27/07/2022
Response by Euan Mason to the Climate Change Commission's press release on July 27th 2022:
Being greenhouse gas (GHG) neutral is highly desirable, and marketable, but the Climate Change Commission's (CCC's) advice appears to be somewhat at odds with creating a net GHG neutral economy for two reasons.
Firstly, the CCC says that we wish to move to net neutrality by 2050, but that our prime CO2 removal mechanism, new forest sinks, should not be relied upon because "This would ultimately put our economy at a competitive disadvantage relative to a decarbonised global economy and shift cost burdens on to future generations". No doubt the CCC's argument is based on the fact that new forests have limited lives as sinks, and so ever larger areas of new forest establishment are required for this solution to be sustainable, and we have a finite area of land much of which has other uses. What this really means is that net neutrality is not a desirable ultimate goal.
Moving gross emissions to zero should be our ultimate goal. Forest sequestration can buy us time while we switch to an economy that is not based on GHG emissions, but it is not a final solution. It is quite clearly spreading the burden of change across generations, and this is what our "net zero by 2050" commitment inherently does. We therefore need mechanisms that go further than the emissions trading scheme which could only achieve net zero GHG emissions. This advice should be explicit, with a clear plan and recommendations for mechanisms to get Aotearoa to gross GHG zero by a realistic target date.
Secondly, given the marketability of an enterprise claiming "greenhouse gas neutrality", the CCC appears to be confused about auctioned carbon credits, because as tools for claiming GHG neutrality auctioned credits are fraudulent. Auctioned credits are created out of thin air, and do not represent anyone actually removing GHGs from the atmosphere. Therefore purchasers of auctioned credits cannot honestly claim "our operations are greenhouse gas neutral". On the other hand, forest sinks do remove GHG's from the atmosphere, and purchasers of those credits can honestly claim greenhouse gas neutrality. Auctioned credits should not be called carbon credits, they are instead a form of taxation, such as a car registration, and should be called something like a "licence to pollute". This more honest name would provide an incentive to emit less rather than purchase them, and promote our ultimate goal of a zero gross emission economy. More honest naming would also clarify our policies and our actions thereby promoting our two goals of net GHG neutrality by 2050, and gross GHG zero by perhaps the end of the century, as suggested by the Globe study from Vivid Economics.
Euan Mason
Professor
University of Canterbury
