The latest inventory of New Zealand's greenhouse gases

Minister for Climate Change Issues, Paula Bennett and the Ministry for the Environment have released the latest inventory of New Zealand's greenhouse gases.

Minister Bennett and the Ministry have as their headline Greenhouse gas emissions decline.

I thought would I whip up a quick chart from the new data with R.

I pretty much doubted that there had been any discernible decline in New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions to justify Bennett's statement. We should always look at the data. Here is the chart of emissions from 1990 to 2015.

Although gross emissions (emissions excluding the carbon removals from Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)) show a plateauing since the mid 2000s, with the actual gross emissions for the last few years sitting just below the linear trend line.

Gross 2015 emissions are still 24% greater than gross 1990 emissions.

For net emissions (emissions including the carbon removals from Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry the data points for the years since 2012 sit exactly on the linear trend line. Net 2015 emissions are still 64% greater than net 1990 emissions.

There was of course more data wrangling and cleaning than I remembered from when I last made a chart of emissions!

The Ministry for the Environment's webpage for the Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2015 includes a link to a summary Excel spreadsheet. The Excel file includes two work-sheets.

One method of data-cleaning would be to save the two work sheets as two comma-separated values files after removing any formatting. I also like to reformat column headings by either adding double-speech marks or by concatenating the text into one text string with no spaces or by having a one-word header, say 'Gross' or 'Net'.

Of course, that's not what I did in the first instance!

Instead, I copied columns of data from the summary Excel sheet and pasted them into Convert Town's column to comma-separated list online tool. I then pasted the comma-separated lists into my R script file for the very simple step of assigning them into numeric vectors in R. Which looks like this.

Then the script for the chart is:

The result is that the two pieces of R script meet a standard of reproducible research, they contain all the data and code necessary to replicate the chart. Same data + Same script = Same results.

I also uploaded the chart to Wikimedia Commons and included the R script. Wikimedia Commons facilitates the use of R script by providing templates for syntax highlighting. So with the script included, the Wikimedia page for the chart is also reproducible.

For comparison, here is my equivalent chart of greenhouse gas emissions for 1990 to 2010.

The Huntly power station decision - energy emission reductions to 2020 up in coal smoke

The decision to keep the Huntly coal thermal power station open for another four years is not only contrary to all New Zealand's commitments and climate targets, it also sends the Ministry for the Environment's projections of stabilising energy emissions to 2020 up in a cloud of coal smoke.

We seem to have had an extra dose of announcements and activities about climate change in an action-packed month of April.

We have had our Minister, Paula Bennett, signing the UN Paris Agreement. The Morgan Foundation's "Climate Cheats" report made a big splash. That lead to Jack Tame's grilling interview of Paula Bennett. Then the Royal Society of New Zealand released two major reports on climate change; one on impacts and another on policy responses. The business-backed Pure Advantage group released a report on enhancing forestry sequestration.

So what did the New Zealand energy industry do to elbow it's way into the climate change spotlight? How do you beat signing the Paris Agreement or compete with climate fraud?

Well, you just say you are going to burn more coal!

On 28th April 2016, Genesis Energy and Meridian Energy announced they had reached an 'arrangement' that would keep the coal-burning Huntly thermal power station open for an extra four years. This deal postpones the expected shut down from the planned 2018 date to 2022.

Patrick Smellie notes two interesting details of the story. First, the irony that the "100% renewable" generator Meridian Energy has led the process of negotiating with Genesis. And second, that the public announcement of the shut-down by Genesis was just 'code' for negotiating a higher price from other generators.

The Green Party's Gareth Hughes points out that on the basis of Huntly's generation of 1,277 GWh of energy in 2015, the closing of Huntly would have lifted New Zealand's proportion of renewable electricity generation from 79.9 percent to 84.5 percent. So unsurprisingly the Meridian-Genesis deal is just 180 degrees in the wrong direction in terms of the 90 percent renewable target and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenpeace has given us ten reasons to shut Huntly and have started an on-line petition to keep to the plan and shut Huntly.

But what effect will this have on the Ministry for the Environment's projections of energy emissions out to 2030? These are part of the December 2015 report "NZ’s Second Biennial Report under the UNFCCC". This chart shows projected "with measures" emissions and "without measures" (i.e. business as usual).

In the chart, the projected "with measure" emissions for each sector are the circles and lines. The projected 'business as usual'/'without measures' emissions are the lines between the data points marked by triangles on 2020 and 2030. That's because the without measures projections are for only two years! It is almost as if they are an after-thought.

The other thing to note is that for agriculture, transport and industry, there is no difference between "with measures" and "without" projections. This is of course because the Ministry is reflecting the Government's intention to exempt those three sectors of the economy from any climate change policy.

However, have a close look at the energy sector projections. There is some 'daylight' visible between the 'with' and 'without' projections. The "without" trends ever so slightly upward and the "with" trend is a plateauing. So something is expected to change the slight upward emissions trend to a plateau. The Biennial Report states on page 39;

"Energy emissions are expected to increase between 2013 and 2015, but then fall between 2015 and 2020. The remaining coal-fired power plant in New Zealand is expected to be decommissioned by 2018, reducing emissions from coal. Coal-fired electricity generation is expected to be replaced mainly by a combination of hydroelectricity, geothermal, wind, and gas-fired peaking plants in the modelled scenario".

