The Kyoto New Zealand break-up - when unfaithful New Zealand said 'commitment' he never meant it

In this post I argue the best analogy for New Zealand's choice to opt out of a second commitment period (of reducing emissions) under the Kyoto Protocol - is: unfaithful men who won't commit to their partners!

New Zealand governments have behaved faithlessly towards Kyoto. The current National Government under Climate Minister Tim Groser won't commit to the Kyoto Protocol stage 2. And the 1990s National Government gave a commitment they had no intention of being faithful to. New Zealand politicians and diplomats intentionally negotiated the Kyoto Protocol so that New Zealand's Kyoto target would be met without reducing either gross or net emissions of greenhouse gases

I have argued before that New Zealand did not sign the Kyoto Protocol in good faith. As we seem unable to commit to Kyoto stage 2 in good faith, I have had another look at how faithful New Zealand's position was right from the the beginnings of Kyoto Protocol negotiations and at ratification in 2002.

According to a UNFCCC account of the Kyoto negotiations 'Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History' on page 48;

"New Zealand was the only Party which made an early, more comprehensive proposal on the treatment of sinks, suggesting that sequestration of greenhouse gases from certain listed categories should be added to a Party's emission budget" (paragraph 226)

"New Zealand...faxed through a proposal for the treatment of sinks...sinks would not be included in a Party's baseline, but removals would be credited to a Party's budget (the so-called 'gross-net' approach)." (para 227)

(NB 'Sinks' meaning forests or land-use or land-use-change that sequesters carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So the New Zealand diplomats were 'ahead of the curve' in negotiating to get forest sinks recognised so they could offset other emissions.)

In October 1997,three weeks before the UNFCCC meeting in Kyoto, Simon Upton, the Minister for the Environment in Jim Bolger's National Government said in a speech:

"New Zealand has long been advocating" for Kyoto rules where "removing carbon from the atmosphere in future years will earn us credits"

Let's look at the advice the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade gave the government in February 2002, prior to New Zealand ratifying Kyoto that year. It was in a document called National Interest Analyses - Kyoto Protocol Part II

"New Zealand has an initial assigned amount for the first commitment period currently estimated to be 365 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent. That is, New Zealand is allowed to emit 365 Mt of carbon dioxide (or equivalent in other gases) over the years 2008 to 2012...New Zealand is expected to emit between 50 and 75 million tonnes over its 365 Mt initial assigned amount during the commitment period...."
"Current estimates are that, during the commitment period: New Zealand will emit between 415 million and 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, and New Zealand sink activities (derived from forests planted from 1990 onwards) will provide an additional 110 million units of assigned amount, in the form of removal units."
"At a national level, New Zealand is therefore expected to have a surplus of assigned amount over emissions of between 35 and 60 million units over the five years of the first commitment period."

So the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were saying:

1. New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions would increase (not reduce) through to 2012.
2. New Zealand would meet its Kyoto target by issuing itself additional forest sink removal units.
3. New Zealand would make an economic gain from having a surplus of emission units.

So New Zealand would meet a 'trifecta' of Kyoto-related goals, none of which were reduced gross or net emissions.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were especially proud of that last point, making a profit.

"New Zealand’s effectiveness in climate change negotiations means it is one of the few developed countries that stands to make a small net economic gain from the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period."

So what would the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's predicted increased emissions and forest removal units look like on a chart? Assuming the maximum 75 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases is represented by a linear increase of 0.94% p.a. from a base of 73 million tonnes in 1990, and the forest removal units are issued equally over 2008 to 2012, it looks like this.

This is what 'gross-net Kyoto accounting' of emissions and emission units looks like. From 1990 to 2007, gross (or total emissions - blue dots) are the same as "Kyoto" emissions (the red dots). However, from 2008, you get the "Kyoto" emissions by subtracting carbon dioxide removed by 'human induced afforestation, reforestation and deforestation' (the violet dots) from the gross emissions. And the red dot Kyoto emissions suddenly dive under the 1990 baseline, even though both net and gross emissions have increased.

