Climate Change Commission chief executive Jo Hendy. Photo: RNZ / Dom Thomas
Relying on trees to offset New Zealand's emissions years into the future is putting "a significant number of eggs in one basket", the Climate Change Commission chief executive has warned politicians.
New trees would need to be "in the ground" within a couple of years and could still be destroyed by forest fire or extreme weather events - wiping out their carbon savings.
Appearing before Parliament's environment select committee on Monday, commission chief executive Jo Hendy was questioned about the "significant risks" the commission identified earlier this year when it came to meeting the country's emissions budgets.
Emissions budgets are set by the government, taking into account advice from the commission.
They establish the total net emissions the country can produce over a five-year period and still keep its domestic and international climate goals on track.
In its annual emissions monitoring report released earlier this year, the commission said there were risks to meeting the second budget (2026-30) and third budget (2031-35).
One of those risks was relying on forest removals of carbon dioxide to meet nearly half of the 2031-35 emissions budget.
Green Party climate change spokesperson Chlöe Swarbrick. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
In response to questioning from Green Party climate change spokesperson Chlöe Swarbrick, Hendy said there were two main implications of that approach.
"The first implication is you need those forests in the ground quickly for that carbon to then start sequestering," she said.
"The other is risks around things like fires and storms - you know, another Cyclone Gabrielle taking a big hit out of that forestry. Then you'll be faced with a difficult situation where you might not be able to meet the budget."
Researchers have started to warn that many of the natural carbon sinks that society relies on to soak up emissions are now sometimes releasing more carbon than they absorb.
Swarbrick asked Hendy if she could explain the commission's remarks that "the reliance on forests for a large proportion of emissions reduction is likely to increase the long-term cost of meeting the 2050 target and increase impacts on future generations".
That was because using forestry to offset emissions created less of an incentive for businesses and communities to limit the amount of greenhouse gases produced in the first place, Hendy said.
"As a result, we don't get as much decarbonisation in the economy.
"When you don't get as much decarbonisation in the economy - what we're talking about is electrification of industry, for example - you are missing out on those economic benefits of reduced costs."
The commission has long recommended that New Zealand "decarbonise where possible".
"Relying heavily on forestry might help Aotearoa meet its 2050 emissions reduction targets but it would make maintaining net zero long-lived emissions beyond that date more difficult," it told the previous government in 2021.
"It would delay people taking actions that reduce gross emissions, lead to higher cumulative emissions and push the burden of addressing gross emissions on to future generations."
Tougher methane target was feasible, affordable, achievable
The committee also asked Hendy about the government's decision to revise New Zealand's 2050 methane emissions target.
In October, the government said it would scrap previous plans to introduce agricultural emissions pricing by 2030, and would pass legislation to lower the 2050 methane target from a 24-47 percent reduction from 2017 levels, to a 14-24 percent reduction, in line with a 'no additional warming' policy.
National MP Grant McCallum. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
National MP Grant McCallum, a Northland beef and dairy farmer, asked what the impact would be on the rural sector if the current target was retained, if there was no technology available to help farmers reduce their methane emissions.
"One of the key considerations when we do our scenario work for emissions budgets is impact on rural communities," Hendy said.
"We found that it was a feasible and affordable and technically achievable, in our previous emissions budget advice at the end of last year."
The upper end of the range could be achieved with new technologies, while the 24 percent low end of the range was based on technology that was already available, and changes to farming practices.
There was a "good pipeline" of methane-inhibiting technology, she said.
"The key point will be making sure that it can be deployed on farms.
"Not necessarily every tool will work on every farm. It's really about making sure that farmers are enabled to work with the tools that work for them."
McCallum asked Hendy and commission chair Dame Patsy Reddy twice about whether New Zealand should remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement.
"Does the commission have a view or has it given any consideration to the cause of some people who think we should pull out of the Paris Accord [sic]?"
Part of the commission's mandate was based on the agreement, Dame Patsy said.
"It's not our place to have a view."
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has repeatedly said the government was committed to the Paris Agreement and New Zealand's emissions targets, despite a push from coalition partner ACT to leave the pact.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
