[ad_1]
Following this week’s climate emergency declaration, New Zealand will face having one of the worst climate records in industrialized nations.
Of the 43 industrialized countries, known as Annex 1 countries, 31 are experiencing a decline in emissions. But 12 saw net emissions rise between 1990 and 2018, and New Zealand is close to the top of this group.
Under the Paris Agreement, countries were asked to submit emission reduction targets. These Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are a measure of a nation’s commitment to contribute to the goal of limiting warming to well below 2 ℃.
New Zealand unveiled its NDC in 2015, with the main goal of reducing emissions over the next decade to 30% from 2005 levels. But that’s not what it seems.
New Zealand’s NDC confuses the issue by adopting a target of net emissions in 2030 compared to a baseline of lousy emissions in 2005. This target effectively allows New Zealand to increase net emissions.
Last year, New Zealand introduced the Zero Carbon Act, making it one of the few countries to have the zero emissions target set by law. But current short-term policies are still not keeping pace with the ambition of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
Fair and ambitious climate action
At the time of the Paris Agreement it was clear that the countries’ initial targets would sadly be insufficient to limit warming to well below 2 ° C. Therefore, the agreement requires countries to show “progression over time” to reflect each country’s “highest possible ambition”.
In addition to increasingly ambitious goals, countries were also asked to explain why their intended contribution to the common goal was fair. Many have done so, but not New Zealand.
Some countries argued that their contribution was fair because their total share of global emissions was small. Others said their per capita emissions were small, while some high-emissions nations pointed out that their per capita emissions were decreasing. If these arguments weren’t applicable, some countries said it was particularly difficult for them to cut emissions, so their fair share should be lower.
Like any kid on the playground who complains “It’s not fair!” he would recognize, these are only selfish excuses for inaction, rather than justifiable grounds for determining fairness.
Who decides what is right
The official review of the United Nations (UN) climate plans will not happen until 2023. For now, we have to rely on external assessments. Two main ones, from Climate Action Tracker and the Climate Equity Reference Project, illustrate some possible approaches.
Climate Action Tracker argues that an approach is right if it would lead to the results agreed in Paris, if followed by all countries. On this basis, New Zealand’s NDC was rated insufficient, consistent with a world that would have been 3 ℃ warmer.
The Climate Equity Reference Project seeks to determine universally agreed criteria of fairness, based on United Nations agreements and discussions with social, environmental, development and religious groups around the world. They found that there should be a component of historical responsibility: who got us in this mess and who benefited from it?
This can be assessed based on cumulative emissions from a starting point, such as 1850 or 1950. There should also be an element based on a country’s ability to act, valued by GDP above a certain threshold.
With this approach, New Zealand’s goal should be for net emissions to reach zero by 2030 and subsequently become negative by storing carbon and investing in reducing emissions in other countries. These conclusions were recently endorsed in a detailed study by Oxfam NZ.
Zero net emissions by 2030 is simply not possible. New Zealand hasn’t even begun to cut emissions.
Wealthy nations should take on more responsibility
So what can you do when you’ve accepted something you can’t get? The first step must be to recognize the situation and determine a fair contribution. New Zealand hasn’t done that yet – our current NDC (updated April 2020 to reflect the Zero Carbon Act) doesn’t mention fairness.
The second step is to work out the greatest possible ambition. For example, New Zealand could follow the EU’s lead of reducing emissions by a further 42-48% over the next decade.
The Commission on Climate Change, established under the Zero Carbon Act, provides New Zealand with a framework to address this problem. The commission is expected to publish a consultation paper in February, review the NDC and prepare emission budgets up to 2035.
Commission chair Rod Carr recognized the importance of fairness in determining the NDC, saying:
I think fair sharing is a really good conversation for New Zealanders […] We are a rich and developed nation. Wealthy nations, with the highest per capita incomes, have a responsibility to do more than the average.
The commission will also provide advice on how much of New Zealand’s contribution should be met nationally or internationally and how much should be met by planting trees instead of actually reducing emissions.
The latter is already a controversial issue, as payments for “carbon cultivation” (which includes New Zealand’s unique emissions trading system) are leading to turmoil in the agriculture and ‘environment.
If people today are paid to store carbon in trees, who is responsible for holding that deposit indefinitely and who bears the risk if it fails?
Climate Change Minister James Shaw acknowledged that the current target is weak compared to what the US, EU and China are considering, and that he expects a stronger target to be recommended by the Commission this year. next one.
New Zealand has put in place new institutions and mechanisms to reduce emissions and to phase out fossil fuels. Now let’s get them to work.
-
Robert McLachlan is a professor of applied mathematics at Massey University
-
This article first appeared in the conversation. You can read the original article here.
Source link
