8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
What progress has the Government made over the past 8 years in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and towards the goal of carbon neutrality?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
Greenhouse gas emissions from electricity in 2007 were 20 percent lower than they were in 2006. We are on track to achieving our target of 90 percent electricity from renewables by 2025—
No, it is not. Dr Smith can say that it is going up, as often as he wants to, but it is not. We need to build 175 megawatts of renewables a year. This year alone we are building 300 megawatts. I am confident that carbon neutrality in the electricity sector will be achieved by 2025, if not before, with only modest offsets of residual emissions. In addition, deforestation emissions have decreased substantially this year and will remain lower if the emissions trading scheme proceeds in its current form.
Again, I say to Dr Smith that it is true. The emissions trading scheme will of course discourage increases, and reward decreases, in emissions across the economy.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Can the Minister confirm yesterday’s just released forestry figures showing a 19,000 hectare loss of forest in 2007, which are the worst figures since records began in 1951, and that this loss will add 15 million tonnes of carbon emissions, causing the greatest annual increase in any year and the highest emissions since records began in 1990; is this not a disgraceful record for a Government that is proclaiming itself to be a world leader on climate change?
I confirm that deforestation peaked last year at 19,000 hectares. This proves the point the Government has been saying for years, which is that we need to have controls around deforestation. Those controls are affected by way of the emissions trading scheme, and already this year we have seen deforestation plummet.
Gordon CopelandWhen it was obvious by 2002 that a massive, nationwide tree-planting drive would have gained New Zealand Kyoto Protocol credits by enlarging our carbon sink, why instead does the Government find itself presiding over a 46,000-hectare deforestation from 2004 to 2007, and an estimated $900 million liability under Kyoto, and is this incompetence, negligence, or a combination of both?
The main driver of the change in forestry and deforestation was the changing economics of forestry compared with dairying.
I am sorry, it is not. It is an obvious truth that what has been driving that change has been the relative profitability of those land uses. That is why the Government has chosen to devolve forest credits to new forests, why we have an afforestation grants scheme, and why it is also necessary to make sure that, like any other sector in the economy, increasing emissions are paid for by those who increase emissions.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Both the principal question and my question talked about what has happened over the last 8 years. We are calling the Government to account for those 8 years. I do not think that talking about what is planned for the future addresses the question as put forward.
Madam SPEAKERI thought it did address the question. As the member should know by now, the member cannot require a specific answer to the question. If he wishes to do that, he should have the Standing Orders changed.
Hon Jim AndertonWhat recent and relevant reports has the Minister seen on policy to reduce emissions from deforestation?
I have seen a report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry this week that shows that the Labour-Progressive climate change policies have been very successful in reducing deforestation.
They have. It has gone down from 19,000 to probably less than 5,000 hectares this year, which seems to me a significant change, even if it does not to the member.
Hon Maurice WilliamsonMr Williamson obviously does not know the millions of hectares of forestry we have in New Zealand. The report also shows that the emissions trading scheme in its current form will reduce deforestation by 38,000 hectares of forestry, resulting in a 30 million - tonne reduction in emissions, worth around $700 million to the New Zealand economy and taxpayer.
Hon Mark BurtonThe answer to that is evident from the breakthrough success of nitrification inhibitors to reduce nitrous oxide emissions. This shows the importance of research. Obviously, finding a technological answer to methane emissions is crucial, since that is New Zealand’s biggest slice of emissions. The Government’s boost of $700 million through the Fast Forward fund is critical to this. Like everyone else in New Zealand, I am surprised at the poor judgment shown by John Key and the National Party in choosing this issue to differentiate on. Mr Key is differentiating not just from Labour, but he is differentiating from his own spokesman on environment, Nick Smith, who has been calling for more funding for research to reduce agriculture emissions.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Can the Minister explain the contradiction between his admitting that deforestation peaked in the calendar year 2007, and the press statement issued by the Government saying that deforestation was reducing?
Yes; it is the difference between 2007 and 2008. That is the difference. Every year the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry surveys deforestation intentions, and we also monitor actual rates of deforestation through aerial photography or satellite photography. As a consequence, we are sure that deforestation has substantially reduced this year.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Can the Minister confirm the internationally reported figures showing that New Zealand’s net emissions are 23 percent greater than in 1990, whereas Australia’s are just 5 percent above 1990 levels, and that the key difference between Australia being on target to meet the Kyoto target and New Zealand not having a bolter’s hope is that in recent years Australia has planted an additional 500,000 hectares of trees, whereas over the same period in New Zealand, trees have been felled like there is no tomorrow?
No, I cannot confirm some of the details there. I can confirm the tonne amount that the member quotes in respect of the increased emissions from New Zealand. But the main reason Australia is closer to its target than we are to ours is that it had higher rates of deforestation historically that it has already knocked on the head. We had yet to knock ours on the head until this year, and that is one of the reasons why our emissions have been growing until now.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Can the Minister explain why the Government’s press release yesterday announcing the record 19,000 hectares’ loss of forest is claiming that deforestation is reducing, and is this not, as one forestry industry spokesperson has said, “a bare-faced lie. These people will do whatever they can to stay in power.”; and could he specifically explain what part of this graph with figures up to the end of 2007 might look like deforestation is reducing?
The member actually answered the question himself. He has figures until the end of 2007. The point has been made by the Minister of Agriculture and of Forestry and by me that deforestation has decreased since then and the reason it has decreased is that—
No, we have not put a tax on it. We are actually grandparenting more generously to deforestation than to any other sector. Deforestation is going down because it is being included in the emissions trading system.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave of the House to table the forestry database of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I seek leave to table the statement by the forest industry that this is a bare-faced lie.