Except for the straight line, which is from my linear growth assumption, that looks very much like the current gross, net and Kyoto emissions, which I update below in a brand new animated 'Kyoto Escalator' chart

It's interesting to note that in the Ministry for the Environment's November 2012 calculation of the net Kyoto Protocol position, that although the ministry predicts a surplus of units (exceeding the target), this will happen in spite of an estimated 80% increase in annual net emissions since 1990 and a 27% increase in gross emissions. The actual gross and net emissions to 2010 have grown by 19% and 59% respectively, as shown in this chart

This is why whenever we hear Tim Groser or Nick Smith claim the New Zealand is meeting it's Kyoto target, we need to realise they are being the ultimate uncommitted unfaithful partner; in spite of their smooth rhetoric of caring about global warming, New Zealand's gross and net greenhouse emissions are showing an increasing trend. New Zealand needs to adopt policies that really do just stop emissions.

NB The original meme is Kyoto New Zealand break-up and all the images are at Picasa at Kyoto's Break-up with New Zealand where they can be viewed as a slide show. Feel free to use them and make up some more.

Nick Smith blows hot gas for more global warming

What has happened to the hon Dr Nick Smith? The former Minister of Climate Change Issues, A while back he resigned from all his ministerial offices when his conflict of interest in the ACC case of his National-insider friend Brownyn Pullar became public.

Well Nick Smith is back and is promoting the extraction of unconventional gas via hydraulic fracturing.

Smith has written an op-ed in the NZ Herald Fracking the sensible choice for NZ.

Fracking technologies are underpinning an energy revolution in the United States. Huge unconventional shale gas resources in Louisiana and Pennsylvania are coming on stream, enabling gas to replace coal-fired electricity generation. Gas emits one-third the greenhouse gas emissions of coal.

So, according to Smith, from a global warming perspective, unconventional gas is implicitly okay as its emits one-third the greenhouse gas emissions of coal.

Smith concludes that NZ needs;

a strong economy and a clean environment. That will only be possible if we take a rational and science-based approach to our natural resources and risk management.

But promoting unconventional gas development is not the climate science based approach.

Thats abundantly clear from James Hansen's speaking tour of New Zealand in 2011. Did Smith miss these?

Kharecha and Hansen, in their 2008 paper Implications of "peak oil" for atmospheric CO2 and climate. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 22, GB3012, doi:10.1029/2007GB003142, have clearly told us that we can only keep carbon dioxide concentrations from exceeding about 450 ppm by 2100, if emissions from coal, unconventional fossil fuels, and land use are constrained.

The specific issue of whether a transition to conventional natural gas will actually reduce future greenhouse gas emissions is dealt with in Myhrvold and Caldeira (2012) Greenhouse gases, climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity.

The Carnegie Institute explains Caldeira and Myhrvold's conclusion; Only the lowest CO2 emitting technologies can avoid a hot end-of-century.

..in the case of natural gas—increasingly the power industry’s fuel of choice, because gas reserves have been growing and prices have been falling—the study finds that warming would continue even if over the next 40 years every coal-fired power plant in the world were replaced with a gas-fueled plant.

As Joe Romm says natural gas is a bridge to nowhere

Nick Smith fails the smelter spin test

What does The Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for Climate Change Issues, say when the Green Party accuses him of subsidising greenhouse gas polluters.

Well it seems he denies it and he produces instructive soundbites of spin. I am informed that at Wellington's Oxfam election and climate change debate he said that the New Zealand Aluminium Smelter Limited's operation at Tiwai Point is the only aluminium smelter in the world exposed to a carbon price.

He has said this soundbite a few times. For example, in response to Kennedy Graham on 29 September 2011:

"..the aluminium smelter in Bluff is the only aluminium smelter in the world to face any price at all for its greenhouse gas emissions".

On TV One's 'Q and A' programme:

"the New Zealand Aluminium Smelter in Bluff, it is the only one in the world that pays any face at all for carbon pricing." (1)

In Parliament in September 2009,

"...the Bluff smelter, on 1 July next year, will be the very first to face a carbon price for its pollution. The European scheme excludes aluminium smelters until 2013..."

