable by the Office of the Ombudsman. This is entirely contrary to the principles of accountability, transparency and open government. It is the opposite of transparency accountability and fairness.

I request that the clause 10 of the bill be amended so that Section 99 is removed in it's entirety from the Climate Change Response Act 2002.

The emissions budget must include the "memo" gases recorded in the Greenhouse Gas Inventory but not "accounted for" as New Zealand's emissions

The Greenhouse Gas Inventory records emissions from international aviation fuel marine transport fuel and thermal biomass burning. But these emissions are not "accounted for" as New Zealand's emissions in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidelines. In 2017, emissions from these sources were 3.7 million tonnes, 0.9 million tonnes and 5.7 million tonnes.

The United Kingdom's Climate Change Act includes emissions from international aviation fuel and marine transport fuel and the UK Climate Change Committee includes these emissions in it's advice to government on emissions budgets.

I request that the definitions sections of the bill be rewritten to include emissions from international aviation fuel, marine transport fuel and biomass burning as defined in the Greenhouse Gas Inventory.

Delete Section "5ZJ Effect of failure to meet 2050 target and emissions budgets"

This section states that

"No remedy or relief is available for failure to meet the 2050 target or an emissions budget."

In other words, the emissions targets and budgets are not legally enforceable. Given the probability of a future Government of the centre-right being antithetical to 1.5 degrees Celsius policies, I think that the budgets and targets must be legally enforceable. I request that this section be either deleted or replaced with a clause that makes the targets and emissions budgets legally binding.

Section "5ZK 2050 target and emissions budget are permissive considerations"

I support deleting the second clause

"(2) However, a failure by any person or body to take the 2050 target, an emissions budget, or guidance issued under section 5ZL into account does not invalidate anything done by that person or body."

If the second clause is not removed, it has the effect of providing a perfect legal defence for decision-makers under other statutes, e.g. the RMA, ignoring the 2050 target when considering such activities such as coal extraction or airport expansion. Planning and infrastructure decision-making needs to be aligned with the 1.5 degree Celsius goal.

I request that the second clause of 5ZK "(2) However, a failure by any person or body to take the 2050 target, an emissions budget, or guidance issued under section 5ZL into account does not invalidate anything done by that person or body" be deleted.