In other words, the 'something' was the closing of Huntly. The Ministry for the Environment was relying on Genesis Energy to honour its public statement that it was closing Huntly. Which of course would then be attributed to the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. However it looks like the projections are now out-dated.

Conclusion

The 2030 emissions projections show that New Zealand's climate change policies are intentionally not affecting three out of five sectors of the economy. Now with two power generators reaching a private agreement to keep an non competitive asset, Huntly thermal power station, emitting for four extra years, the projected savings in energy emissions out to 2030 have gone up in a puff of coal smoke.

Green house gas emissions per capita via Google Data Explorer

I have just been idly surfing and have landed at a discussion on whether there was a database of open databases. Of course, the answer is that there are many and they are called data hubs or registries.

I also learned that Google have a service I did not know about, the Google Data Explorer. Here's an example of per capita greenhouse gases for some countries whose name starts with 'N'. Look, New Zealand is at the top, mainly due to our emissions from pastoral agriculture.

The data is up to 2012 and is credited (in the footer of the page) to the World Resources Institute CAIT 2.0 climate data explorer. Then oddly, in the next line of the footer, is the annotation "copyright Google 2014". I guess I am surprised not to see a Creative Commons licence.

A little more exploring revealed that someone had asked the question what is the copyright if I want to use a graph on Wikimedia?. The question was asked in 2013 and has never been answered. My answer would be just get the data from CAIT 2.0 climate data explorer, make your own graph and upload to Wikimedia Commons where you of course choose a Creative Commons licence.

That reinforces this comment on the original database of databases discussion.

"Google Public Data Explorer is very limited in scope, rather than the comprehensive catalogue of the world's data that I suggested they might choose to do. GPDE has only 136 datasets, for which they done the manual work of putting into a database, so that they can offer visualizations. I can't see any activity on it since launch in 2010".

So I guess Google starts projects, but sometimes just doesn't maintain them.

Environment Aotearoa 2015 omits NZ's greenhouse gas growth trend

The Ministry for the Environment and the Statistics Department jointly released the new state of the environment report Environment Aotearoa 2015 today.

The press release for the co-produced report, promises quite a lot.

Government Statistician Liz MacPherson said the report gives a clear and independent overview, based on the best-quality information available.

Ms MacPherson said the report uses robust data from hundreds of sources, and follows international best practice for environmental reporting. “We would like to improve the data for future reports, and we are working on this,”

"The report is supported by interactive web pages containing trend and regional data. I would encourage people to take a look at the areas they are interested in.”

Wow! Interactive web pages containing trend and regional data! How could I resist the temptation to look for some interactive graphs of greenhouse gas emissions! And to compare their graphs with my graphs.

I browsed on through the 'Atmosphere and Climate' domain to the page for Global greenhouse gas emissions and found only...information on global greenhouse gas emissions. And a factoid that could have culled from any speech by Tim Groser or Nick Smith.

Between 1990 and 2011, New Zealand emitted an average of 0.1 percent of global net GHG emissions.

I tried again at the page Greenhouse gas concentrations. This page reported concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions recorded at Baring Head. Interesting but still no national emissions data.

However, i did find a widget enabling the embedding of a graph the Baring Head atmospheric carbon dioxide data record.

Nowhere from anywhere within the Te Taiao Aotearoa environmental indicator web pages could I find any mention of New Zealand's gross and net greenhouse gas emissions.

I resorted to doing a search of the Statistics website for greenhouse gases. That did turn up a web page showing New Zealand's greenhouse gases. That page clearly reported the trend with a prominent red cross.

Negative change. New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions have increased 42 percent since 1990. New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions increased 42 percent between 1990 and 2013. Total emissions increased 21 percent.

Another widget for embedding. A very plain graph. It uses a different greenhouse gas inventory report published earlier this year from my graphs for 1900 to 2012. The data for 1990 to 2013 uses a different way of calculating the carbon dioxide equivalent values for methane. This increases the year by year values by several million tonnes per year.

Still it just seems so bizarre to have statutory environmental indicators and to not include our national production of greenhouse gases. Especially since Statistics already had the data on it's web page. They need only to have put the link in. Is this cognitive dissonance, self-censorship or climate silence?

How I made the graph of NZ gross greenhouse gas emissions

Yes another post about my new line chart of gross greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand. I have just uploaded a SVG version to Wikimedia Commons. On that page there is a link to the data source on Robbie Andrew's website and the background to the data and it's use in a publication.

The scaled vector graphic looks like this when the suggested template from Wikimedia is used.

And I have uploaded the R script I wrote to Google Drive

.

Graph of New Zealands gross greenhouse gas emissions 1861 to 2012

Robbie Andrew has compiled a data set of gross greenhouse gas emissions for New Zealand starting in 1861. So obviously that prompted me to make a line chart.

This image is set at actual size of 535 pixels.

This is an extra large sized image that is displayed too large for the width of the column.

This is a large sized image.

This is a medium sized image.

One point to note is that the line looks very smooth from the 1860s to the 1920s. That's because the data interval is one record per decade up until 1931. The data becomes an annual time series from 1933.

