11. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
How does the expected level of greenhouse gas emissions, including those from deforestation, for this year compare with net emissions in 1999 when Labour took office and the Kyoto base year of 1990?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
A spike in deforestation of Pinus radiata is expected over the Christmas period. []
Madam SPEAKERI think the Minister has made his point, but he should address the question. [ Interruption] I know it is Christmas, but we will now have the supplementary question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister think it is a joke that New Zealand’s net emissions have gone up 12 million tonnes over the last 4 years and that New Zealand got a near-bottom ranking in the climate change index report issued at the United Nations conference in Bali; and how is that consistent with his Government claiming that it is to be a world leader on climate change and that somehow we are on track to carbon neutrality—does this graph I am holding look as if we are on track to carbon neutrality?
Hon Mark BurtonCan the Minister please indicate to the House what the Labour-led Government is doing to reduce emissions, including those from deforestation?
The Labour-led Government has, of course, introduced an emissions trading scheme, which every party but ACT has supported in its first reading. Of course, the first sector to enter the emissions trading scheme will be forestry.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Why is it that for every year since records began in 1951 New Zealand planted more trees than we felled, but in 2004, 2005, and 2006 we lost 3 million trees each year, and this year we are projected to lose an expected 6 million trees; and with this appalling record at home, how can New Zealand have any credibility in international negotiations when trying to persuade developing countries to stop deforestation?
Despite the deforestation the member refers to, the total number of hectares in forestry in New Zealand has increased. When we compare 1999 with now we see that the number of hectares in forestry is higher. Further, as I said previously, deforestation will decrease substantially next year.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
How is it that not only is Australia delivering higher incomes to its citizens but also its net emissions from 1990 are 4 percent and it is on track to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations, whereas in New Zealand net emissions are 23 percent over their 1990 levels, and every official agrees that we will not be able to meet those Kyoto Protocol targets?
Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions have increased by more than New Zealand’s, except in respect of deforestation. The Australian Federal Government has been able to take advantage of some very severe rules against deforestation in Queensland. I repeat what I said earlier, which is that deforestation emissions from New Zealand will decrease substantially next year.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
Is it correct that Australia’s prosperity has been largely built on growing coal and gas exports and that under the Kyoto Protocol the liability of exports lies with the countries importing the coal and gas, not with Australia, whereas with New Zealand and our exports such as dairy, the liability obviously lies with New Zealand?
I can indeed confirm that. The very large amounts of emissions that are caused by Australian exports of coal and gas are not counted by Australia in its Kyoto Protocol balance; our emissions from increasing agriculture are.
Hon Phil GoffHon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I just want some basic answers from a Government that has failed. They are a bunch of failures across there.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister accept the advice of officials that there is no realistic way that New Zealand can now get emissions back to 1990 levels; if so, can he state how New Zealand will meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, noting that it comes into effect in just 14 days’ time?
As I have said previously to this House, the current estimate prior to emissions trading of our deficit during the first commitment period is 45 million tonnes. We expect, as a consequence of the emissions trading and other proposals we have brought into effect this year, that that deficit will decrease to a tonnage in the high 20 millions or early 30 millions - plus.
Would the member please leave the Chamber. I have warned members so many times, and the courtesy was given to that member—no one interrupted when he was asking his question.
In respect of that balance of 25 to 30 million tonnes, New Zealand will take responsibility for those emissions by purchasing emission reductions using Kyoto Protocol mechanisms.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Is the Minister’s reply to Dr Cullen’s question about coal exports not rather inconsistent with New Zealand’s position, whereby our coal exports, for which other countries have to take responsibility, are increasing all the time and the Government is giving a subsidy to the coal industry by not requiring its coal seam methane emissions to come into the emissions trading scheme ever, despite the fact that under the Kyoto Protocol New Zealand is accountable for those coal seam methane emissions; and will the Minister reconsider that part of the emissions trading system?
In respect of the first part of the member’s question, it is, of course, necessary to have a global agreement in respect of emissions reduction for it to be effective. Some of our coal exports go to Japan and it takes responsibility for the emissions that result. Increasingly in the future other countries will also be taking responsibility for their emissions from burning coal, including the coal that they import from New Zealand. In respect of the question about methane seam gas in coalfields, that is an issue I am willing to look at again. I would say that the preliminary advice I have had on that since the member’s questions to me outside the House, is that the quantity of coal seam methane emissions is very low and that the cost of measuring might exceed the environmental benefit.