NZ ETS Unit Settings and Annual Regulatory Updates 2024

Option 3.
I fully support anything that can be done to cap and reduce emissions as quickly as possible and lock these in.
It seems nonsensical that the sizeable emissions reductions achieved from an initiative such as electrifying the steel furnace could be cancelled out by other industries being allowed to pollute cheaply in return.

I think that eligible reductions and removals which are unanticipated at the time of the budget being set should include those incurred by firm closures and those which have been brought about by a significant government investment to produce that transition away from fossil fuels.

Agriculture emissions should be brought into the ETS.

In particular, the potency and short lived nature of methane means that this sector should be targeted and supported to reduce emissions as soon as possible. This should include a comprehensive system of government support for farmers to transition away from beef and dairy farming to those with lower climate, water and land use impact.

In general, I would support the Climate Change Commission as the independent expert body on these matters.

However, I struggle to understand why we are allocating any free units to highly polluting industries - I would have thought that for the ETS system to be most effective we should be asking anyone producing GHGe to pay for their NZU at auction.

I do not have adequate knowledge to answer this, other than I support the views of Commission as expert advisors on these matters.

I think it is worth considering the impact of intentionally driving up ETS prices to reduce emissions more aggressively, alongside a per-person household allocation/rebate (as I understand has been done in other countries) which allows people to live sufficiently healthy lives to leave lower income households better off and disincentivises luxury lifestyles.

Or alternatively, a tradeable energy quota to fulfil the same goals of rapid equitable emissions reduction.

In general, I strongly support the independent advisory function of the Climate Commission. It is essential that their advice does not get ignored for political strategy/short term gain/vested interests - instead the government must show strong leadership in persuading the public/businesses of the reasons for taking strong climate mitigation measures based on science and policy research. The lives of my children depend on this.

I am doing everything possible in my life to reduce my household emissions and I want the government to step up and match this effort, which in turn will help other people reduce their emissions who may not be as well informed or have the capacity to undertake change independently. This MUST include bringing agriculture into the ETS. New Zealand needs to do its fair share as a rich country in the global community, and arguably, for international trade/diplomacy reasons, should also be setting an example to go further than other countries.

I strongly believe that the ETS alone will not drive adequate emissions reductions, especially if pricing is not high enough. For pricing to be high enough to be effective there needs to be a really strong focus on equity measures to support low income New Zealanders and small businesses. Alternatively, there needs to be a really good look at tradeable energy quotas as an alternative.