The other point is that the emissions data shows the same pattern of exponential growth highlighted in the global carbon dioxide graph featured by Duncan Clark and Mike Berners-Lee in The Burning Question.

The Kyoto New Zealand break-up - when 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 Kyoto 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 Kyoto 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 at the beginnings of Kyoto 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 Partys 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."

MFAT 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.

MFAT 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 MFAT'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.

Kyoto's break-up with New Zealand at Picasa

I have just uploaded all the 'Kyoto's break-up with New Zealand ' images from the quickmeme website to Picasa

Brother, can you spare $NZ3.10 for a tonne of carbon dioxide?

In which Robin Johnson's Economics Web Page laments the homelessness and begging now seen each day on Lambton Quay in Wellington. And a lament for both the downward spiral of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme and the downward spiral of the New Zealand spot price for a tonne of carbon dioxide - now less than the cost of a flat white. Brother, can you spare $NZ3.10 for a tonne of carbon dioxide?

The other day I looked up the old Tin Pan Alley song "Brother can you spare a dime?" The experience of poverty and the Depression in America summed up in a popular song. The lyrics were written by Yip Harburg in 1931, and the music was composed by Jay Gorney. The version by Al Jolson is very well known, but I like this version by Charlie Palloy and his Orchestra.

I looked up "Brother can you spare a dime?" as I was thinking about homelessness and poverty in New Zealand. I am not the only one. Churchs, charities, politicians, experts and academics are also concerned about poverty in New Zealand.

I see homelessness and poverty every weekday in Wellington's main CBD thoroughfare, Lambton Quay. I walk along Lambton Quay looking forward to the first coffee of the day. I usually note how many people are begging. There are almost always a few people begging on Lambton Quay. 'Brother can you spare a dime' is alive and well even on Lambton Quay.

Except it's sad cardboard signs saying 'Homeless and need help'. Also its at least $3 to $4 for a coffee, not a dime. Not for a long time.

The other price thats less than the cost of a flat white is the spot price of carbon dioxide in NZ. The carbon trader OMF reports NZ spot prices each day at CommTrade Carbon. Guess what? On 17 October, the day Parliament's Finance and Expenditure Select Committee reported on the latest amendments to the NZETS, the last trade of a New Zealand Unit ('NZU', a tonne of carbon dioxide) was at $3.10.

OMF also display a chart. It shows the collapse of the international carbon price reflected in our own plucky little battler NZETS. It certainly looks pear-shaped.

As the political philosopher Simon Caney and economist Cameron Hepburn note with a little British understatement, when the demand for permits falls to the extent that the permit price approaches zero, it is difficult to conclude that an ETS is working to reduce emissions.

Can any sane person look at this chart and reach any other conclusion than the NZETS has completely failed as a carbon price policy incentivising reduction in GHG emissions?

OMF originally committed the chart sin of not starting the vertical (price) axis at $0. However, reality has intruded. As the New Zealand Unit (NZU) price has relentlessly declined towards $0, they keep having to move the bottom of their chart closer to zero. That would almost be a small bit of humour in a pretty sad story. If it wasn't the empirical evidence of the failure of the design of the NZ emissions trading scheme as a policy to price greenhouse gas emissions.

If the $3.10/tonne NZU price is the death notice of the NZETS, the funeral must be the latest Finance and Expenditure Select Committee process to amend the NZETS. On 17 October 2012, this committee released its report Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

This is the National Government's bill to further weaken the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme. You know, indefinitely delay the entry of agriculture, make the half-price "two-for-one" transition permanent.

If you can quickly recover your will to live after digesting page after page of bureaucratic and political policy denial and excuse-making, and the complete failure of the National Government majority to engage at all with the minority political parties or submitters or ENGOs or the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, download and read the 117-page report.

Otherwise, just read Patrick Smellie's report of 17 October 2012 "No restrictions on foreign-sourced carbon credits confirmed"

"The Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Bill was reported back to parliament by the finance and expenditure select committee with only technical amendments, and a decision that capping the use of foreign credits would compromise the emissions trading scheme principle of "least cost of compliance".
The policy has seen major emitters such as oil and electricity companies snap up some of the lowest cost carbon units available on global markets, where prices have slumped to as little as $2 a tonne.
New Zealand Units, issued by the government, continue to be worth slightly more, at around $3 a tonne, but well below the $25 a tonne maximum price put on carbon when the ETS was introduced in 2009."

Or just read the press release from Peter Hardstaff, Climate Change Programme Manager at WWF-New Zealand.

This is another nail in the coffin for New Zealand's credibility on climate change and suggests the government has no intention of trying to set this country's emissions on a downward path. Other parties in the UN climate talks will rightly see New Zealand's claims to be doing something to reduce emissions as all spin and no substance."

What a complete shambles! Why didn't we just have a no-exceptions carbon tax in the first place?

They used to tell me I was building a dream,
and so I followed the mob,
When there was earth to plow, or guns to bear,
I was always there right on the job.
They used to tell me I was building a dream,
with peace and glory ahead,
Why should I be standing in line, just waiting for bread?

