The Govt has plenty of conflicting advice on where it should pitch its national target for GHG emissions by 2020, relative to 1990 levels of emissions, and it may be tempted to follow the lead of other OECD nations that are offering a sliding scale of targets, depending on what the rest of the world does. At one end of the spectrum is the Greenhouse Policy Coalition, representing major industrial emitters, which wants no more ambitious targets than similar countries, like Aust, which is offering a staggered deal of 4% unilateral cuts from 1990 emissions, 14% cuts conditional on the efforts of major economies, and 24% conditional on an adequate global agreement.

At the other is Greenpeace, which must have spent in six figures on its “Sign On” campaign, which has run heavily in prime-time TV in recent weeks, and promotes a 40% cut from 1990 emissions levels by 2020. Somewhere in the middle, and advocating a graduated approach is the Environmental Defence Society, which sides with Greenpeace on its reading of the science, and says the GPC’s position is based on “dodgy modelling.” EDS proposes commitment to a 25% target by 2020, to recognise the pace of technological _responses to GHG emissions should accelerate over coming decades, making it easier to meet much larger emissions reductions by 2050 than the currently proposed NZ target of 50%.

“EDS contends that we should have a gross emissions reduction target of 25% on 1990 levels with a more robust target of 30-40% if developed and developing countries take on serious commitments at the COP. This approach seems likely to be similar to that which Australia will adopt in the negotiations.” GPC argues NZ runs the risk of failing to make a case that its unusual emissions profile - high renewables, high agricultural emissions, high impact of forestry - in a rush to “come up with the punchiest slogan for the media.” GPC says “most of the international models that have worked out a fair burden of sharing arrangement would, taking account a country’s national circumstances, allow Oceania to have a growth target.”

The Govt however is clear there will be a reduction target and, significantly, it will include a target for cuts in agricultural emissions, despite a strong farmer lobby suggesting agriculture should be excluded. Watch for further announcements, perhaps next week at Bonn, putting flesh on the NZ proposal to create and lead a global research initiative into agricultural GHG emission reduction technologies.

 Copyright © Media Information Ltd
NZ Energy & Environment Business Week