8. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Energy
Does he stand by his reported statement in the Press on 11 June 2008 that “CO2 emissions from the electricity sector had fallen since about 2000.”?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) Link to this
Data released just yesterday shows that the Government has New Zealand’s greenhouse emissions from electricity production going down. As I have often said, we need to build 175 megawatts of additional renewable generation each year to achieve our 90 percent target by 2025. This year we are completing 300 megawatts, with another 130 megawatts under construction. Of course, this year’s drought will produce a blip in emissions, as I have said previously.
Why does the Minister of Energy continue to stand by his statement when figures produced by his own ministry show that emissions from electricity generation have risen from 4,900 kilotonnes of carbon in the year 2000, to 6,600 kilotonnes in 2007, which is a 34 percent increase; and why is he saying that the Ministry of Economic Development has got it wrong?
In fact, the highest figure for emissions was actually in 2005, when it was 8,415 kilotonnes. The reality is that emissions are tracking sustainably down. I quote from the New Zealand Energy Quarterly, which was released yesterday for the March quarter; it shows emissions dropping from 2.3 million tonnes in the quarter to June 2006, to 1.8 million tonnes in the quarter to March 2008—that is total figures. Per unit of electricity generation, it dropped from 0.22 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour to 0.18 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide per gigawatt hour.
Su’a William SioThis target will be achieved through the incentives for renewable energy put in place by the emissions trading scheme, which National opposes, and by the 10-year restriction on thermal baseload generation, which National also opposes. I understand that National believes that a 90 percent renewable target is desirable; the problem is that it does not support the measures needed to achieve that.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister ever spoken to Simon Upton on this matter, or to anybody who was in the National Party at the time it signed up to the Kyoto Protocol; and does he have any idea what National had in its mind when it signed up?
Dr the Hon Lockwood SmithI just heard Dr Lockwood Smith say that they did not ratify it. I thought there was National Party support for the Government’s having ratified it. I thought that was clear policy, but if that is to be relitigated, National members are showing their true colours. The reality is that it was the National Government that signed the Kyoto Protocol. It was right to do so. We were right to ratify it, as were other developed countries. It is the best hope the world has of reducing emissions currently. The member makes a very good point, because the reality is that now that it is settled across Parliament that we should be in Kyoto, what we as a Parliament are doing is trying to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost. The cost does not arise from the emissions trading scheme, it arises from the obligation to reduce emissions.
Can he confirm the Ministry of Economic Development figures that carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation in 2000 were 4,900 kilotonnes and in 2007 were 6,600 kilotonnes—an increase of 34 percent; and is he now asking the House to accept his argument that the increases are starting to decrease?
Well, I have not hidden it. In my answer to the primary question I said they were even higher in 2005, when it was 8.4 million tonnes or 8,415 kilotonnes. Since then they have been on a sustainable downward path, although we will have a blip this year because of the drought, but that should not be a surprise to Mr Brownlee. The key to getting them down sustainably even further is by building more renewables. That is why the Government has a 90 percent renewable target and that is why we are building renewables.
Rt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Has the Minister had a conversation with Dr Nick Smith, who, as a former Minister for the Environment, spent his time going around the country shutting everything down—
Hon Dr Nick SmithRt Hon Winston Peters Link to this
Yes, he did; and Rawhiti 2B is a good example but he was stopped in his tracks that day, was he not; and he spent all his time as a Minister shutting everything down and arguing environmentalism, and now all of a sudden has changed his mind; and has the Minister spoken to him about that?
What I can confirm is that the only National Party policy in respect of electricity seems to be this call to reform the Resource Management Act. That Act, which was passed by the National Government, has not been an impediment to the renewables that we are building. We are constructing 300 megawatts this year. That was all consented to under the Resource Management Act. We also have another 130 megawatts under construction. That was consented to under the Act; in fact, I do not think that even one was notified. In addition, we have increased transmission expenditure to over $300 million per annum, climbing to $500 million, and all of that has been consented to under the Act. So the Resource Management Act is just being used as an excuse.
Does the Minister agree that the Government’s claims about sustainability and carbon neutrality are just spin, in the face of its record—given that 75 percent of all new electricity generation commissioned since 2000 has been 75 percent thermal?
No, I do not think the Government can be accused of being all spin on these issues. It is true the United Nations chose to focus on New Zealand, because it does see us as a source of hope in the world on these issues, rather than a source of despair—
They may laugh, but we have our electricity emissions under control, we have our transport emissions projected to be stable, and we will get a decline in them. That is a significant achievement, given increases in GDP and population. Of course, we have deforestation emissions under control through, and only because of, the emissions trading scheme.
Why does the Minister continue to claim that the Resource Management Act is not a problem for those wanting to build renewable generation, when his own Government’s record is that 75 percent of new generation built in the last 8 years has been thermal and that the 500-odd megawatts of new renewables he talks about, which is just a faceplate measurement, will be less than 40 percent efficient?
As to the last point, again the member is just wrong. Geothermal has the highest load factor of all, and that is our major contribution to new generation: both this year, and the 130 megawatts I mentioned we have already started for next year, is all geothermal. That operates at close to 100 percent operating factors. In terms of the Resource Management Act, I note that all of the generation, as I previously said, that is being built has been consented under the Resource Management Act. Further, the only one I am aware of that was turned down was Dobson, and that was not turned down under the Resource Management Act. It was turned down under the Conservation Act and has been replaced by the Arnold River scheme, which has lower environmental impact and it looks very likely that that will be consented under the Resource Management Act, albeit note that I am not trying to put pressure on the decision maker.
Can the Minister confirm that it took 6 years to re-consent the Waitaki scheme, and it took 7 years to re-consent Contact Energy’s Wairakei geothermal scheme, and if those two points can be confirmed, does he still want to say that the Resource Management Act is not a problem?
What I can confirm is that I am a lawyer and I used to do quite a bit of Resource Management Act work. If I were the client, I would be concerned if it took 6 or 7 years and it was adverse to my interests. But, of course, the reason why we do not hear great complaints about it is, as the member ought to know, when we are re-consenting a Resource Management Act consent, during the period of that process the pre-existing consent continues in force.