Low Carbon Report exhibits compromise

Sir Alan Mark

Opinion

After decades of sitting on our hands, the simple act of commissioning an inquiry into becoming a low carbon economy has been hugely positive on public perception. But the Productivity Commission’s final report on transitioning to a low carbon economy seems flawed in a way that could seriously undermine our future efforts to combat climate change.

It is self-evident that the earth’s life supporting capacity sets the upper bound for our continued safe occupation of planet earth. Currently, the combined ecological footprint of the way we do business and our lifestyles exceeds that capacity by more than 50 percent, which, if not reversed, can only lead to a sticky end.

Thus, the key flaw in the assessment is the commissioners refusal to consider the transition in this context of ecological overshoot and the profound impact it will have on correctly framing the issue and on our ability to remedy it.

And while some technological changes will help, the Commission appears over-reliant on these, while the more fundamental changes required to respond to our energy and material limits, are not included. Neither are the implications for our international transport (including air travel which is clearly an intrinsic element of our domestic economy), or changes to food and tourism sectors properly addressed.

Terms with insufficient scope to tackle the deep seated issues has been a reoccurring issue with recent inquiries, including on the Zero Carbon Bill. Thus, our fear now, is that key flaws in the report will be carried over into terms of reference for the proposed Climate Change Commission, when it is crucial it has the expertise and scope to operate without constraint in recommending whatever it considers necessary to achieve the goal of net zero carbon by 2050.

The previous government defined the purpose of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry as to “identify options for how New Zealand could reduce it’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions through a transition towards a lower emissions future, while at the same time continuing to grow incomes and well-being”. The Terms also required “increasing well-being . . . including sustainability . . . increasing equality, social cohesion, and resilience to risk”.

Given the close relationship between greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels and gross domestic product (GDP), many would agree that growing incomes, while at the same time slashing our emissions, might not just be feasible. Moreover, it is common knowledge that the global economy has been sulking ever since the 2008 global financial crash, which we know has economics experts scratching their heads.

Yet for decades, systems modelling has predicted the global economy will fail due primarily to resource constraints. This prediction is supported by steadily diminishing energy returned from each new unit of fossil fuel extracted — be it oil, gas or coal. A “no growth” scenario would literally reconfigure the decision space” for a transition that is the subject of their enquiry. It is not a question of if, but when, yet that scenario is still entirely ignored in the Final Report.

We provided examples that contraction is already happening, and we argued for focusing on how to handle limits collaboratively, rather than just the same old expansion and more through competitive advantage.

Perhaps due to political pressure, the Commission’s emphasis seems to have become focused on “low emissions” rather than “zero emissions”. They may believe that this could be compatible with the 2C target, but it seems a high risk approach leading to a 50-100 year overshoot before coming anywhere near a target like 1.5C. Importantly, some changes triggered by an overshoot can be irreversible — eg. collapse of part of the Greenland ice sheet — and that is before getting into all the biophysical and social impacts. Thus, peak climate forcing is important and making exceptions for short term agricultural gases, deviates from international practice and increases the risk of losing control of the climate.