Catching up on emails I noted one from a new advocacy group, launched this week, Generation Zero www.generationzero.org.nz.
I would have thought it deserved some media coverage but despite a cute photo op outside Parliament, it looks like this only appears to date on their Facebook page.
Good on them for putting the effort into getting up the website. Generation Zero are calling for zero carbon emissions by 2050 and binding targets en route. NZ’s current goal? 50%. of 1990 levels. On current tracking we have about as much chance of reaching that as our 2020 commitment of reducing to 10 or 20 percent below 1990 emission levels. (In fact we are increasing.) Across the ditch, Julia Gilliard’s carbon tax has set a 80% reduction target. And Britain’s Tory government has a similar goal. In fact there, it’s bipartisan.
Yet Gillard’s plan is going down like a bucket of sick under the constant attacks of Tony Abbott (who bowled former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull because he tried to back Labor’s earlier wider-ranging, less subsidising ETS.)
Generation Zero’s guru is James Hansen, who visited here recently. I’m currently reading the book he has devoted to his grandchildren – effectively Generation Zero.
As Australia illustrates, the politics and potential outcomes of this debate are horrible. Attempts to encourage/require change from our carbon-fueled lifestyles are politically fraught; not doing so puts the very existence of Generation Zero – and their grandchilren – at extreme risk.
If you want examples of our own Julia or Tony choices, look to the differences between Labour and National on agriculture in the ETS or whether lignite mining in Southland should proceed.
Of course the Liberal proponents of Abbott’s “No” Campaign fail to acknowledge that Australia will likely face eco-tariffs in the event it does nothing about climate change.
Not exactly sure how good for Australian companies and exporters that would be.
Unfortunate but unsurprising that they don’t appear to have any media coverage. Look forward to seeing Labour’s policy on climate change- need something more ambitious than Dr Smith’s position.
Would be interested to know how much the ETS has raised so far through electricity and petrol in particular.
Aussie seems to have a bit of a problem being an exact mirror of our energy production. We are 80% renewable, (more strategic use of our dams ie not competitive market model and we can achieve 100% easily) Australia is 80% Coal with nuclear and Snowey river the big exceptions. They do not control their own uranium production and so face huge expense and time to change this.
On the ETS agriculture, why is Land corp changing forests into dairy if this does not fit our purpose?
Jeremy, good question, like most farming will be dollar-driven. Must say LandCorp farms are managed much better than most. Visited one last year across road from a Crafar farm which was a disgrace. Accept the emissions profile of either farms will still be the same but Landcorp water contaimination would be far less. BTW, Australia doesn’t have nuclear power but yes, 80% of power from coal and reverse of us. But then only 16% of their emissions from agriculture – ours 50% – and they are now implementing a serious plan to reduce their profile.
@Jeremy- what do you mean that we can easily achieve 100% renewables with more strategic use of our dams? Are you saying that with a ‘more competitive’ market model would reduce electricity demand so much so that we would achieve 100% renewables?
No I am claiming that we could fill the dams and keep them full, so that when a dry year comes along we still have enough water. The market model encourages the supplier to drain more water to run the turbines at full capacity to sell more electricity. Given that there are carbon cost to building with concrete, building more smaller dams on the same system minimizes the collateral environmental damage. An example would be the new scheme in Marlborough (the driest part of our country), or the abandoned(?) Waimakariri power/irrigation combined scheme.
Interesting info Jeremy, thanks
I wonder, Jeremy, if the dams are to be kept full just where the 70% of our electricity supply might come from? Are you envisaging that we generate with only that of the inflows into the dams? The inflows into the dams varying hugely throughout the year, and also seasonally. The dams have to be managed so they are drawn down during periods of high demand / low inflows (eg winter) and replenished during high inflows / reduced demand (spring snow melt). There is only about 6 weeks of actual storage capacity in NZ’s hydro-lakes. The problem is not the market model, but that there is no price signal to the consumer about when the dams are full or empty (and therefore if electricity is scarce or abundant).
And what is the position of Labour on lignite mining? I haven’t been able to find anything definitive.
One policy announcement at a time. Trevor