Once I built a railroad, I made it run, made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad; now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?
Once I built a tower, up to the sun, brick, and rivet, and lime;
Once I built a tower, now it's done. Brother, can you spare a dime?

Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell,
Full of that Yankee Doodly Dum,
Half a million boots went slogging through Hell,
And I was the kid with the drum!

Say, don't you remember, they called me Al; it was Al all the time.
Why don't you remember, I'm your pal? Buddy, can you spare a dime?

Neil Armstrong coal mines and global warming the NZ High Court moon walks us to a very hot place

On the same day as the death of Neil Armstrong, the first astronaut to step onto the Moon, became public, the New Zealand High Court moon-walked its way to it's own off-the-world moment. It decided that greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are off-limits in the planning for an open cast coal mine. That's as just as 'out of this world' as denying that the Moon landings ever happened.

On Saturday, two bits of news struck home to me very strongly. The first was the death of moon-landing astronaut Neil Armstrong. The second was the decision of the New Zealand High Court that for new open-cast coal mines, their carbon dioxide emissions and global warming are legally and jurisdictionally unrelated in the Resource Management Act.

The moon landing. I remember very well as a seven year old listening attentively to the 'one small step' broadcast in 1969. The whole class was silent under the spell of our teacher's scratchy transistor radio.

It's one of my most strongly held memories of my childhood. I guess that reflects well on that class of seven-year olds. They stopped playing bullrush, sniffing with colds, and fighting over play-lunchs to listen attentively to the unfolding of one of humanity's most historic moments.

While I was still fondly remembering the Moon landing, the next news item struck.

It was the New Zealand High Court decision barring discussion of carbon dioxide emissions when coal mines seek Resource Management Act consents (see Radio NZ, NBR and TV3 and the Otago Daily Times).

Of course this is about the Perth coal company Bathurst Resources and their Escarpment Mine Project.

Bryan Walker of Hot Topic has posted that this project represents New Zealand doing a Pontius Pilate and washing its hands of the emissions.

I have previously posted that the decisions by councils and the Environment Court to date reflect the zombie ETS infecting the Resource Management Act with climate madness.

My Saturday morning reverie of the Moon landing was rudely stopped and I sort of grumbled to myself;

"Open-cast coal mines and global warming are unrelated!! Thats about as sensible as saying the Moon landings were faked by NASA. Neil Armstrong would just have smacked someone in the face!"

From small half-asleep reactions, blog posts do grow. With the wee footnote that it was actually Buzz Aldrin who punched the Moon landing denier.

I could do a review of the legal issues, but that would be just more legal-climate yadda yadda. I will just note that back in the early 1990s, the Bolger National Government not only considered that greenhouse gas emissions were an adverse effect under the Resource Management Act; they also considered the RMA to be one of the main tools to deal with global warming.

As for the science of it, I will just point to a couple James Hansen charts from his The Case for Young People paper.

The first is cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide. Approving new coal mines adds to cumulative global emissions of carbon dioxide. The second chart shows likely scenarios for temperature. The more carbon dioxide accumulates, the higher the likely temperature.

The facts are that each time a new coal mine is approved, we are just adding to the temperature overshoot above two degrees.

Why is it that the High Court can't apply this simple logic? Why are we even in a position where the High Court can sever the undeniable link between new coal mines, the volumes of carbon dioxide accumulating globally, and the inevitable temperature rise? What has has happened to our legal and planning systems to make this sort of decision possible?

To me this outcome - where the global effects of more GHG emissions are legally severed from approval of a new coal mine - is just as 'out of this world' as denying that the Moon landings even happened.

Did anyone sign the Kyoto Protocol in good faith? The Kyoto Escalator shows that New Zealand certainly didn't

Robin Johnson's Economics Web Page introduces the Kyoto Escalator chart and argues that New Zealand was just as complicit as the major European countries in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol so that they complied with it without reducing either gross or net emissions.

New Zealand's Gross greenhouse gas emissions (blue) net emissions (brown) and 'Kyoto' emissions (red) 1990 to 2012. Double click on the chart to see it at 100% and in good resolution.

Professor Dave Frame is the new director of the Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington. He is a University of Canterbury-trained scientist who has worked for some years in Britain. He has just joined the climate change fray with a very interesting opinion editorial "International focus needed over climate" in the Dominion Post. Welcome to climate change issues back in New Zealand, David.

David Frame writes that New Zealand does not want to be thought of as the country that reneges on international treaties.

"Reputationally, accepting commitments and then failing to deliver on them is not a look New Zealand likes. "Doesn't honour the treaties it's signed" is not one of the few sentences we want people to remember about us."

So, yes, I agree, New Zealand should honour the treaties it signs. I hate to nitpick but, isn't New Zealand the country that was explicitly founded in 1840 on a treaty that was not honoured?

David Frame describes the history of the Kyoto Protocol climate negotiations

"...the Kyoto Protocol was a no-win situation for places like New Zealand. In the 1990s Britain and Germany were reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases for non-climate-related reasons (declining manufacturing and the collapse of the coal industry in Britain; technological substitution in the case of post-reunification Germany)."

