Schoolgirl activist Greta Thunberg blasted the UK for “very creative carbon accounting” because it doesn’t count emissions from global flights or shipping.
And New Zealand is also excluding international aviation and navigation (shipping) from its carbon budgets.
Environmental groups say that is breaching the landmark Paris Agreement, signed four years ago.
But Climate Minister James Shaw has defended the practice, arguing the emissions are monitored under two separate international agreements.
Stuff asked the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) for emissions for aviation and shipping. Those units are measured in kilotonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (kt CO2-e).
Those from global flights have risen significantly from 1332.9 kt CO2-e in 1990, to 3702.7 kt CO2-e in 2017, the last available figure.
International navigation has dropped slightly: from 1055.9 kt CO2-e to 916.4 kt CO2-e, across the same period.
And while those numbers are recorded in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas inventory, they are not reported under its international obligations.
“That’s because the Paris Agreement doesn’t include aviation and shipping,” Shaw says. “They are handled via separate agreements – the aviation one is called Corsia, and the shipping one is Marpol.
“We are also working through those agreements.
“Now, I think Greta Thunberg makes a good point, that for visibility, we ought to get everything all in one place, and I think you can make that case, but we built the zero carbon bill around the Paris agreement, and that is why it is structured that way.”
Shaw is correct: international shipping and aviation were left out of the national targets under the Paris Agreement, because they don’t happen within the boundaries of any specific countries and tracking their emissions through the global supply chain is difficult.
As well as that, a good fuel alternative isn’t yet available.
Instead, under the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement, we submit overall territorial emissions figures to the UN. In New Zealand, the bulk of those emissions come from agriculture (48 per cent) and energy (41 per cent). In 2017, our gross greenhouse gas emissions were 80,853 kt CO2-e.
Shipping produces 2.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and aviation yields about two per cent. Both are also projected to rise dramatically by 2050.
Marpol is short for marine pollution – but New Zealand is one of a handful of countries yet to sign up to a sixth part of the agreement, which focuses on reducing shipping fumes.
ELECTRIC AEROPLANES AND ‘DIRTY SLUDGE’
The global economy runs on shipping and air freight. And tourism is New Zealand’s biggest export sector.
New Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment figuresforecast international arrivals will rise on average by 4 per cent annually. The industry hopes to earn $50 billion by 2025.
Shaw says flag carrier airline Air New Zealand, with majority government ownership, is trying to drive down emissions while expanding the business.
“I’m actually pretty pleased with the leadership that Air NZ is showing on aviation emissions… [chief executive] Chris Luxon reckons that we will have electric aeroplanes, at least for our regional routes, at least within 10 years or so.
“Obviously the big one is international and it will take a lot longer for the technology to develop there.
“But they have got a significant off-setting programme…it’s not ideal, but the next best thing you can do is off-set and I would encourage people to off-set if their work involves travel.”
Under the UN Paris pact, Air New Zealand must report its domestic flight emissions to the Government. But other countries – like China – haven’t signed up to those obligations.
“The truth is that we have a lot of airlines in parts of the world which are expanding rapidly, they are very low cost, they are leasing in, or buying, second-hand planes from the leading airlines [which] are much less fuel efficient. So, for all the good work that is happening with some airlines, unfortunately you are seeing much more expansion on the other side. It is an area of real concern.”
Shaw is less effusive about shipping.
“Ships tend to use the lowest quality, highest emissions fuels. Bunker oil, which is basically dirty sludge. There is a lot of work to be done there.”
“There are some things we can do here in New Zealand – with the ferries, some of our coastal fleets, and fishing, but that is pretty small fry when you compare it to the freight routes.
“We can supply ships with cleaner fuel here in New Zealand. The question is: are the ships able to swap fuel types? That is why international co-operation is so important.
“We have to make sure those fuels are available in every port …And that we are putting pressure on the shipping lines to swap out the dirty old technologies for much cleaner alternatives.”
HYPOCRITICAL AND UNJUST
Amanda Larsson, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace, agrees we are cheating on our emissions reporting.
“And it is predominantly wealthy countries where people have the resources to be able to do international travel that aren’t accounting for those emissions,” she said.
“Developing countries are already bearing the brunt of the climate impact of our warming world and carbon industries, like poor air quality and health effects.
“The fact that wealthier countries, like New Zealand and the UK, with a high proportion of carbon emissions can say ‘we are reducing our emissions aren’t we great,’ while offloading a lot of those emissions onto developing countries or not accounting for them all as in the case of aviation is an injustice, and a bit hypocritical.”
Larsson says New Zealand should be one of the strongest voices for the decarbonisation of global aviation. That would include counting emissions from tourism and flights arriving here. She’d also like to see a levy on international tourism, that is ring-fenced to invest in carbon-lowering activities.
“We are country that is reliant on international tourism and has a culture of travelling overseas…we can’t have sustainable tourism in New Zealand if it’s growth is fuelled by aeroplanes that are powered by fossil fuels.”
We are also ‘outsourcing’ a chunk of other emissions. Around 22 per cent of global CO2 emissions stem from the production of consumer goods that are exported to a different country, according to a 2012 study.
“It effectively means effectively means that we in New Zealand are offloading those emissions from our consumption on countries like China, or wherever those products are produced,” Larsson said.
“People often complain that New Zealand is too small to have an impact on the climate and what really needs to happen is for China to act. That is actually ignoring the critical point that we are driving the production of a lot of these products in China and driving up China’s emissions from the consumption of products [and] then we don’t account for them.”
In April, the European Transport & Environment non-governmental organisation agreed with Thunberg’s stance – and said they believe it is a breach of the Paris Agreement.
Aviation manager Andrew Murphy told the Guardian: “We believe the Paris agreement is clear that international aviation and shipping should be included in national climate targets. Paris calls for a bottom-up approach so individual states can include what they want in their budgets. We don’t see this outsourcing of responsibility by governments for international aviation and shipping as consistent with Paris. It breaches the agreement.”
The UK claims its greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 42 per cent since 1990. Thunberg claimed the true reduction was about 10 per cent.
Stuff