Monday, March 31, 2008



Climate change: the race for carbon neutrality

In 2006, Helen Clark showed some vision for once and announced a bold plan to make New Zealand carbon neutral. This has since been elaborated in policy into some specific goals: the energy sector is supposed to be carbon neutral by 2025, the industrial sector by 2030 and transport by 2040 (hopefully agriculture will follow soon afterwards). But New Zealand isn't alone - there are three other countries pursuing carbon neutrality: Iceland, Norway, and Costa Rica. The question is, who is going to get there first?

Looking at it, my money is on Iceland. They're already almost totally renewable in electricity (which is traditionally the big emissions source in western nations), and their largest problem is transport emissions. But they have tremendous geothermal energy resources, and have already announced an ambitious plan to use these to produce hydrogen, with the aim of becoming the Saudi Arabia of the Atlantic. If this is successful, it means that in time they may be able to entirely eliminate their transport emissions as well (and if they can't run their cars on hydrogen, they always have the backstop of being able to run them on renewable electricity). Those emissions which can't be eliminated - the small amount from agriculture, and the CO2 from those geothermal stations - can always be offset, either domestically (Iceland needs more trees), or with robust offsets overseas.

Norway isn't in such a good position. While it also has an almost entirely renewable electricity sector, it does not have Iceland's potential for expansion. Currently, they're in the same situation New Zealand was in in the early to mid 90's, expanding their generation capacity with gas because it seems like the cheapest option. Unlike New Zealand, they have had robust policy in this area for decades, which gives them some credibility.

As for Costa Rica, the idea that a developing nation might beat the first world to carbon neutrality should shame us all. "Common but differentiated responsibilities" was supposed to meant we moved first, not them. But I am wondering why, if they're planning this, they don't just join Annex I - that way they could sell their surplus AAU as well.

But regardless of who wins, the gauntlet has been laid down, and Helen Clark is going to have to be a lot more ambitious if she wants to retain New Zealand's reputation as a world leader on environmental issues.