Photo: 123RF
The Government is facing heat over its draft emissions reduction plan - with climate experts saying it ignores decades of advice, places too much faith in technology that does not exist and will result in higher emissions.
The plan was released on Wednesday morning, laying out how the government would meet greenhouse gas budgets on the way to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
It emphasised tree-planting and other carbon capture technology as a way to meet emissions targets.
New Zealand is on track to meet its first emissions budget (2022-2025), just meet its second one (2026-2030) but miss its third budget (2031-2035) by around 17 million tonnes of emissions.
Massey University professor emeritus Ralph Sims was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for five major climate mitigation reports.
He told Checkpoint the government was not taking climate change seriously, and the plan was "pretty unambitious".
"We know we've got to reduce emissions, and there's an urgency about this. We've been saying this with the international climate change reports since 1990, and the science is very strong and we know we're getting more extreme [weather] events.
"We also know what the solutions are and planting trees is one - but that's only an interim measure to buy us a bit of time, so we shouldn't be relying on it."
- Read more: How much of our extreme weather is due to climate change?
- 10 ways NZ can be strategic about addressing climate change threats
The government was relying on research and new technologies for agriculture and carbon capture, which "may or may not happen in the next few years", Sims said.
"It takes a long time to develop new ideas and commercialise them, and we haven't got that time, so we've got to rely more on reducing emissions, on using solutions that we all are aware of."
Projected emissions showed a large increase by 2035, but this was already happening because of "cancelled policies by the current government", he said.
This included winding back subsidies and increasing taxes for electric vehicles, industrial heat, and repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration, "so we're not moving in the right direction".
New Zealand's international standing was at risk, and it would also struggle to meet the "more ambitious" targets set under the Paris Agreement, he said.
"New Zealand's going to be far away from the agreed target for that, which is different to our emissions reduction budget, so internationally we're not being seen as a very good example of what we might be able to achieve."
There needed to be greater focus on encouraging individuals and businesses to make their carbon footprint smaller, for example by reducing food waste and how people drive their cars.
"Everybody listening to this transmission now in their car could reduce fuel emissions by 15-20 percent, just by how they drive their car. These co-benefits are often forgotten about and not taken into account in the cost of having to reduce emissions."
Further reductions were possible through the use of carbon forest sinks, and by reducing domestic emissions, but this was "nowhere near as much as what we're trying to do at moment".
Under the Paris Agreement, New Zealand would still have to buy international carbon credits, which could cost billions of dollars, and this is not being assessed by Treasury, he said.
The country had one of the highest level of emissions per capita in the world, he said, so "we've got a moral obligation to show leadership, to show willing and reduce our emissions as much as any other country".
The government's proposal was out for consultation and it was not too late to turn things around, Sims said.
"If enough people say we're really worried about the future of the planet, and your [plan] is not enough, during their consultation process a strong pressure from the public could turn that around.
"Conversely, the fossil fuel and vehicle and mining ... and agriculture industry are going to say, 'Well done - you haven't pushed us very hard so we'll keep emitting', but we cannot afford that in the long term future of the country and the planet."
In a statement, Professor Sara Walton of the University of Otago's climate change research network said the proposal was designed to remove barriers and enable markets for private investment.
"However, there is little in the plan that develops the infrastructure to support and enable essential mitigation to meet Aotearoa's Paris Agreement targets."
To develop new technologies that would reduce emissions, the government needed to consider regulation, investment infrastructure for technology and market development, she said.
"This is one of the shortcomings of the plan. There is little information ... to show that all of the factors that will drive any change have been considered. As such, I cannot understand how the reductions outlined... will be realised."
Meanwhile, New Zealand Institute of Forestry president James Treadwell welcomed the government's draft plan, saying afforestation played a "crucial" role in reducing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions.
The institute was concerned, however, at proposed restrictions on planting, and said the areas actually planted this year were around half of that forecast by the government.
"We... believe a more realistic approach to afforestation targets and clearer guidelines on proposed restrictions are essential," Treadwell said.
"Accurate forecasting and transparent implementation strategies are imperative to ensure we can contribute effectively to the nation's climate objectives."
