[ad_1]
ANALYSIS: Following the declaration of a climate emergency this week, New Zealand will have to grapple with the fact that it has one of the worst climate records of any industrialized nation.
Of 43 industrialized countries, known as Annex 1 countries, 31 are experiencing a drop in emissions. But 12 have seen an increase in net emissions between 1990 and 2018, with New Zealand near the top of this group.
As part of the Paris Agreement, countries were asked to submit emission reduction targets. These Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are a measure of a nation’s commitment to contribute to the goal of limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
New Zealand introduced its NDC in 2015, with the main goal of reducing emissions over the next decade to 30% below 2005 levels. But this is not what it sounds like.
READ MORE:
* Student Strike for Climate Change: Why Young Kiwis Demand More Action
* The Hamilton City Council votes in favor of climate urgency over emergency.
New Zealand’s NDC confuses the issue by adopting a net emissions target in 2030 compared to a gross emissions baseline in 2005. This target actually allows New Zealand to increase net emissions.
Last year New Zealand introduced the Zero Carbon Act, making it one of the few countries to have a statutory zero emissions target. But current short-term policies still fall short of the ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Fair and ambitious climate action
It was clear at the time of the Paris Agreement that countries’ initial targets would be woefully insufficient to limit warming to well below 2 ° C. Therefore, the agreement requires countries to show “progression over time.” to reflect the “highest possible ambition” of each country.
In addition to the increasingly ambitious targets, countries were also asked to explain why their intended contribution to the common goal was fair. Many did, but not New Zealand.
Some countries argued that their contribution was fair because their total share of global emissions was small. Others said their per capita emissions were small, while some high-emitting nations noted that their per capita emissions were falling. If those arguments were not applicable, some countries said it was particularly difficult for them to cut emissions, so their fair share should be less.
Like any kid on the playground who complains “That’s not fair!” I’d admit, these are just selfish excuses for inaction rather than justifiable grounds for determining fairness.
PINK WOODS / THINGS
Last year New Zealand introduced the Zero Carbon Act, making it one of the few countries to have a statutory zero emissions target. But current short-term policies still fall short of the ambition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Who decides what is fair
The official review of the United Nations climate plans will not take place until 2023. For now, we have to rely on external evaluations. Two of the main ones, the Climate Action Tracker and the Climate Equity Reference Project, illustrate some possible approaches.
Climate Action Tracker argues that an approach is fair if it leads to the results agreed in Paris, if all countries follow it. On that basis, New Zealand’s NDC was rated insufficient, consistent with a world that would be 3 ° C warmer.
The Climate Equity Benchmark Project attempts to determine universally agreed equity criteria, based on UN agreements and in discussions with social, environmental, development and religious groups around the world. They found that there should be a component of historical responsibility: who got us into this mess and who benefited from it?
This can be assessed by cumulative emissions from some starting point, such as 1850 or 1950. There should also be an element based on a country’s ability to act, assessed by gross domestic product above a certain threshold.
Under this approach, New Zealand’s goal would have to be for net emissions to reach zero by 2030, and then go negative by storing carbon and investing in emission reductions in other countries. These conclusions were recently supported in a detailed study by Oxfam New Zealand.
Zero net emissions by 2030 is simply not possible. New Zealand hasn’t even started cutting emissions yet.
Rich nations should take more responsibility
So what can you do when you have accepted something that you cannot achieve?
The first step should be to acknowledge the situation and determine a fair contribution. New Zealand has yet to do so – our current NDC (updated April 2020 to reflect the Zero Carbon Act) does not mention fairness.
The second step is to develop the highest possible ambition. For example, New Zealand could follow the lead of the European Union in reducing emissions by another 42% to 48% in the next decade.
The Climate Change Commission, established under the Zero Carbon Act, gives New Zealand a framework to address this. The commission is expected to publish a consultation document in February, reviewing the NDC and preparing emissions budgets through 2035.
Commission Chairman Rod Carr has recognized the importance of fairness in the NDC’s determination, saying: “I think fair share is a very good conversation for New Zealanders. […] We are a rich and developed nation. Rich nations, with higher per capita incomes, have a responsibility to do more than average. “
The commission will also advise on how much of New Zealand’s contribution should be met domestically or internationally, and how much should be paid by planting trees rather than reducing emissions.
The latter is already a contentious issue, as payments for “carbon farming” (which includes the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, unique in the world) are generating unrest in the agricultural and environmental sectors.
If people are paid to store carbon in trees today, who has the responsibility to hold that deposit indefinitely, and who is at risk if it fails?
Climate Change Minister James Shaw has acknowledged that the current target is weak compared to what the United States, the EU and China are now considering, and that he expects the commission to recommend a stronger target next year.
New Zealand has established new institutions and mechanisms to reduce emissions and phase out fossil fuels. Now, we put them to work. 
Robert McLachlan is Professor of Applied Mathematics at Massey University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
