Is New Zealand government contributing enough to the global climate change?

The claim over whether New Zealand is making a fair contribution to addressing the global problem of human-induced climate change is the main issue that NZ government has to respond. NZ’s government was ranked 33rd out of 60 countries in the Climate Change Performance Index 2017 table which is low for a wealthy country like NZ (WWF, 2017). “This is yet another report showing NZ has been lagging behind on climate action”, said WWF-New Zealand Chief Executive Officer Livia Esterhazy (WWF, 2017). Given that low rank is an issue for the current NZ’s government, this essay is going to talk about: First, previous and current NZ government’s proposed contribution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; second, assess to some key principles of fairness in the issue of burden sharing; third, assess whether NZ’s contributions are fair on those principles; finally, give advises to government on what priority should be given to fairness principles and how they ought to respond to climate change. While there is some consensus that NZ government has not been contributing enough to the global issue, it seems that NZ is going to try their best to prove that being at 33rd of the table is inadequate.

New Zealand government’s proposed contributions to global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (up to 2050)
Currently, NZ has a target to reduce emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2020 across the whole economy which is two years away from now (Parker, 2016). NZ have also projected to hold a total 738.3 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions at the end of the 2013-2020 period.

There are two reductional greenhouse gas commitments that NZ government will do to achieve our goals up to 2050. The first commitment targets the period from 2021 to 2030 which was agreed by the previous government (National Party). The main purpose is to reduce greenhouse emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030 which was determined under the Paris Agreement (2015) (Parker, 2016). This target takes responsibility of all included sectors such as: Energy, industrial processes and product use, agriculture, forestry and other land use and waste in order to mitigate all Paris Agreement greenhouse gas, especially CO2 and CH4 (Shaw, 2016).

On March 2011, NZ set a longer-term target of NDC which aims at reducing emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (Parker, 2016). This is in line with the Kyoto Protocol that considers since 1990 any removals or emissions stemming from afforestation or deforestation and the greenhouse gas emissions from such actions. Although, this is important but, it’s still unconditional targets which means Ministers can easily amend for any reason (Upton, 2018). Thus, NZ Green Party, NZ First and the government have agreed on an Act. The Prime Minister said, “the Act would be introduced by October 2018 which is the pathway to 2050 gas emission target” (Cheng, 2017). Basically, the report of the act recommend that NZ should follow in the footsteps of the UK in regress the greenhouse gas emissions. The Act defines every gas’ effects specific targets clearly as to deal with them separately (Upton, 2018). NZ committed to invest $48.5 million through the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre for research into technology to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions (Parker, 2015). Therefore, NZ’s targets can be affected by technological transformation so that the targets could be pushed even further by 2050 than what had been initially proposed (Upton, 2018).

The principles of distributive justice (or fairness) that are relevant, both globally and domestically, to the issue of burden (or cost) sharing with respect to climate change mitigation
Distributive justice of climate change mitigation is one of the hardest issues globally which takes huge amount of efforts, commitments, debates and many other aspects. Especially, burden is the factor that governments need to take serious considerations to define sharing fairness. ‘Global’ contains plenty of frameworks and assumption but every party should deal with their burden in their ability range equally (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). First principle is Vertical which refers to: “the greater the ability to pay, the greater the economic burden” (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). The contribution is based on GDP per capita of the country, as the conventional yardstick for determining capacity would be wealth measured in terms of GDP per capita (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). In this case, the goal would not be achieved if expecting countries with no or small ability to make contributions. Second principle is Polluter Pays which means: “The economic burden is proportional to emissions (including historical emissions)” (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). Therefore, if some parties have played a significantly larger role than others have in causing a problem, fairly they should take responsibility for what they have done ‘cleaning up the mess’ (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). Likewise, a country that has contributed more to reduce emissions should get a larger share of benefits and smaller amount of contributions or even attain a higher level of emission.