"Kyoto's structure, reductions of emissions by some specific fraction compared with 1990 levels, were designed with this in mind, since it allowed Europe to appear to "take the lead" without actually doing anything very different from what they were going to do anyway. It was an approach so clearly aligned with the near-term reputational interests of some stakeholders that the Nobel prize-winning strategist Tom Schelling wrote of it: 'I cannot help believing that adoption of such a commitment is an indication of insincerity'."

Frame believes New Zealand's negotiators were innocent parties who acquiesced in these machinations while Britain and Germany portrayed themselves as "leaders" on climate change, even though their emissions reductions basically consisted of doing what they were going to do anyway.

While I am a little disappointed that Britain and Germany acted in such a self-serving way, I don't doubt that David Frame is correct about their motives. However, I don't think he is correct to say New Zealand was innocent. On 31 October 2007, the then Minister of Climate Change Simon Upton gave a speech about New Zealand's negotiating position three weeks before the UNFCCC meeting in Kyoto.

Upton stated that within New Zealand's negotiating position, using forest sinks to offset increases in emissions was just as important as the Protocol including international emissions trading, an all-gases approach and prompt acceptance of commitments by developed countries.

"Sequestration of carbon in sinks (such as forests) should qualify alongside emission reductions for the purposes of counting progress towards any targets that are agreed."

Upton contines.

"I want to say why sinks are important - spelling out in broad terms the economic benefits to New Zealand of counting sinks - and explain briefly how New Zealand considers they ought to be treated. Then I want to say why - even though the correct treatment of sinks is both fair in terms of the Convention, and good for New Zealand's economy - sinks nevertheless do not and cannot protect New Zealand emitters of greenhouse gases from adjustment."

"Adding to carbon stocks through afforestation should count positively; reducing stocks (through forest harvest, land clearance and such like) should count negatively."

"If - and I emphasise if - sequestration is treated in the way New Zealand has long been advocating, then the major contribution we expect to make to removing carbon from the atmosphere in future years will earn us 'credits'."

Upton and the New Zealand negotiators got what they wanted. Forest carbon sink credits were included as offsets. However, Upton provided several cautionary notes. If NZ's forest carbon credits were recognised in Kyoto, it may be perceived as special pleading. Also fairness suggested that forest owners should receive them, and be able to sell them. As opposed to the Government keeping them for compliance with Kyoto.

"New Zealand's stance on sinks has been treated with scepticism by some because, superficially, it looks as though it may be special pleading by New Zealand to take advantage of our sinks to reduce the pressure on emitters to make adjustments. We do not see it that way. New Zealand has been clear in responding to other countries that we do not see the accrual of sink credits as a way to insulate New Zealand from acting to reduce emissions. We see New Zealand's sink credits being an integral part of the international emission trading market. As such, we see New Zealand emitters facing the world price for carbon emissions provided that price is generated by a free market in emission permits."

"Let me now turn to a related question: why recognition of sinks nevertheless does not and cannot protect New Zealand emitters of greenhouse gases from adjustment. It might be suggested that New Zealand's interest in sinks stems purely from a desire to secure for itself a large buffer that would allow for significant growth in greenhouse gas emissions. That is not the case -- nor do I believe would it be credible to pursue such an objective."

"It would simply not be credible to advocate least cost tradeable mechanisms for the world and then seek to keep New Zealand's forest credits for domestic use only. Sequestration credits should accrue to the forest growers who earn them, and they should be free to place them on the world market."

So Simon Upton foresaw two problems with using the credits from forest carbon sequestration as a buffer to allow growth of GHG emissions. There was the reputational problem of New Zealand's insincere negotiating position in the Kyoto discussions. And there was the problem that the credits should accrue to the owners of the forests, not the Government.

New Zealand's climate change officials solved the "who's credits?" problem by inventing a new 'junk' currency to be issued to the commercial foresters instead of Kyoto units (and to buy off greedy emitters); the New Zealand Unit. The real Kyoto forest carbon removal units were kept "off the balance sheet". In the New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990 2009 and in the Kyoto Protocol net position report, the carbon sequestration from 2008 to 2012 is estimated from forest surveys. The actual Kyoto removal units will not be recognised until after 2012. It is these as-yet unissued units that offset the 19% increase in New Zealand's gross GHG emissions since 1990.

It seems since Simon Upton's time, we have developed collective amnesia about intentionally negotiating the Kyoto Protocol so that we could rely on forest carbon sinks to buffer increases in greenhouse gases. Has any one of the Kyoto Protocol parties negotiated and acted in good faith? New Zealand certainly hasn't

Kevin Anderson, rhetoric, tenuous hope, brutal numbers

This is a brilliant talk by Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester and the Tyndall Center about how the OECD countries have deluded themselves that they are doing anything meaningful to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.

The title of the talk is "Going Beyond Dangerous Climate Change: Exploring the void between rhetoric and reality in reducing carbon emissions"

Or download the audio file

There is also this alternative version.

Professor Kevin Anderson - Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous

International climate change negotiations planning to fail

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith seems perfectly happy to pretty much ignore the science (as visualised in the excellent graphic of future emissions pathways) and see the UNFCCC/Kyoto process fail.

Here is a statement he made to Parliament where he implies the lack of an international climate change agreement, after Kyoto ends in 2012, is fine with him as it enables him to tell Kennedy Graham (Greens MP) that there will be no cost after 2012 to the taxpayer from giving emitters free emissions units.

