Declassified documents show how wrong officials were on climate change nearly 30 years ago
Declassified documents from 1994 show the government believed it was on top of carbon emissions, predicting they would drop by half, by the year 2000. According to figures from Stats NZ, in 1990 New Zealands net carbon dioxide emissions were minus 3.16 million tonnes, factoring in forests acting as carbon sinks. By 1994, a net 2.8m tonnes of carbon was being sequestered. The then Environment Minister, Simon Upton, told a seminar at the Plimmer Towers in Wellington his government was committed to keeping CO2 emissions at 1990 levels, while maintaining economic growth and minimising environmental impacts. In fact, given the extent of carbon absorption by our forest sinks we expect to achieve a reduction in net emissions of over 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2000, Upton told the conference, which was attended by about 200 people. READ MORE: * NZ rated 'insufficient' on climate action, again * Unfocused, under-resourced data collection has us flailing in the darkness of environmental perils * Young Kiwis choose not to drive to reduce greenhouse gases The numbers were off. In the following six years, net emissions flipped from minus 2.8m tonnes of CO2, to 3.85m tonnes. During that decade, greenhouse gas emissions went from a net 35.3m tonnes, to 46m tonnes. Fast-forward to 2018 and net CO2 emissions were 11.51m tonnes, and net greenhouse gas emissions were at 55.45m tonnes. Climate Change Minister James Shaw remembers the figures being quoted in 1994, and it shows how wrong officials were. There was, at the time, a huge push in the corporate world against action on climate change, Shaw said. When I said they, I mean, it's never a monolithic group. But a number of ... leading businesses in the Business Roundtable at the time were arguing sort of a denialist claim, and kind of trying to kick the can down the road. They largely succeeded. During the seminar, Upton laid out his plan for keeping on top of carbon emissions, including monitoring mechanisms, an efficient energy strategy, and a low level carbon charge to be implemented in December 1997, if the government wasnt meeting its CO2 reduction targets. Despite the government in 1997 not meeting its climate goals, the charge was never introduced. Shaw believed that was a result of new leadership in the National Party at the time, which didnt understand the challenge of climate change. Labour then tried to bring in, first of all, a levy on agricultural emissions to fund research, the irony of which never escapes me, followed by a carbon tax, which itself, the level of opposition was so great that it got binned and then replaced with the ETS [Emissions Trading Scheme]. So we just got the settings under way ...almost 15 years after these papers, and then along came a new National government in 2008. By 2011, they'd spiked the ETS so badly it was completely ineffective. So, you know, weve basically lost 30 years now. In his 1994 speech, Upton took aim at both Greenpeace, for its criticism of the governments policy, and industry, which at times ignored climate change issues. He criticised Greenpeace for ignoring our carbon sinks, and said it didnt use enough science. Upton was particularly critical of a push to ditch some industries seen as high emitters. He said they could only be replaced by imports, which would have worse outcomes for global emissions because New Zealands companies were operating cleaner than those overseas. I have to say that Greenpeace seems happy to whip up concern about environmental issues without spelling out in practical terms what its proposed solutions will mean, even as its own members whose cars display Greenpeace bumper stickers I often see parked in ski field car parks, he said at the time. Upton told industry leaders to acquaint yourselves with the facts of the climate change debate. Scientific monitoring has unequivocally established the buildup of the major greenhouse gases over the last century, he said. If youre not [paying attention to the scientific consensus on climate change] youre not necessarily on the lunatic fringe, but you simply can't ignore that body of opinion. Upton called out the Energy Foundation for its denial of climate change. Without question the weakest industry contribution to the recent debate came from the Energy Foundation. I think its attitude can be judged by the fact that its public relations advisor was given the task of reviewing the science: it did not employ an expert in atmospheric science either to contribute to or peer review its contribution. I hope we don't see any more initiatives like that. Upton is now the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and previously worked as the head of the OECDs Environment Directorate. He declined to comment for this story. The documents also show the advice government officials were getting on carbon charging as early as August 1994. A delegation was sent to Denmark to review its recently introduced carbon tax, and reports didnt paint a pretty picture. Denmarks CO2 tax is unpopular with industry and, we were told, increasingly unpopular with political parties, the report begins. It is uncertain whether it is having the desired effect on CO2 emissions, and whether it will be retained. There has been (private) Danish acknowledgement that the prospects of an EU-wide CO2 tax are diminishing. Those who compiled the report wanted to keep in contact with Danish authorities to monitor how their CO2 charges went, ahead of the start of a proposed charging regime in New Zealand in 1997. At the same time, global discussions were taking place about the best way to measure national climate emissions. Switzerland advised it would not be following a net approach to recording its emissions. It advised of a plan to reduce CO2 emissions, mainly from its energy sector which produced 90 per cent of its emissions. The Swiss also cast doubt on New Zealand and Canadas approach and claims of the usefulness of carbon sinks, questioning whether the countries could accurately take into account the effect of sinks and sink enhancement measures. Norway said it supported New Zealand's approach, and would also be counting the effect of carbon sinks with its emissions reporting. Shaw said Switzerland made a good point, and New Zealand should have focused on reducing gross emissions rather than focusing on a net figure. However, he said all nations made a mistake in not looking wider than gross or net emissions. I think there was a mistake that was made in the very early 1990s, globally, when it was decided that countries would be responsible for production emissions, rather than for consumption emissions, Shaw said. We're responsible for the emissions at the point of production, which is kind of fair and reasonable in a lot of ways. But if you look at New Zealand, our production emissions in carbon dioxide, excluding methane for a minute, are very low compared to other countries. But our consumption emissions are some of the highest in the world because we import complex manufactured goods, we just don't produce a lot of them here. Shaw said a lot can be learned from looking back at climate decisions of the past, and he frequently talks to Upton and David Parker, asking if they would have altered decisions they made based on information they have now.