The comparison between developed countries and developing countries can be one of the most useful frameworks. Because the vulnerable countries are likely developing countries, the higher GHG emission entitlement can provide these countries with the space for economic growth (Edward, 2008). This GHG emission entitlement is also crucial for developed countries to function financial transfers and keep the economy running (Edward, 2008). Therefore, governments need specific measurements and circumstance analyses for each country to make fair burden share, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, especially developing country Parties (Nations, 2002).

‘Domestic’ is quite similar to ‘global’ when comparing between different businesses, individuals, industries, etc. First principle, Egalitarian states that: “Everyone has the right to pollute and be protected from pollution” (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). This allows or reduces emissions in proportion to population. The simplest version would require that all individuals be given equal emissions “permits” (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). The government can calculate the whole province’s responsibility to share burden by its population. Second principle is also ‘ability to pay’ which can apply to domestically for sharing burden as the reason for not expecting something from someone that doesn’t have the ability to produce (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). The final principle modifies the precise level of contribution required from the compare of historical responsibility for climate change (Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002). For instant, Toyota has been making cars for a long time, but fossil cars cause damages to the environment. Now, Toyota invest to transform fossil cars to electric cars which is friendly to the environment. Although, they historically negatively contributed to climate change, but Toyota has been contributing to the global goals of reducing the temperature. In many cases, Toyota should be considered to have more rights in gas emissions if needed for its technology development.

Whether New Zealand’s proposed contributions are fair
By looking at the nature of our national circumstances and emissions profile, NZ’s proposed contributions are not enough. New Zealand’s greenhouse total gas emissions mainly come from two sectors which are methane (CH4) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) (Groser, 2015). New Zealand is a highly efficient agricultural producer by world standards (source) so it’s understandable that 44% (2013) of CH4 come from agriculture (Groser, 2015). CO2 makes up 43% of NZ’s total gas emissions which is the results of having the highest level of renewable electricity generation in the world (Groser, 2015). Moreover, NZ has a low population density which accounts for a higher per capita use of road transport (Groser, 2015). Significantly, high level of agriculture production in NZ means it produces a lot of CH4 which is much more effective at trapping heat than others but has a relatively short lifetime in the atmosphere (around 12 years) (Groser, 2015) (Parker, 2018). NZ has a relatively small percentage of greenhouse gas emissions which is only 2% (2013) in the total gas emissions (Groser, 2015). Statistically, every New Zealander is using more gas emission than many other countries’ citizens since NZ is the sixth highest emission per person among Annex I (Parker, 2018).

On the other hand, NZ’s commitments and how NZ compares with other countries prove that NZ fairly contributes and be able to reach further. As presented, our commitments are quite ambitious, but they are achievable. 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 is a strategic target when global carbon budget must be cut by up to 70% by 2050 and eventually zero or negative net emissions (Boston, 2018). Statistically, in 2015, NZ’s gross emissions ranked 21st among Annex I countries (Kyoto Protocol’s members), but the emissions per person were the sixth highest at 17.4 tonnes CO2-e per capita (Groser, 2015). As the result, although New Zealanders are using more unit than other countries’ citizens according to high unit per capita but NZ emissions are globally small. Consequently, NZ’s carbon dioxide emissions per capita are lower than developed countries like US and Australia which is an important claim of NZ is contributing fairly, because CO2 (has less impact compare to CH4 but last in the air for a long time) is the main driver of global temperature over the long term (Groser, 2015).

NZ in fact is a developed country (quite wealthy) since our annual greenhouse gas emissions per person are higher than global average (Groser, 2015). To be fair, NZ should consider contributing more than countries that have lower level of gas emissions in term of money and investment. On the other hand, NZ has significantly committed $45 million to the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases out to June 2019 and a further $48.5 million through the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre for research into technology to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions (Parker, 2015). Compare to Australia who has population of more than five times NZs but only invested $46.2 million into the Climate Change Research Program (Nelson, 2016). $46.2 Million is not a fair amount for the country which is also well-known by their agricultural industry like Australia. NZ has shown “the ability to pay” and “polluter pays” in our agreements plus our zero-carbon act will be passed in 2018 which one more time proves that NZ is contributing fairly to the global issue. I personally think NZ contributions are fair among these listed features, more importantly, NZ could reach further than its targets since they had made investment.