"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. It is not true, and members opposite who attempt to run that argument ignore the fact that there is no international agreement beyond the end of 2012 for reducing emissions at this point, and without it, there is no cost to the New Zealand taxpayer."

To me Smith seems to be saying "It's no big deal if the UNFCCC/Kyoto process fails. In fact, we are relying on failure in the crazy design of our NZETS".

As well as basing the NZETS policy on a bet that the Durban conference will continue 18 years of stalemate, Smith is also wrong in fact about costs to taxpayers. The NZ emissions units are owned by the Crown on behalf of taxpayers. Giving them away free to emitters is a transfer of wealth from all taxpayers to emitters. Or a cost.

Estimated historical emissions vs future IPCC scenarios--how ... on Twitpic

Michael Tobis discusses poor media coverage of the highest annual emissions of greenhouses gas ever. He asks why can't the media explain using some good charts?

Here's a chart comparing actual emissions of carbon with various predictions from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report of 2007.



Estimated historical emissions vs future IPCC scenarios. Provided by Katharine Hayhoe via Twitpic.

The quality is pretty bad though. Try this. From Johns Cook's Skeptical Science website.

Figure 1: IEA global human CO2 annual emissions from fossil fuels estimates vs. IPCC SRES scenario projections.  The IPCC Scenarios are based on observed CO2 emissions until 2000, at which point the projections take effect.

Skeptical Science discuss this issue in the post IEA CO2 Emissions Update 2010 - Bad News

How to chart the NZ Kyoto Protocol commitment

The post about Dr Nick Smith's junk chart has been on Hot Topic NZ, the Oil Drum Oz and NZ and hat-tipped on No Right Turn

Okay, so what would a good chart of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions and New Zealand's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol look like?

We mulled over that issue last year when we wrote a how to book on carbon forests.

I came up with this chart as a first draft.

Clunky and black and white. Add colour.

Paul Kennett said "hmmmm" and asked me for the data and he came up with this.


Not surprisingly, Paul's version appeared in the published version of The Carbon Forest (available now at the Kennett Bros!)

The 'Clean Energy Future' scheme

I have to admit I did rush to conclude that the Australian carbon pricing scheme would be a "leapfrog" ahead of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme. Okay, I admit I generally think the NZ ETS is worse than nothing as a policy to reduce GHG emissions. So of course the Australian scheme must be more effective!

Now I have actually read Julia Gillard's carbon pricing proposal I can offer a slightly more considered opinion. The carbon price scheme has a name which we should be using; Securing a Clean Energy Future. The full document is Securing a Clean Energy Future, The Australian Government's Climate Change Plan, Commonwealth of Australia 2011, ISBN 978-0-642-74723-5.

First of all, the 'Clean Energy Future' is not a carbon tax. It is a cap and trade emissions trading scheme with a safety valve. Page 25 says "Large polluters will report on their emissions and buy and surrender to the Government a carbon permit for every tonne of carbon pollution they produce." Thats very much an emissions trading approach, but with a fixed carbon price for three years. The price is $AU23 per tonne from 1 July 2012, then $AU24.15 in 2013-14 and $AU25.40 2014-15 (p 26). From 1 July 2015, the carbon price will float within and upper and lower ceiling with the Government setting an overall 'Cap' or limit on GHGs (p 27).

The GHGs covered are; carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and perfluorocarbon emissions from the aluminium sector (p 28).

There will be 500 sources of emissions, which will be companies or sites with direct greenhouse gas emissions of 25,000 tonnes of CO2-e a year or more, Sectors covered will be; stationary energy, waste, rail, domestic aviation and shipping, industrial processes and fugitive emissions (p 27). But not farming or land transport fuels.

So how comprehensive is 'Clean Energy Future'? To me, the comprehensiveness of a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme is a good metric of likely effectiveness. And its a metric to make comparisons between policies.

Lets say the comprehensiveness is the proportion of total GHGs emitted that is either taxed or included in an emissions trading scheme. 'Clean Energy Future' claims half to two-thirds. The report states that more than half of Australia's GHG emissions will be directly covered by the scheme, and almost two-thirds of GHGs will be included when other measures are included.

'Clean Energy Future' includes an appendix of forecast revenues. In the year to 30 June 2013, the 'Clean Energy Future' scheme will earn $AU 7.74 million (Appendix C, p 131). At the fixed price of $AU 23 per tonne, that gives 337 million tonnes of GHG (by CO2-e) that is taxed or priced. Thats 60% of Australia's 2009 GHG emissions (565 million tonnes) priced in 2013. That seems not a bad start, given that Geoff Bertram and Simon Terry have calculated that the NZ ETS, after free allocation, delayed start dates, only prices 3%, (12 million tonnes out of 378 million tonnes) of New Zealand's GHG emissions between 2008 and 2012 (Bertram and Terry 2010, The Carbon Challenge, p 111).

But is there any free allocation of carbon permits to emitters in the 'Clean Energy Future' scheme? Yes, if you look carefully there is.

