A month or so ago I ran a couple of posts on New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions in international context. Readers may recall that New Zealand now has the second highest emissions per unit of GDP of any OECD country, having moved up from sixth in 1990.
As part of the Paris climate change accord process, New Zealand has made ambitious promises to reduce its total emissions substantially. This was the wording from the terms of reference for the new Productivity Commission inquiry into how best the economy might adjust given the climate targets
New Zealand has recently formalised its first Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement to reduce its emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The Paris Agreement envisages all countries taking progressively ambitious emissions reduction targets beyond 2030. Countries are invited to formulate and communicate long-term low emission development strategies before 2020. The Government has previously notified a target for a 50 per cent reduction in New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050.
At present, total emissions are still above 1990 levels, not a common outcome for OECD countries.
One of the reasons for that is that we have had much faster population growth than most advanced countries. Indeed, in their recent report on emissions etc, the Ministry for the Environment even listed population growth as first among the various constraints or challenges New Zealand faces.
Some of the challenges New Zealand faces when reducing emissions include:
- a growing population
- almost half our emissions are from agriculture where there are fewer economically viable options currently available to reduce emissions
- an electricity sector that is already 80.8 per cent renewable (meaning that we have fewer ‘easy wins’ available to us compared to other countries who can more easily make significant emissions reductions by switching to renewable sources of electricity).
Official Information Act request
As I noted in my earlier post, I was pleasantly surprised to find the population issue listed so prominently.
It is hard to disagree with them But it does leave one wondering what advice or research/analysis they have done, and provided to Ministers – including when the target was being adopted – about the implications of New Zealand’s immigration policy. Our non-citizen immigration policy pushes up the population by almost 1 per cent per annum (against an, admittedly unrealistic, benchmark of zero inward migration of non-citizens). Have they analysed the potential costs and benefits from lowering the non-citizen immigration target relative to other possible abatement (or compensation) mechanisms? Perhaps there is credible modelling that suggests the overall abatement costs to New Zealanders would be lower through other plausible mechanisms. But given that population increases appear first, and without further commentary, on their lists of “challenges” it would be good to know if they have done the work.
On reflection, I think I will lodge an Official Information Act request to find out.
And so I did, writing thus to the Ministry for the Environment
I was interested to read in the snapshot emissions document released this morning that the Ministry regards increasing population as one of the top challenges New Zealand faces in meeting its emissions reductions target.
Accordingly, I request copies of all advice to the Minister for the Environment or ministers responsible for climate change policy, any and all internal research or analysis documents, and any advice to MBIE or the Mnister of Immigration, on the implications of New Zealand’s immigration policy for (a) the setting of, or (b) the successful pursuit of, or (c) costs of pursuing New Zealand’s emissions reduction target. Among my interests is in any material on the relative costs of various options for achieving the target, including whether any research and modelling has been done on the costs of cutting the immigration targets relative to other abatement methods/policies.
This request covers all material since the start of 2014.
I deliberately went back to the start of 2014 to encompass both the period leading up to the adoption of New Zealand’s emissions reductions commitments, and the period since then, when presumably officials had to think hard about how policy might assist in minimising the costs to the economy of meeting the target the government had committed us to.
A short time ago, I received a full and comprehensive reply from the Ministry for the Environment, the ministry which has the lead responsibility for official advice on climate change and emissions related issues.
After quoting my request back to me, Roger Lincoln, Director Climate Change, replied
“No documents were found within the scope of your request. For this reason, your request is being refused under the grounds of 18(e) – the document that contains the information requested does not exist or can’t be found.”
I wasn’t really expecting there would be much. But nothing at all, not a shred, whether before the government entered into these commitments, or subsequently, or even just before they openly listed the growing population first in the list of challenges New Zealand faces in reducing emissions? That did take me by surprise. So complete is the absence of material, that it is almost as if they were determined not to consider the issue, or (say) point it out to MBIE, the government’s leading immigration policy advisors. Whether that was because senior officials internally discouraged them looking at the issue, or whether one or other of their ministers issued such guidance, we don’t know.
But MfE is clearly aware enough of the issue to put it top of their recently-published list of challenges. And yet has done no research, no analysis, and provided no advice on the interaction between immigration policy and the costs of meeting our climate change commitments.
Not long enough, Stephen Toplis incurred the wrath of a senior public official for suggesting that, in his view, if the Reserve Bank did not adopt a particular line, it could be considered “negligent” – ie not doing its job properly. And that was just a conditional statement about something that hadn’t happened yet. When the Ministry for the Enviroment has done nothing at all on immigration policy and the additional costs it appears to impose to meet the emissions targets – not even simply pointing out the possible connection to MBIE – whether in providing advice on formulating commitments, or on how the country might best meet those government commitments – that looks quite a lot like actual negligence, with the potential for real economic costs to New Zealanders.
I do hope that when their Issues Paper for the emissions reduction inquiry emerges, the Productivity Commission will prove to have taken the issue rather more seriously.