Priority that should be given to principles of fairness in deciding how governments ought to respond to climate change
These principles that I mentioned above is based on the on the framework: ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ principle of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Pattanayak & Kumar, 2014). Significantly, these principles attempt to inform the equity debate in the international climate negotiations which have been agreed by most countries (Pattanayak & Kumar, 2014). By giving these information, these principles are supreme, and I believe they are the priorities that governments should put on the list, but as studying them, I realise that they are not perfect and can be replaced by conventional reasons. As some cases were given in the second part, countries or businesses with high gas emissions but also great contributions in innovations, finance, etc should not pay that much of the burden for historical harms that they had done. In this case, NZ government can’t either fully apply ‘vertical and polluter pays’ principles. Similarly, Toyota and many other automakers have been trying to reach further in making the industry become environment-friendly. If governments try to fully charge them because of harms that they had done, the industry will be slower or even unsuccessful moving toward new technologies. Principles are crucially important but, in some cases, the world needs external judgements which allow them to be more flexible other than being robotic. To sum up, both principles and considerations are important, I suggest the government that always apply the principles first, if principles are not appropriate, then carefully apply other considerations.

Whether NZs contributions to addressing the global problem of human-included climate change are fair or unfair, it depends on all kind of different aspects. By making new proposed contributions, NZ government is trying to improve their rank in the Climate Change Performance Index table which were claimed that NZ is ‘lagging behind’. The essay has outlined the principles that could apply to NZ’s situation which relates to burden sharing. As the results of being a wealthy agriculture country, New Zealanders are using more of the emission budget compare to many other countries’ citizens but most of them is CH4 which is not the main reason of global warming. On the other hand, NZ with Zero Carbon Act will seriously consider those commitments which shows the desires of NZ towards the global issue. Principles of fairness were agreed by most countries which NZ should consider placing those in the priority list. However, in some cases, the government needs to act wisely and be flexible to achieve the goals.

References:

1. WWF. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.wwf.org.nz/?15381/New-Global-Climate-Change-Index-Shows-Need-for-NZ-Govt-to-Review-2030-Target
2. Parker, D. (2016). Parker. Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions/New-Zealand%E2%80%99s-post-2020-climate-change-target
3. Parker, D. (2016). Parker. Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions/New-Zealand%E2%80%99s-post-2020-climate-change-target
4. Shaw, J. (2016). Shaw. Retrieved from http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/New%20Zealand%20First/New%20Zealand%20first%20NDC.pdf
5. Parker, D. (2016). Parker. Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-emissions-reduction-1
6. Upton, S. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/196427/zero-carbon-act-for-nz-web.pdf
7. Cheng, D. (2017). Cheng. Retrieved from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=1196205
8. Pattanayak, A., & Kumar, K. (2014). Pattanayak & Kumar. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2014.962468#aHR0cHM6Ly93d3ctdGFuZGZvbmxpbmUtY29tLmhlbGljb24udnV3LmFjLm56L2RvaS9wZGYvMTAuMTA4MC8xNDY5MzA2Mi4yMDE0Ljk2MjQ2OD9uZWVkQWNjZXNzPXRydWVAQEAw
9. Ringius, L., Torvanger, A., & Underbal, A. (2002). Ringius, Torvanger & Underbal, 2002. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1015041613785.pdf
10. Parker, D. (2015). Parker. Retrieved from http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/New%20Zealand/1/New%20Zealand%20INDC%202015.pdf
11. Nations, U. (2002). United Nations. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
12. Edward, A. (2008). Edward. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802193419
13. Nelson, L. (2016). Nelson. Retrieved from https://globalresearchalliance.org/country/australia/
14. Groser, T. (2015). Groser. Retrieved from https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/climate-change-consultation-document.pdf
15. Parker, D. (2018). Parker. Retrieved from http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/final_greenhouse_gas_inventory_snapshot.pdf
16. Boston, J. (2018). Slice 41. “Climate Change - causes, consequences, burden sharing and responses”