The revenue forecast in Appendix C lists costs of $AU 2.85 billion for "Jobs and competitiveness program" and $AU 1 billion for "Energy security". Table 15 on page 114 notes that "Jobs and competitiveness" invloves the free "allocation of permits ...to new and existing entities undertaking an eligible emissions-intensive trade-exposed (EITE) activity". Table 16 Energy Security p 116 indicates that "Energy security" involves "allocation of permits and cash estimated at $5.5 billion over six years to assist highly emissions-intensive coal-fired generators" and "payments for the closure of around 2,000 megawatts of very highly emissions-intensive coal-fired generation capacity by 2020".

So of the $AU 7.7 billion collected from the 500 emitters in 2012-2013, possibly some $AU 3.85 billion will be rebated to the dirtiest and most carbon-intense emitters, as long as they are trade-exposed. The definition of emissions-intensive-trade-exposed isn't exactly tied down and has a number of parts. One is being imports or exports as greater than 10% of production. Also, rather like the NZ ETS, any assistance to emitters will phase out at a very gradual 1.3% a year (Table 15, p 114).

Lets assume that 100% of these two categories is spent on free allocation of permits or is just given as a subsidy to some of the 500 emitters. If we have 337 million tonnes of GHG emissions (by CO2-e) that is priced, and subtract 167 million tonnes for the gifting and assistance ( $AU 3.85 billion divided by $23AU = 167 mt) we get 169 million net tonnes of GHG emissions priced in 2013 under the 'Clean Energy Future' scheme. Thats 30% of 2009 GHG emissions of 565 million tonnes.

Okay, I am comparing 2013 for the 'Clean Energy Future' scheme with 2008-2012 for the NZ ETS, but 30% coverage of GHG emissions beats 3% of GHG emissions hands down. The 'Clean Energy Future' scheme is more comprehensive than the NZ ETS by a factor of 10, 30% of GHG emissions priced vs 3% priced. That certainly is a big "leap frog" ahead by our trans-tasman cousins, I would say.

What is New Zealand's fair share of GHG emissions?

I was playing with this widget on the World Bank's website.
I have graphed New Zealand's carbon dioxide emissions per capita⁽¹⁾ against per capita for World, the European Union, China and sub-Saharan Africa.

New Zealand very much has a developed country consumption pattern.

CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita)

Data from World Bank

(1) CO₂ only and not all greenhouse gases expressed as CO₂ equivalent. So methane and nitrous oxide are not included.

2050 Emissions Reduction Target submission

Here's my submission on Nick Smith's "50% by 2050" emissions reduction target.

2050 Emissions Reduction Target Consultation
Ministry for the Environment
PO Box 10362
Wellington 6143

By email to 2050target@mfe.govt.nz

28 February 2011

Submission in opposition to 2050 Emissions Reduction Target

Dear Sir/Madam,

I oppose the proposed target of a 50 per cent reduction of net greenhouse gases in CO2-e from gross 1990 levels by 2050.

Reasons

Gross-net inconsistency

1. The proposed target is misleadingly framed to give the impression of reducing emissions while actually allowing increases in gross emissions. This is because the measurement of the 2050 target is inconsistent with the measurement of the 1990 baseline. The 2050 target is to be ‘net’ (after deducting carbon sink removals) and the 1990 baseline is ‘gross’ (without deducting carbon sink removals).

2. This framing allows actual gross emissions excluding LULUCF to increase by the amount of the actual carbon sink removals identified for 1990. These carbon removals amount to 31 million tonnes (MfE April 2010: “New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2008”, Report No ME 1009). A net target that represents such a quantum of increased production of GHGs hardly represents a meaningful transition to a low carbon economy. Nor is it particularly credible.

3. I recommend that the 2050 target be expressed consistently with the baseline, either as ‘net to net’ or ‘gross to gross’.

Target is irrelevant to climate policy

4. The proposed target lacks any credible integration with other sections of the Climate Change Response Act 2002, the provisions of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZETS) or any other NZ Government policy on climate change.

5. The emissions reduction target is not defined in the interpretation section of the Climate Change Response Act 2002. Within that act the emissions reduction target does not influence the setting of NZETS emissions caps, or the setting of allocations of emission units, or the setting of prices for emissions units. The proposed target appears irrelevant to the key design features of the NZ ETS.

6. If the proposed target has no meaningful impact on the operations of the NZETS, then the gazetting of the proposed target is merely window-dressing for ineffective policies on climate change mitigation.

Target lacks scientific support

7. The proposed target is not consistent with the science. It is predicated on stabilizing carbon dioxide concentrations at about 450 parts per million (ppm) and keeping temperature increase since the 18th century to two degrees C.

8. In the paper Hansen et al 2008 “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” (PDF), Hansen and his co-authors conclude that a temperature increase of two degrees C will constitute dangerous interference in the climate system and that the target of 450 ppm, if long maintained, would push Earth toward an ice-free state and that the present global mean carbon dioxide concentration of 391 ppm, already exceeds a safe level. Hansen et al conclude that a safer concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

9. In the paper by Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows 2011: Beyond 'dangerous' climate change: emission scenarios for a new world, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 369, 20-44 doi: 10.1098/rsta.2010.0290, the authors make the following three points:

• There is now little to no chance of maintaining the rise in global mean surface temperature at below 2 degrees C.
• A temperature increase of 2 degrees C now represents a threshold, not between acceptable and dangerous climate change, but between dangerous and ‘extremely dangerous’ climate change; in which case the probability of exceeding 2 degrees C increases substantially.
• Annex 1 countries should be aiming to reduce GHG emissions by 100% by 2050 in order to allow Non-Annex 1 countries the space for carbon intensification of their economies to similar levels to Annex 1 countries.

