10%-20% : 2020 emissions reduction target revealed

The Government this afternoon announced it will seek a 2020 carbon equivalents emissions reduction target range of 10 - 20 per cent on 1990 levels. The range is conditional on the following:

- A global agreement being secured that limits carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) to 450ppm and temperature increases to 2°C.

- Effective rules on forestry.

- New Zealand having access to international carbon markets.

A Q&A on the target is published here.

The Science Media Centre approached scientists for their reaction to the emissions reduction target range decided on by the Government.

Professor Janet Borman, Director of the International Global Change Institute at the University of Waikato, comments:

"At first glance, the government's target of 10-20% emissions reduction seems very conservative, given that this is not based solely on reducing domestic emissions. One wonders how much of the emissions reduction will be offset by the softer options of carbon storage in forests and buying of emission reductions permits from other countries. Unless there is emphasis on the domestic emissions, the pathway to strong commitment will be compromised.

"The real message as to how we live and work lies in the fact that on a per capita basis, New Zealand is rated 11th in the world as an emitter. For the general community, targeted awareness campaigns, and where feasible, further financial contributions, to bring about a change in lifestyle practices are vital for buy-in towards a sustainable and exemplary New Zealand. The co-benefits to quality of life would be remarkable. But we all need to be caught up in this euphoria for a significant result to occur."

Professor Allan Rae, Director of the Centre for Agricultural Policy Studies at Massey University, comments:

"The target announced strikes me as a sensible balance between NZ's obligations to the international agreement and our economic ability to shoulder a realistic share of the global burden of attacking climate change. Of course actual emissions don't have to be reduced by the target amount - firms will mitigate emissions to the point where the marginal cost of doing so equals the international carbon price. What the announced target determines is the quantity and cost of purchasing permits from the international market, and therefore the welfare of New Zealanders. To counter potential loss of international competitiveness, it is important that NZ's approach (the ETS) should be aligned (sectoral coverage , timing, etc) with approaches taken in our competitor countries."

Professor Jonathan Boston, Director of the Institute of Policy Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, comments:

"The 2020 emissions targets announced today by the New Zealand government represented a useful first step in the current international negotiations for a post-2012 climate change agreement. But New Zealand and many other developed countries will need take responsibility for reductions in emissions by 2020 of more than 20% if there is to be a reasonable chance of avoiding the mean global surface temperature increasing by more than 2 degrees C (above pre-industrial levels). It is to be hoped that the 10-20% target range is not the government's final position."

James Renwick, Principal Scientist at NIWA's National Climate Centre, comments:

"It's good to see such a target (or target range) set for emissions reductions by 2020. To ensure we begin to deal with the threat of climate change, we must work hard to meet the targets that have been set today, and set even more ambitious targets for the future. We must act, because if global warming is allowed to continue unchecked, some very damaging and irreversible changes are likely to come our way."

Associate Professor Euan Mason, of the NZ School of Forestry at the University of Canterbury, comments:

"A rough calculation suggests that if we established 50,000 ha/year on our eroding lands, by 2020 we would have an extra 15,000 k t (kilotons) of CO2 equivalent sequestered each year by these new forests. This a very significant proportion of the net emissions cut that the government is seeking, but we need to make provision for harvesting of forests that were planted during the 1990s. Much of this harvesting is likely to occur during the decade from 2020 to 2030. If this planting rate continued, by 2030 we could have 30,000 k t of CO2 equivalent sequestered each year by these new forests, which would more than account for the large projected increase in our net emissions that would otherwise occur as a result of harvesting plantations planted during the 1990s. Such a programme would cost roughly $40-50 M/year for plantation establishment, while the annual worth of credits in 2020 would be, conservatively, $375 M (assuming a low value of NZ$25/t). It is easy to show that such a programme is financially viable, but much harder to identify how to implement it.

"The ETS, if fully implemented across all sectors, would provide a powerful incentive for the private sector to engage in such planting, but fully implementing the ETS would impose large changes in relative values of our activities, and therefore has both economic and political risks. An alternative that we might consider would be to establish a plantation establishment agency to assist with establishment of carbon forests on private lands, with carbon forests set up as joint ventures between the state and private land owners. Typically joint ventures for wood production involve a 2 to 1 ownership of the wood between funders and land owners. The terms might be similar for the state and land owners, but this would require some further analysis. Assuming that the international carbon market persisted and that we had continuing carbon treaty obligations, taxpayers would be richly rewarded for this investment. At worst we would have secured some of our eroding lands and reduced the need for state assistance such as that provided to the Wairarapa after the last flood.

"If we can advance a programme of carbon forest establishment at such a rate for the next century or so, then this will provide some extra time for New Zealanders to make necessary, but potentially destabilising changes to our behaviours while still meeting very ambitious targets for reductions in net emissions. Towards the end of the century we would have established forest on all our erosion-prone land."

Notes to Editors
The Science Media Centre (SMC) is an independent source of expert comment and information for journalists covering science and technology in New Zealand. Our aim is to promote accurate, bias-free reporting on science and technology by helping the media work more closely with the scientific community. The SMC is an independent centre established by the Royal Society of New Zealand with funding from the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. The views expressed in this Science Alert are those of the individuals and organisations indicated and do not reflect the views of the SMC or its employees. For further information about the centre, or to offer feedback, please email us at smc@sciencemediacentre.co.nz.

www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz