Why should the UK buy NZ exports?

You can just see the UK dairy and meat advertising executives rubbing their hands

Comment: If NZ only commits to a 15% reduction in carbon dioxide while Britain pays for 34%, why should UK consumers purchase NZ goods and support an economy subsidised by inaction?

Countries around the world are pinning their envornmental policies to their shirts in the run-up to the December climate change negotiations that will attempt to build a successor to the Kyoto protocol.

In the United Kingdom, the government has enacted legally binding targets for CO2 emissions of 34% by 2020 and, naturally, the consumer will have to pay for this with taxes and higher cost of goods. (Though there are good arguments to suppose the greening of the economy will ultimately result in lower energy costs, there is much investment to be made first.)

But if other countries fail to erect similar targets, the UK consumer will be damaging their own prospects and businesses by purchasing imports that are not subject to such policies.

New Zealand is currently offering a best option of just 15 percent by 2020, citing economic reasons for this derisory target.

A 40 percent reduction would "absolutely decimate our economic activity", John Key, prime minister said yesterday, as reported in The Press.

"We can't afford to write that cheque," he added.

Well the UK's climate change minister, Ed Miliband, wrote in the Guardian, "When we all depend on each other's actions, the world can't afford climate free-riders."

Consumer Power
If the UK government itself does not put pressure on countries like NZ to conform to stricter policies on climate change, perhaps it will ultimately be down the UK consumer to make sure purchases are from sustainably managed economies.

NZ is not making a good impression with it's handling of emissions targets, and I worry a backlash from UK consumers is only round the corner. You can just see the UK dairy and meat advertising executives rubbing their hands -- as evidenced by the recent Johnny Rotten episode.

But there is still time before Copenhagen negotiations begin in earnest.

As Greenpeace climate campaigner Simon Boxer said in The Press, "I think it's a bit out of John Key's hands. If the only way that China and India will come on board is to offer 30 or 40 per cent, I can't see John Key would sit there at the same meeting with Barack Obama, and everyone else, holding on to his 15 percent."

Comments

[Domestic Executive]

I can't help but think this is a case of "you big boys are not going to push around us kiwis". We'll do things in our own way, in our own time, even if it means that we'll be even more isolated than we really are. Cos we're kiwis, we're survivors and we're different - aren't we?

Err, no Mr Key not when it comes for global warming. Remember the hole in the ozone layer that gives so much exposure to NZ - if the world had not responded NZ might be toast now.

Play fair I say - we need to do our bit. Be true to our clean and green image for once.

[On behalf of Children's hospitals]

Thanks for the comment, Dom Ex. Being true to the image is certainly important from a reputation point of view.

But also, there is no guarantee that oil and petroleum products will remain so cheap. Relying on imports could well be much more expensive than becoming self-sufficient and reducing emissions in the process.

[Alan]

15%, 30%, 40% of what?
Setting % figures for any country is meaningless. What if 40% of NZ CO2 output from whenever means closing down every coal or oil fired power station and we have regular blackouts? 40% of UK CO2 may not have the same effect. A lack of context, industrial CO2, lifestyle, green measures to lock up CO2. It all makes a difference

We don't have fool proof ways of measuring CO2 emissions across an entire economy. Imagine a $5 tax for every log of wood we burn to keep ourselves warm since the power company has a blackout in place and electric heater are not working. Does that help?

We all have our part to play, don't get lost in the headline numbers. Take action, we have been and continue to do so.

[William Knight]

We'll probably have to differ on this Alan. (Or sit down one night over a glass of wine and realise we're singing from the same score.)

You see it's nobody's fault except the individual countries if they haven't been planning for this. It's not as if we didn't know, the first Kyoto agreement dates back to 1991.

If a 40% target means closing down coal fired power stations, then that's what it means.

This, as you say, is not about the numbers, the number simply come from the science, this is about implementation.

You can't build half a bridge, and if NZ won't pay for it's own emissions cuts, why should the UK?

[Avalon]

If we are only going with 15% - can we at least stop using the "clean green 100% pure" slogan :)

One of the the things that really shocked us here was how difficult it was to even get information on transferring to clean energy. It was something we wanted to do, both from an environmental stance, and to help with the budgeting.

It was something Im afraid to say we gave up on as it was just too difficult to get information. We will look at it again someday - I just hope NZ plays on its repuation and lives up to it, rather than playing hardball.

Am I nuts for thinking we could do very well out of being a truly "green" country???

[Alan]

Hi William
I accpet we all need to cut our CO2 emissions. However, instead of being serious about this and actually taking action to reduce emissions, we set up a CO2 trading scheme. So we get to buy a clean conscience.

That wont stop the emissions, and (while I may be a little cynical) I don't trust all the different schemes which promise to plant tree's with my CO2 conscience cash.
After all, how much of my $20 to buy tree's, actually goes to buying tree's? Just like the same $20 going to a charity - a significant proportion of it will disappear in 'overheads'.
So my $20 worth of tree's to offset my CO2 emissions, only plants, say, $16 worth of tree's. If we have to cut emissions by 40%, we can't afford to aim for that with conscience cash and miss by 8%.
I just feel we should be more practical, and take action ourselves.

[Southerner]

You can't easily compare countries when setting the targets - NZ's main emissions are from agriculture. NZ produces more than its share of world food, much more efficiently (from a carbon perspective) than almost any other country. If you cap or tax this sector too heavily then you're contributing to the food crises, which is probably as big a problem as climate change.

The UK has had a very easy ride in reducing emissions since Kyoto was implemented. All they had to do was phase out coal powered power stations, something that was dead easy and almost certainly would have had to have done it anyway from a local emissions point of view.

Copenhagen needs to share the load fairly between developing and developed countries, and between individual countries, based on changing emission behaviour, not based on some one size fits all solution.

[William Knight]

Very good reply, Southerner, thanks.

It's a really difficult argument because so many livlihoods are at stake across the globe.

But it's not as though countries have not known about this problem. If NZ has ignored the issue til now why should other countries make up the difference - it's about the total amount of greenhouse gas after all.

Somebody has to pay the Carbon cost of producing and shipping food across the globe to markets. That cost, I think, should be borne at source and reflected in the price of goods. Seems fair enough to me, and if it becomes to pricey to produce certain goods then so be it. The world cannot afford to emit too much carbon dioxide (methane or other GHC) the science sets the limit, not the politicians.

[Alan]

I agree with southerner on this.
It's not just foods though - any produced or shipped goods are an issue.
Yes - we all have to do something individually, however NZ 'batting higher than it's weight' wont make much of a difference to the problem.. 4m people vs 6,000m NZ is a pinprick in the issue. The leverage of more populous countries making changes is much higher.
I may have missed something with the Kyoto & Copenhagen accords, but it all looks like formalising a trading scheme to offset CO2 emissions. So we're focussing on the wrong solution, buying off the CO2 we produce, instead of thinking about how we can actually lower it sensibly.

[William]

Hi Alan,

CO2 acknowledges no boundary. If NZ can say it's too small to bother, so can Ireland, then Scotland, then Wales, then Northumbria, Devon, etc. (You get the point)

NZ has derived its wealth from the global market (and CO2 production) just as much as all the other states.

I totally agree with what you say about leverage, but no big states will move (and pay) unless unless the responsibility is shared.

My preferred solution is a per capita limit on emissions across the globe rather than this silly business with national targets.