Does Dr Nick's soundbite stand up to scrutiny? The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, which started in 2005, excludes the European aluminium smelters until 2013. But it included electricity generation from 2005. And aluminium smelting is very electricity intensive. As the International Energy Agency says: "Although the primary aluminium sector is not directly covered by the (EU) ETS, the impacts of the CO2 price are felt through increases in electricity prices" (p 8). (2)

Another example of a Smith soundbite is saying that the overly-generous free allocation of emissions units to industry in the NZ emissions trading scheme is not a cost to the taxpayer. For example: Parliament on 29 September 2011:

"This member and other members make the gross error of trying to claim that not exposing industries or consumers to the full price of carbon over all their emissions is somehow a subsidy. A subsidy implies that there is a cost to taxpayers. That is not true.."

Unfortunately for Dr Nick, that's not what the Auditor General, Lynn Provost, says in her accounting and auditing advice for emissions units in the public sector

"NZUs have a market value and the issue of NZUs without charge to participants is an expense to the Government and creates a liability".

Sorry Dr Smith, the Tiwai Point smelter is not the only aluminium smelter exposed to a carbon price in an emissions trading scheme. And the European smelters probably pay a higher carbon price through their electricity costs as the Tiwai Point smelter owner is compensated for electricity costs as well as emissions through excessive free allocation of emissions units.

Sorry Dr Smith, you can't just create and give away a permit to emit greenhouse gases that has a clear market value and say there is no cost to taxpayers as Treasury did not write out a cheque. The Auditor General says there is a cost to taxpayers of giving emissions units away to emitters.

Footnotes
(1) NB By 'pay any face' I think he means 'face any price'.)
(2) IEA, 2008,'Climate Policy and Carbon Leakage - Impacts of the European Emissions Trading Scheme on Aluminium'

150% Pure Subsidy: the NZETS gives Rio Tinto Alcan NZ more emissions units than its emissions

Last week, (back on 29 September 2011 actually), Green MP Kennedy Graham was questioning Climate Change Issues Minister Nick Smith over his apparent lack of consistency over subsidies for fossil fuel industries.

Kennedy Graham was wondering why former Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith and Climate Change and Trade Negotiations Minister Tim Groser were happy on the one hand to oppose billion dollar subsidies to fossil fuel industries on the international stage, while on the other hand have the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme include subsidies in the form of generous free allocation of emissions units to big industrial emitters of GHGs.

The Hon Dr Nick Smith replied:

"...this Government is not providing subsidies to greenhouse gas polluters. I remind the member that we are the only country outside the EU to have an emissions trading scheme. Our aluminium smelter in Bluff is the only aluminium smelter in the world to face any price at all for its greenhouse gas emissions".

Lets examine this assertion in two parts; that the Tiwai Point Aluminum Smelter, receives no subsidies from Government and it faces a carbon/GHG price.

A brief recap, Tiwai Point Aluminum Smelter at Bluff, out on the edge of Foveaux Strait near Invercargill, is operated by NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited, which in turn is owned by Rio Tinto Alcan NZ Limited, a subsidiary of Canadian multinational Rio Tinto Alcan.

NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited has received an allocation of free emissions units under the NZ ETS. That is clear from that un-labelled pie chart I have been banging on about. The chart shows that iron, steel and aluminium production are to receive 40% of all free industrial allocation of emissions units.

However, we don't need to do any guessing as the Ministry for the Environment has just released an analysis of how many free emissions units were allocated to whom under industrial allocation for the half-year compliance period 1 July to 31 December 2010.

NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited received 210,421 NZ emission units or 12% of the total allocated of 1.77 million units. By the way, only New Zealand Steel, the operator of the Glenbrook Steel Mill, received more units. They got 494,704 units.

How does this allocation of free emissions units compare with the number of emissions units that would need to be surrendered? Is the allocation more or less than the number of units surrendered?

With a bit of ferreting, I have found enough data to make some back-of-envelope-but-on spreadsheet calculations. Here are the inputs and constraints I used.

1. 2010 production of aluminium: 343,335 tonnes. From 2010 Sustainability Report , NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited.


2. Emissions factor for aluminium: Low estimate . 1.67 tonnes CO2-e per tonne Aluminium. From Ministry for the Environment's New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2009.


3. Emissions factor for aluminium: High estimate. 2.01 tonnes CO2-e per tonne Aluminium. From Heavy Industry Energy Demand Update Report Prepared for Ministry of Economic Development February 2009, Covec Ltd.


4. The compliance period for surrendering units is from 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010, a half-year.


5. The obligation to surrender units is a half obligation because of the two units for one tonne of GHGs deal.


6. Free allocation of units is also reduced by a half.


7. Free allocation is calculated as 90 per cent of the allocative baseline (a benchmark number of NZUs per unit output)


8. The aluminium allocative baseline is 2.645 units per tonne of aluminium produced. From Section 7 of the Climate Change (Eligible Industrial Activities) Regulations 2010

I will first check my input assumptions by calculating my own estimate of the actual units allocated; 210,421.

Table 1. Estimate of emissions units allocated
2010 production tonnes Aluminium	343,335
Half year production /2 (1 July 31 Dec 2010)	171,668
Half obligation /2 (one unit/2 tonnes)	85,834
90% emissions-intensive-trade-exposed allocation	77,250
Allocation baseline (tCO2-e/t output)	2.645
Equals estimate of Units allocated	204,327
Difference (approx. 2.9%)	6,094
Actual Units allocated	210,421

My estimate of units allocated is 204,327, which is only 6,000 odd units (or 2.9%) less than the actual units allocated of 210,421. So it seems my inputs are roughly good enough.

Table 2 High and low estimate of units to surrender
2010 production tonnes Al	343,335	343,335
MfE Emissions factor (t Al/t CO2-e)	1.67	2.01
Estimated emissions 2010 t CO2-e	573,369	690,103
Half year compliance period (1 July 31 Dec 2010 /2)	286,685	345,052
Half obligation (one unit 2 tonnes /2)	143,342	172,526
Estimated Units to surrender	143,342	172,526
Actual Units allocated	210,421	210,421
Excess allocation (units)	67,079	37,896
Excess allocation (per cent)	147%	122%

Nick Smith implies that the free allocations reduce but do not remove the exposure to the carbon price. This is simply not correct. If it was correct, units allocated to NZ Aluminum Smelters would be less than units surrendered. However, units allocated exceed my estimates of units needed for surrenders.

I estimate that NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited were required to surrender between 143,000 and 172,000 emissions units for the six months to 31 December 2010. NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited were given, under 'industrial allocation', 210,421 units. My low and high estimates of the units to be surrendered exceed the actual units allocated by 37,000 and 67,000 units respectively.

Nick Smith says emitters are not being subsidised by free allocation. This too is simply not correct. Allocations greater than surrenders equals over-allocation or a net gain to NZ Aluminium Smelters Limited. The estimated over-allocation is from 124% to 147%. NZ Aluminium Smelters do not face a positive carbon price at all. If the NZ emissions trading scheme was a carbon tax, NZ Aluminium Smelters would have a negative carbon tax rate!

This perverse outcome is exactly why carbon taxes are in practice simpler, more effective, and a more robust way of carbon pricing than emissions trading.

The NZ ETS Review 2011: Clear signals for business as usual

Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith has finally released the delayed report of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2011. The 98-page report is titled Doing New Zealand’s Fair Share, The Emissions Trading Scheme Review 2011.

The review panel chaired by former Rogernome David Caygill gave their report to Smith on 30 June 2011. Two and half months later and one week into the Rugby World Cup, Smith has let the report out into the world.

From the title of his press release, Slowing of ETS recommended by Review Panel, I think Smith is pretty happy with the report. It also uses some of Smith's favourite phrases; such as "Doing our fair share" and balancing environmental and economic concerns.

"The Panel acknowledges there needs to be an appropriate balance between managing these short-term costs and providing a clear long-term direction. Given the current international uncertainty and the challenging state of the economy, this means there should be measures in place which ensure the increase in the costs of the ETS occurs at an appropriate pace."

If you don't want to scroll through another 98 pages of blue-green flannel just like that, the best short sweet on-line summary to read is this Reuters factbox.

For me, these recommendations are the guts of the ETS Review report (as numbered in that report).

Agriculture's planned 2015 entry to the NZ ETS should not be delayed (4.1). At least they didn't cave in to Federated Farmers. But there is a big but to this.

The important issue of the lack of a real cap on emissions is just kicked for touch and left for future reviews (3.15)

The issue of high volumes of subsidised allocation of free emissions units to industry is just kicked for touch (3.9).

