Professor James Renwick, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences:
Professor Renwick says the new target is not a strengthening of New Zealand’s position on the issue of climate change.
“The new target of a 30 per cent reduction in gross emissions compared to 2005 levels by 2030 translates to about an 11 per cent reduction compared to 1990. This is in line with the previous targets of 5 per cent by 2020, and 50 per cent by 2050,” says Professor Renwick.
“This new target is actually weaker than other previously announced ones and does not come close to what is required if New Zealand is serious about keeping warming to less than two degrees—as the Government have said we are.
“The science says, compared to 1990, we need about a 40 per cent reduction by 2030, 90 per cent by 2050, and 100 per cent by 2060—and then negative emissions (removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) for the rest of the century.”
Professor Renwick says that New Zealand is one of the highest carbon dioxide emitters in the world on a per-capita basis and that our dependence on agriculture and our already high fraction of renewable electricity are not valid excuses for avoiding serious action.
“Just what actions this government intends to take to meet its targets is not clear, beyond buying cheap carbon credits on the international market.
“If all countries followed New Zealand’s lead, we would be in for at least 3 degrees of warming by the end of the century. This would be associated with significant climate change impacts and catastrophic damage to the New Zealand and the global economy.”
Associate professor Ralph Chapman, Director Graduate Programme in Environmental Studies:
According to Dr Chapman, the new target is inadequate and shows complacency by the New Zealand Government on the climate change issue.
“Given that New Zealand was already committed to reducing carbon emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, the new target of an 11 per cent reduction by 2030 means less than 1 per cent per year in further reductions in emissions between 2020 and 2030,” says Professor Chapman.
“That is not consistent with the huge risk associated with climate change and the need for developed countries to cut emissions by between 80 and 95 per cent at least, based on the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the need to avoid two degrees of global warming.
“It also reflects badly on New Zealand. We are seen to be doing the bare minimum and delaying a transition to a zero-carbon economy. This is not a credible contribution. New Zealand can do better, especially on energy and transport emissions.”
Professor David Frame, Director New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute:
Professor Frame says the Government’s target is “pretty reasonable”.
“It should be conditional as well, since, in this sort of problem, a country's best course of action depends on what others are prepared to do, too: if they do more, we can do more at the same price—if Japan drives its motor industry to produce affordable hybrids and electric vehicles, then New Zealand gains additional ability to reduce its emissions in the transport sector. And so on."
Dr Adrian Macey, senior associate School of Government, adjunct professor School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences:
According to Dr Macey, the Government has set a “minimum credible target”.
“Especially as New Zealand had already put on the table a conditional target of 10-20 per cent below 1990 by 2020, and already has an unconditional 5 per cent below 1990 by 2020 target,” he says.
"A reduction of 11 per cent below 1990 by 2030 will not put New Zealand on a pathway to meet the gazetted 50 per cent reduction (from 1990) by 2050 target.
"New Zealand, along with other countries will face pressure to increase the ambition of its target at and after this year's Paris climate change conference. But the international target is only part of the question. A great deal of work is now needed at home to determine the direction of our climate change policies, including the review of the Emission Trading Scheme."