Reuters is reporting that New Zealand just approved a national cap-and-trade system to reduce climate pollution. Here are the interesting tidbits:
Trading of carbon credits begins in 2009 and Wednesday’s parliamentary approval means the system is the first national cap-and-trade scheme outside of Europe.
Neighbouring Australia has set a 2010 deadline for its scheme to begin operation.
And:
The New Zealand trading scheme will phase in sectors across the economy and includes all emissions from forestry from 2008, transport by 2009, stationary energy such as coal-fired power stations by 2010 and agricultural waste by 2013.
About 60 percent of New Zealand’s power comes from hydro-electricity, while agricultural emissions, such as methane from livestock, comprise about half the nation’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
It’s happening folks. Cites, states, regions, and countries are taking the lead on this stuff. They won’t all do it the same way—and they won’t all do it perfectly—but the game is on.
What really perplexes me, however, is that New Zealand and Australia can reduce carbon when China isn’t doing it first. Don’t they realize that China pollutes more than they do? Isn’t it obvious that if China won’t do something first, then western countries shouldn’t either?
Hat tip to Eric Hess.
Matt the Engineer
I wonder if Australia will apply Cap and Trade to their exports. They exported 200 million tons of coal in 2002, and have increased since. Their latest market is China, who is looking into converting coal to diesel (sigh).
Eric Hess
I was also amazed by the speed with which they’re executing this plan. It’s not 3-5 years down the road. It’s starting ASAP.
Eric de Place
Good point, Eric (Hess). NZ has some advantage because it’s relatively small—a population comparable to Oregon, BC, or western Washington—and, of course, the entire energy infrastructure is contained within a single political jurisdiction. Where we are, we share electrical, gas, and oil infrastructure across two nations and more than a dozen states/provinces. Still, NZ goes to show that you can get this stuff up and running fairly quickly. You need not, for example, delay including transportation fuels until 2015 as WCI is proposing.
Eric Hess
Plus, everything’s a little easier when you have ten sheep for every person in your country.
Jamie Fellrath
It’s truly a shame when nations like Australia and New Zealand can’t follow Dubya’s “Best Practices” standards as regards taking action against Global Warming.
Ashley of Australia
Eric, your last paragraph dissappoints me and I wonder if this is the view and policy of Sightline or just your own personal opinion?Surely we have gotten past the issue of waiting for China to act first. At least in Australia we have, and quite obviously in NZ and Europe also. Unfortunately I think your opinion reflects how insulated and ignorant from the rest of the world Americans have become over the past eight years, perhaps in protection of a waning national pride. Yet it does nothing to rectify a rest of the world view that Americans have much to do if they are to ever regain a respect that once held them in high esteem internationally for decades post WWII. And I’m beginning to wonder whether these types of comments are being made just to make Americans feel better about their unsustainably high consumption lifestyles, which they’ve enjoyed over the past fifty years in particular. Assuming a level playing field between developing and developed nations to act epitomizes this. And yes, we in Australia have enjoyed similar lifestyles, but at least our excuses for not acting just because developing countries aren’t acting were thrown out the door with the recent conservative government last year by popular demand. Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as a first act of Parliament, while somewhat tokenistic, exepmlified this. I’m surprised that Americans still view this as an acceptable argument because it’s quite obviously wearing thin…Surely comparisons made between median income levels reflect the ability of a nation to act on reducing carbon emissions. China is still a developing country and many many people continue to live in poverty – hundreds of millions in fact. This is where the difference between the US vs India/China lies. And while many in the States still live in poverty, the US has had the economic capacity for many years to act on this but has failed to do so. This is not the fault of China.The more in the game, the more pressure on China and India to act. I thought Americans had gotten over this argument and I had expected better of Sightline.(But then again, perhaps your comments have been made in order to spark passionate debate, for which I would have to commend you)
Eric de Place
Ashley,Regarding the last paragrph: I was being sarcastic!I’m sick to death of North Americans using China—of all places—as an excuse not to lead on climate protection. It’s just about the stupidest excuse I can imagine.