The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) imposes a cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for all main emitting sectors except agriculture, which accounts for almost half of New Zealand’s GHG emissions.
In 2013, our net emissions were 42.4 percent higher than in 1990 (54.2 Mt CO2-e compared with 38.0 Mt CO2-e) (megatonnes equivalent carbon dioxide).
In 2013, the land use, land-use change, and forestry sector (LULUCF) reduced emissions by 26.8 Mt CO2-e.
Total GHG emissions in 2013 (excluding removals) were 81.0 Mt CO2-e. This is a 21.3 percent increase on the 1990 levels of 66.7 Mt CO2-e.
Agriculture, with 48 percent, was the largest-contributing sector to total GHG emissions, followed by the energy sector, with 39 percent.
Is the exclusion of agriculture cost-effective? (Again, think about what the relevant diagram would need to look like – and make sure to draw it.)
How would uncertainty about the future introduction of agriculture into the ETS affect incentives for R&D and innovation regarding new technologies to reduce agricultural emissions?
What would be the impact on R&D and innovation if the government committed to including agriculture in the ETS from a certain future date?
How efficient or cost-effective would it be for the government to incidentally achieve GHG reductions by imposing command-and-control caps on livestock numbers to achieve water quality improvements?