Don’t look now, but it seems our cousins from across the ditch have shown us up once again.
More than a decade after Jenny Shipley made history as New Zealand’s first female prime minister, the country’s conservative government is about to introduce its first emissions trading scheme. The New Zealand ETS — which comes into effect today — is central to efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are among the highest in the developed world.
But not everyone is happy. Opposition to the ETS has been building in The Shaky Isles, with consumer groups worried they are sharing more of the costs than the big emitters, despite polluting less overall. Prime Minister John Key has faced a barrage of criticism over the exclusion of some industries, admitting households will bear more than their fair share of increased energy costs under the ETS.
As of today, Kiwi hip pockets will be just a little lighter, with petrol expected to increase by 3.1 cents a litre, diesel by 3.4 cents a litre and electricity by one cent a kilowatt hour.
The Dominion Post and New Zealand Herald have both urged the government to keep an eye on power companies who may use the ETS to justify unnecessary price rises, while regional producers and exporters have been vocal critics of the ETS, believing the scheme will cost them millions and put them at a disadvantage against overseas competitors.
Meanwhile, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition have even suggested Prime Minister Key look across the Tasman and take Julia Gilliard’s lead on how to handle the ETS and defer it until the next election. But environment minister Dr Nick Smith said the government’s hand was forced because its greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 25% over the past 20 years.
“The ETS is the most efficient and least cost way to bring emissions under control, meet our international obligations and protect New Zealand’s clean, green brand.”
Dr Smith is adamant New Zealand needs an ETS to show the world it means business on climate change: “New Zealand can’t go around the world promoting itself as 100% pure when emissions have gone up more here than any other developed country.”
Tourism is the country’s largest export industry, contributing $18.6 billion to the economy each year and employing one in ten Kiwis. With 9% of the nation’s GDP on the line, the last thing the New Zealand government would want is a reputation for being the land of the long black cloud.
*This post has been corrected for a factual error.
Glad to see the correction to the original story. Jenny Shipley doesn’t get much coverage in the Oz press but she was made prime minister in 1997, 13 years before Australia got its first female PM. It is 20 years since NZ had its first (of 2) female governor’s general; and it has had a female chief justice for the past 10 years as well.
Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of legislative history knows that NZ is a long way ahead of Australia on important social issues which I mention because this morning’s papers tell us that Gillard does not support same sex marriage, something NZ has had, in the form of civil unions, for a number of years.
It was also disclosed in this morning’s SMH that NZ had turned down a request from Rudd last year for more NZ troops in Afghanistan on the reported grounds that the NZ prime minister thinks in essence it is a lost cause not worth the price of NZ lives.
So it is not just with ETS legislation that Australia lags behind the progressive world.
j.oneill – You have gone from telling us how much better NZ is and then end your statement implying that NZ represents the “progressive world”.
I’m hoping for a world where people talk of what we have in common, not one where people firstly find differences and then use it to elevate their nation at the expense of others. Now that’s progressive thinking.
A small amount of travel will quickly enable the open minded to see that we all have faults and we certainly all have our good points. Those who believe their entire nation is better, or more progressive than another, are often ignorant of facts, or desperate to seek approval.
As for climate change and the ETS. Humans create the problem, they then look for others to blame, or gloat over, and what happens? Climate change continues. An ETS in NZ is very different to an ETS in Australia. Electricity generation in NZ is, I believe, mainly powered by hydro. Which itself is simply a fluke of the correct geology. If the entire population of NZ was to replace the Australian population, would they be so green and “100% pure” as to not touch an ounce of coal? I highly doubt it.
Let’s just hope the ETS in NZ isn’t just a smoke screen to maintain an advertising campaign’s green image. If it is, then nothing meaningful will be achieved except for another example of greenwash.
GregHardwick – JOneill is making some salient points, viz:
New Zealand has had women at the nations top for longer
It doesn’t have our hang-ups about gay civil unions
It now has an ETS.
All in a nation that has stronger historical, cultural and geographical similarities to us than any other.
So what’s Australia’s excuse now re. civil unions and an ETS???
With the EU (the world’s largest economic block) having had an ETS for several years, and now our nearest neighbour, once again, what’s our excuse?
Civil unions and an ETS have nothing in common. I won’t comment on civil unions other than to say everyone should have the right to a civil union.
Australia’s geology has nothing in common with NZ other than being remotely related by tectonic plates. We live on an ancient, sparsely populated continent. NZ is a small island.
Australia has never had an adequate ETS proposal. I do not know the details of the NZ ETS but I do know an ETS is not worth anything unless it is going to actually reduce our impacts upon the world’s climate by encouraging investment in renewable energy. Australia does not have the benefit of potentially high energy river/dam systems such as NZ, other than the snowy and Tasmania. In fact perhaps Tasmania is a more accurate comparison.
Australia has suffered the double edge sword of the fluke of having lots of coal available to use. We did not create the coal. We have suffered the fluke of a flat, dry continent. The EU and NZ for that matter does not have that geology. What nation on earth, up until this date, would have left the coal in the ground due to moral reasons? None. In fact most have removed their local coal a hundred years ago.
Australia has a huge potential for renewable energy. But we need investment in these technologies and not symbolic acts to make the world love us.
The issue of climate change is too serious to get caught up in a football-like mentality about who is doing better. It is not any particular nation’s fault and per capita figures mean very little on the world stage. It is a world-wide economic system that favours energy sources that harm our environment.We unfortunately have lots of this harmful fuel.
Yes, we need real action, but no we do not need ego-boosting symbolism to maintain an advertising campaign’s green message.
The best thing Australia can do is maintain and not increase our population and invest in renewable energy. Trying to shame Australians into action however, is not the answer.
Inject a price of carbon into an economy and you have an incentive to change energy use – pure and simple.