I welcome the release of this submission or any information contained in this submission under the Official Information Act 1982.

Yours sincerely

NB. This process is a farce. There is no independent decision maker, and the Minister is clearly already committed to '50% by 2050'. Its just consultation for less than consultations sake.

Nick Smith mistakes gross and net GHG emissions

Still on the topic of Nick Smith not being able to tell the difference between gross greenhouse gas emissions and net greenhouse gas emissions (after subtracting forest carbon removals).

It needed its own chart. Here it is. Nick Smith's press release of 10 February 2011 says net GHG emissions in 1990 are 61 million tonnes - the large blue dot. That is actually the gross GHG emissions. Russel Norman's press release of February 2011 gives the correct 1990 net GHG emissions 29 million tonnes according to the Ministry for the Environment.

Here is the R code.

Year<-c(1990:2007)
gross<-c(61.84,62.02,63.21,62.94,64.10,64.45,66.02,68.87,66.96,68.60,70.58,73.10,73.44,75.99,75.04,77.16,77.59,75.54)
net<-c(30.77,30.49,32.67,32.29,34.21,35.68,37.31,39.00,35.17,36.15,39.30,42.89,45.85,47.57,47.14,53.37,57.88,58.72)
png(file="Smith.png",pointsize = 16,width=600,height=500)
plot(Year,gross,axes="FALSE",type="n",xlim=c(1990,2007),ylim=c(0,82),xlab="Year",ylab="Emissions (Megatonnes)",main="New Zealand's Gross & Net GHG Emissions 1990 to 2007")
axis(1,line=0,at=Year,labels=Year,lwd=1)
axis(2,lwd=1)
points(Year[1],net[1],pch=19, col=3,lwd=8)
text(1990,23,"Norman's \nNet GHG \nemissions",adj=0, col=1)
points(Year[1],61.7,pch=19, col=4,lwd=8)
text(1990,54,"Smith's \nNet GHG \nemissions",adj=0, col=1)
points(Year,net, type="l",col=3,lwd=2)
points(Year,gross,type="l", col=4,lwd=2)
legend(1996, 25,bty = "n", c("MfE Gross GHG emissions","MfE Net GHG emissions"),lty = c(1,1), pch=c(NA,NA),lwd=c(2,2), col = c(4,3))
mtext(side=1,line=-1.5,cex=0.8,"Source: MfE 2010 New Zealand’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2008")
box()
dev.off()

Kyoto Protocol decoded

The Kyoto Protocol has been mentioned in the NZ blogosphere over the last day or so. No Right Turn describes New Zealand's actions to comply with our obligations under the treaty as Scam Writ Large. He is largely commenting on a Green Party press release from Russell Norman, where Russell critiques Nick Smith's 50% reduction in GHGs by 2050 target.

Russell Norman's point is that the Government target for 2050 is an "accounting trick", as the 1990 baseline is total or gross GHG emissions from industrial and domestic energy use and pastoral farming excluding carbon sequestration from the forestry sector (carbon sinks). The 2050 target will be net, after deducting carbon sink removals. Therefore the "trick" is comparing a net target with a gross baseline. That allows gross emissions to have grown by any amount up to the additional 'credit' from the carbon removals from growing forestry.

No Right Turn agrees and adds that the same Gross-base-net-target fudge also fully applies to the Kyoto Protocol commitment period of 2008 to 2012.

This gross-net distinction is a bit hard to understand. So I have done some charts that will hopefully explain this in the context of the Kyoto 2008 to 2012 period. The first is just total emissions of greenhouse gases in NZ for 1990 to 2008.


Remember, NZ's Kyoto obligation is "no increase on 1990 levels of GHGs" so there is a horizontal line at 61 million tonnes (61 megatonnes), the annual GHG emissions calculated for 1990. Well, its obvious the trend line is not returning to the 1990 level. Okay, lets add the net GHG emissions, the gross GHGs less the forestry carbon sink removals.
Heck, those net emissions have grown faster up to 2008 even more than the gross emissions! So, how on earth is New Zealand going to get the GHG emissions back to 1990 levels to comply with the Kyoto Protocol? Nick Smith has told us that NZ will not just meet the Kyoto target but will be in a surplus.
The red line in this third chart shows the "Kyoto accounting" of NZ emissions. The forestry sink carbon removals, from 1990 to 2007, are ignored and have no status; the base in 1990 is gross GHGs only. Then, magically, from 2008 to 2012, the forestry sink carbon removals suddenly are counted and may be awarded as carbon credits to "post 1990" forest owners. Thus every carbon credit issued to a forester balances out the increase in gross emissions of GHGs above the 1990 base.

Hence, from these charts, I agree with both No Right Turn and the Greens that the Kyoto Protocol is very flawed from the point of view of driving reductions in GHG emissions.