No evidence a ban will lower emissions
The Government’s ban on offshore oil and gas exploration does nothing for the environment, writes petroleum industry head
STOPPING exploration for oil and gas in New Zealand will do nothing for the environment and probably make things worse.
This might sound surprising, but it’s because the ban will do nothing to stop people using oil and gas either in New Zealand or around the world. Instead, it just means those fuels will be produced somewhere else.
Crucially, not all fossil fuels are the same. New Zealand natural gas has half the emissions of coal, and our oil has a lower emissions footprint than most oil produced overseas.
Many of these alternative sources are far worse for the environment, such as Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan bitumen. Often, these nations have much lower standards of human rights and health and safety as well.
New Zealand already imports most of our oil and given this policy won’t impact how much we use, we’ll just import a bit more instead (with the added transport emissions required to get them here).
Some have tried to paint this issue as the economy versus the environment but in reality, it’s a bad outcome for both.
About 280,000 households and businesses also rely on natural gas. When supply runs out this will need to be replaced with something — most likely imported fuel and/or coal, which has twice the emissions.
As an industry, we absolutely recognise the need to tackle climate change and reduce our net emissions, but we need to choose the right policies to achieve this. We support demandfocused policies such as the ETS because it sends clear and consistent signals to investors and targets emissions directly.
We’re also working hard to reduce our footprint in a number of other ways. Natural gas is helping cut emissions by replacing coal in power generation, new technology is being developed to capture carbon emissions and offsetting (such as planting new trees) will need to increase.
In contrast, noone has yet been able to explain how a ban on exploration in New Zealand will lower emissions. It has been very hard to understand exactly what the purpose of this ban is, apart from the symbolism of moral leadership.
But is it really worth doing something just for symbolism if it means a worse outcome for the environment and economy?
We don’t doubt the good intentions behind it, but policy has to be judged on outcomes rather than intentions.
These are all issues we would have raised with the Government had they talked to us in advance.
Some have tried to paint this issue as the economy versus the environment but in reality, it’s a bad outcome for both.