Remember that the NZ ETS includes a $25 fixed price option for buying emissions units until 2012? This is limited to energy, transport and industry. This option would have acted as a maximum limit on unit prices, except for the fact that NZU prices were never more than $25 in 2010.

The report recommends keeping the fixed price option/price limit out to 2017 and increasing it by $5 each year (2013; $30, 2014; $35, 2015; $40, 2016; $45, 2017; $50).

I am very skeptical that actual NZ units prices will reach these levels. The Euro-zone debt crisis has just contributed to the recent collapse of the international carbon price. The international carbon price is the dominant driver of NZ unit prices. It is pure speculation that actual NZ prices will be any where near the proposed price ceiling.

Remember Nick Smith's two for one deal for 2010 to 2012? Where emitters can can emit two tonnes of greenhouse gases and surrender one emission unit? In other words it halved the emitters obligations to surrender units. The report recommends extending this to out to 2015. So 2013 would be the "three for two" deal, 2014 would be the "five for four" deal, before finally going to one tonne to one unit deal in 2015. So in carbon pricing we look to simplistic sales slogans. Only in New Zealand.

And I said there was a 'but' for agriculture. On entry in 2015, the report recommends that agriculture should be eligible for the two for one deal until 2016. Then three for two deal, the five for four deal, before finally going to one tonne to one unit in 2019. Oh I forgot to mention that from 2019 there would still be 90% allocation of free units declining at a linear rate of 1.3% each year.

Summary

I must admit I am completely underwhelmed by the report, its analysis and it's recommendations. I didn't think it was possible to further dilute the carbon price signal in the NZ ETS with more exemptions. I didn't think it was possible to make the NZ ETS sound even more like a bad used car parts advertisement. But I am wrong on both counts.

Environment Canterbury's RMA heresy

Claire Browning of the Pundit blog, asked some follow-up questions on my long comment on the Creech Report on Environment Canterbury and its performance in managing Canterbury's water resources. Claire's questions are in italics.

"I found it (the Creech Report) cavalier in documenting its justification for dismembering a democratically elected body"

Yes I agree totally. The report has large portions that are just a grab-bag of embittered comments from district councils and consultants.

"on the question of whether ECan had been misapplying the RMA, the discussion was very muddled, and the evidence presented very thin".

Yes again I agree with that too. The Creech Report is an inherently political document. Kennedy Graeme's speech, as well as being enjoyably eloquent, was pretty much right in referring to it's circular logic and preconceived conclusion. A contact informed me that the review team arrived late for their day at Ecan and left early.

I think Creech and Doug Martin, who is a very experienced operator-around-politicians, knew they had a 'rush-job' on. I think they also knew that Nick Smith and Rodney Hide didn't really want detailed analysis. It would have been wasted on them! I think they also knew that whatever they recommended, Smith would probably not follow it any way (Remember the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance?).

So I think they deliberately gave Nick Smith an extreme recommendation (or a "hatchet job") which would give him the justification and the space to do whatever he wants to. As whatever Smith decides will appear well within the scope of the Creech recommendations and therefore more 'balanced' and 'moderate'.

"I would have thought the job is to protect the environment in accordance with the RMA, which would seem to be the real bone of contention -- ie, whether there has been an undue or improper focus on the environment by ECan, in terms of the RMA"

You make a good point here. This comes back to what "in accordance with the RMA" means to the various actors in the tragedy!

The Creech Report RMA experts are almost as vicious as Creech about Ecan's "improper focus on the environment". That is because Bryan Jenkins (and therefore Ecan) has committed a heresy against RMA orthodoxy. Jenkins stated that Ecan has not been able to apply sustainability limits to groundwater because the RMA is 'enabling legislation' (Rather than because the NRRP is as helpful as the Book of Mormon. Or because Ecan's senior planner and senior hydrogeologist were poor witnesses).

RMA orthodoxy, as espoused by the MfE Commissioners course and by RMA lawyers, planners and consultants, is 'weak sustainability rules okay'. For Jenkins to say otherwise is a heresy against the RMA mainstream. Jenkins also publicly and explicitly criticised a decision of a hearing panel - the decision to approve more groundwater abstraction from the arguably over-allocated Rakaia-Selwyn groundwater zone. Also heretical.