What even is the Zero Carbon Bill?
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called climate change the nuclear-free issue of her generation. The Zero Carbon Bill is her Government’s attempt to depoliticise and defuse it. Henry Cooke looks at whether it might work.
New Zealand politicians have a complicated history with climate change.
There has been little in the way of US-style denialism, but the debate on what to do about it has been just as fiery.
It doesn’t help that New Zealand’s climate change position is somewhat unique. For one thing, we produce only a tiny sliver of all the world’s emissions – 0.17 per cent. For another, our largest emitter is not carbon from transport or energy production; it’s methane from all our farm animals belching.
That debate has led to a series of arguable half-measures – like an Emissions Trading Scheme that omits our largest emitter – and no certainty for the country on what we are going to do to reach the far-off targets we have signed up to.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw is trying to fix all this and depoliticise the issue so that, long after this Government is gone, parties from the Left and Right can continue efforts to fight climate change without it becoming a political football.
He wants to do that by setting up a completely new legal and institutional framework for climate policy, with a Zero Carbon Act and an independent Climate Change Commission.
Here’s what that would actually mean.
What exactly is a Zero Carbon Act?
At its most simple, an act would set greenhouse gas emission targets into law.
Greenhouse gases are the primary cause of humaninfluenced climate change. Longlived gases like carbon dioxide are the big ones globally, but in New Zealand we also have to worry about short-lived gases like methane from cows. More on that soon.
The argument goes that actually setting these targets into real law will give businesses certainty about the direction of the country, so they can plan long ahead without having to worry about a new government changing the rulebook from under them.
But the law will probably do far more than just set the target. It will also set up a framework for how to get there, with an independent Climate Change Commission providing multiyear ‘‘carbon budgets’’.
This is all based on the model in the United Kingdom, where climate change is mostly nonpolitical, and per-person emissions are falling.
Shaw is consulting on the law now, with a view to passing it in mid-2019. There is a possibility the actual ‘‘legal target’’ doesn’t make it into that law.
So what would these targets be?
The Government is still out consulting on what the target should be. There are three options on the table, all of them with an end date of 2050, when other countries’ Paris Agreement targets also kick in.
One is exactly what it says on the tin: net zero carbon, but nothing else, meaning agriculture is mostly left alone. That ‘‘net’’ means that there would likely still be some carbon emissions, but they would be offset by tree-planting and possibly the purchase of overseas carbon credits.
The second or middle option is net zero long-lived gases, like carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, and ‘‘stabilised’’ shortterm gases, like methane. That ‘‘stabilised’’ is complex and deserves unpacking, which we will do in a second.
Finally, the third option is simply net zero for all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
What does ‘‘stabilised’’ mean?
To understand this, we need to delve a bit into the science.
Methane, which makes up about 43 per cent of our equivalent emissions, is a shortlived gas, meaning it largely decays from the atmosphere in a matter of years, not centuries – probably about nine years. (Carbon takes well over 100 years.) That means that, if we could ‘‘stabilise’’ the amount of methane being put out into the atmosphere at some level, and then keep the emissions at that level, we would know that whatever we added would eventually be taken away a decade later, and thus keep adding a stable amount.
In other words, we could say ‘‘in no year will we emit more methane than we are right now’’, and not technically warm the atmosphere any more.
But things aren’t quite that easy. Over its lifespan, methane is far more damaging than carbon – about 28 times more damaging over 100 years – which is why we talk about ‘‘carbon dioxide equivalents’’, because it isn’t an apples-with-apples comparison.
We’re already warming the planet with the methane we have put in there now, so if we did more than just ‘‘stabilise’’ it and actually removed methane via a net-zero target we could actively reverse the damage. And while our methane comes from agriculture, methane from other countries is often produced as a byproduct of dirty energy production, so New Zealand will be keen not to set a lax example.
How would we get to those targets?
None of the targets are ‘‘status quo’’, so every one of them would require some kind of Government action.
The UK model on which Shaw is basing his plans features an independent commission that sets advisory ‘‘carbon budgets’’ for periods 12 years into the future.
The carbon budgets are spread over five-year periods to allow for flexibility, and have to be picked up by the Government. So far they have been.
The Climate Change Commission in the UK is independent, but acts in an advisory capacity. In other words, it can make plenty of noise and publish whatever it wants, but it can’t actually force the Government to do anything.
But the Zero Carbon Bill’s discussion document features an option in which the Climate Change Commission is set up as an independent body at arm’s length from the Government and with statutory powers – kind of like the Commerce Commission. But it is very unlikely such a suggestion would gain widespread support; parties generally like to keep Parliament as sovereign as possible
Is widespread support likely?
National’s leader, Simon Bridges, and a group of farming leaders have all indicated a
willingness to talk about supporting the act, depending on where it ends up.
Bridges wrote to the prime minister and Shaw last month to say ‘‘broad and enduring political support is needed for New Zealand’s climate change framework’’.
‘‘I am confident that we can work constructively together to establish an enduring nonpolitical framework for future governments and parliaments when considering climate change issues.’’
A group of farming industry leaders published a joint opinion article with Ardern on Stuff on Sunday, committing themselves to ‘‘working together to achieve net zero emissions from agrifood production by 2050’’.
Those leaders include the heads of Federated Farmers, Dairy NZ, Beef + Lamb, the Meat Industry Association, Fonterra, and Irrigation NZ.
This was obviously music to Shaw’s ears. If National, with the farming lobby behind it, supports the Zero Carbon Bill through Parliament, it becomes much more politically dicey for it to meddle with the legislation later.
It’s likely the law would even feature a provision for a temporary ‘‘pause’’ on the target, in case of a major event such as the Christchurch earthquake, which will give worried lawmakers some certainty they can break the rules if needed.
But nothing is ever certain in politics, and the economic modelling – which shows every one of the targets slowing growth in some way – is likely to worry Right-leaning MPs.
There is a lot of political space between those three targets. By 2035, Bridges, Shaw, and Ardern are likely to be long gone from the leadership of their parties. Shaw will be hoping this law is still on the books. You can have your say on the design of the Zero Carbon Bill by attending a public meeting or submitting at mfe.govt.nz/haveyour-say-zero-carbon.