New Zealand Celsias

Note: Jonathan Boston is Director of Victoria University’s Institute of Policy Studies. This is part of the 4th Pallot Memorial Lecture, which he gave in Christchurch on 16 September 2009. This is the third installment in the series. You can read parts one and two here and here.

What of New Zealand’s performance? After all, we are a small, stable democracy. The country prides itself on being ‘clean’ and ‘green’. It also has relatively simple, centralized political institutions. A country with such attributes might be expected to cope tolerably well with the challenges posed by climate change – both in terms of mitigation and adaptation. But this has not been the case  

There has, of course, been much ambitious rhetoric and the regular setting of emissions reduction targets, including the former government’s goal of carbon neutrality, which the current government quickly abandoned. But to date not even our least ambitious targets have been met.

For instance, New Zealand’s first climate change policy, announced in August 1990, included a commitment to reduce net carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2005. The target date was later revised to 2000, and this remained the policy until 1994 when the target was modified to reflect our obligations, as an Annex 1 country, under the Climate Change Convention.  

The new target was less demanding: a reduction in net emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 – not a cut of 20%. Later, under Kyoto, New Zealand committed to reducing net annual emissions to 1990 levels during the period 2008-12 or purchase carbon credits on the international market to meet any shortfall.

Note that the new ‘responsibility’ target embraced the six Kyoto gases, not just carbon dioxide. But notice, too, that it was less ambitious than the earlier targets. Instead of reducing net emissions to 1990 levels by 2000 (let alone 20% below these levels), the new target date allowed New Zealanders another decade to curb their emissions. Further, New Zealand’s target was more generous than the average agreed for Annex 1 countries, namely a 5.2% cut on 1990 levels.  

It remains to be seen whether our domestic emissions will fall within our responsibility target for the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. While gross emissions have increased by over 20% compared to 1990 levels, net emissions – allowing for removals by our forest sinks – are currently close to 1990 levels (so we may just reach our Kyoto responsibility target).  

But even if New Zealand is not obliged to purchase Kyoto-compliant emission units on the international market, our record in tackling climate change has been lamentable and our current ambitions are little better. For instance, the recently announced conditional target for 2020 is for a reduction of 10-20% below 1990 levels.

Note that this is roughly the same goal that was set in 1990 – 19 years ago – for achievement by 2000, two decades earlier than the new target. Moreover, unlike the government’s latest target, the one set in 1990 was not conditional on what other countries do – it was unconditional. And, it was a domestic target, not a responsibility target; in other words, there was no scope for fulfilling it through purchasing emission units overseas.  

To compound problems, the best available scientific evidence (see IPCC, 2007) suggests that developed countries will need to cut their emissions, on average, by 25-40% by 2020 (from 1990 levels) to have even a 50:50 chance of avoiding a global temperature increase of more than 2.0-2.4°C (i.e. above pre-industrial levels). 

The 2°C maximum or ‘guardrail’ has been recommended by many experts because exceeding it significantly increases the risks of abrupt and irreversible changes (e.g. the loss of much of the Greenland ice sheet). While the 2°C cap has been widely endorsed, including by the G20, many of the poorest and most vulnerable nations prefer even more stringent approaches. 

New Zealand officially supports the 2°C cap, but the government’s current domestic emissions reduction target for 2050 – namely, a cut of 50% from 1990 levels – is not consistent with this objective. The scientific evidence suggests that global carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced by 50-85% compared to 2000 levels by 2050 to stay within or close to the 2°C cap (IPCC, 2007, p.21).

Taking equity considerations into account, but also allowing for our distinctive emissions profile, a country with high per capita emissions like New Zealand will need to curb its emissions by much more than 50% by 2050. And looking further ahead, global emissions will need to fall practically to zero by next century. Carbon neutrality, in short, will be essential in due course, whether we like it or not. It is solely a matter of time. 

Let me put the matter even more starkly. Instead of time-specific reduction targets, it can also be helpful to think in terms of a cumulative global carbon budget. From this standpoint, to have a roughly 50:50 chance of avoiding warming of more than 2ºC, total emissions must not exceed 1,440 Gt CO₂ between 2000 and 2050 (Meinshausen, et al. 2009).

At current emission levels – approaching 50 Gt CO₂ per annum – humanity will use up the available carbon budget by 2039. To reduce the risk of exceeding warming of 2ºC to 25%, total emissions must be capped at 1,000 Gt CO₂ – an amount that will be exceeded by 2027 at current emission rates.

Suppose the available ‘atmospheric space’ were allocated henceforth according to the principle of an equal per capita right to emit (that is, regardless of where in the world people live). New Zealand’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions exceed three times the global average, while our CO₂ emissions are nearly twice the global average. 

Taking all greenhouse gas emissions into account, New Zealand’s entitlement will be exhausted in six years – in 2015 – if we want a 75% chance of staying within the 2°C cap, and in about 10 years for a 50% chance. After that, we will be obliged to keep our net emissions to zero until 2050 or buy emission allowances from other countries.

Bear in mind, too, that if we backdated the principle of equal per capita emission rights to 1900 or 1950, New Zealand would already have used up its entitlement. But who amongst our political leaders is talking publicly about such matters, let alone taking such data seriously?

Read other great articles on Celsias:

Using Scenarios to Strategise a Better Future

Study: Fewer Babies is the Best Climate Solution

Follow us on Twitter!