Video
Webinar: Updating our 2024 advice on emissions budgets
17 June 2026
Alternative formats & files
Meriana:
Tēnā koutou katoa, for those who've just joined, you are connecting with this webinar on the Climate Commission's update to our 4th emissions budget advice. Before we get underway, I'll quickly introduce myself. So ko Meriana Johnson ahau. I am part of the communications and engagement team here at the Commission and I will be guiding us through this webinar today.
So thank you all again for joining us. I'd like to now introduce our presenters for this webinar today. So our General Manager Delivery, Robin Campbell, will explain what emissions budgets are and what's changing too, which means that they are doing this update to our 4th emissions budget advice. Then there will be followed by Project Director Rob Carr who will go through how you can input on the update to the 4th missions and budget advice. Following the presentation, both Robin and Rob will be available to take any questions you have. You're welcome to send questions and at anytime during the webinar using the Q&A button at the bottom of your screen. It's helpful if you start with your name and organisation or sector. And as always, please keep it constructive and clean language, please.
And finally, a note as you would have seen when you joined the meeting, but this is being recorded and it will be made available on the Commission's website after this webinar. I'd like to now hand over to Robin Campbell to begin the presentation. Over to you, Robin
Robin:
Kia ora koutou and thanks Meriana for the introduction. Yes, so my name's Robin Campbell. I'm one of the General Managers here at He Pou a Rangi Climate Change Commission. And I'm just going to give a bit of overview and context about our work on updating the Commission's advice on the 4th emissions budget.
So just to begin with a quick recap, what our emissions budgets. Emissions budgets are a maximum quantity of emissions during an emissions budget period. That period covers five years. The budgets are stepping stones or interim targets to reach the 2050 emissions reduction target, which is set in legislation.
Emissions budgets are set about a decade in advance to give people a clear sense of where we're heading, and the idea is that they step down from where we are today to net zero emissions in 2050.
They are to be met as far as possible through domestic emissions reductions and removals. And when we talk about removals, we mean removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by planting forests.
Emissions budgets are ultimately about the pace of change that New Zealand can achieve. To understand that, we need to understand what the opportunities are to reduce emissions and what barriers exist to realising those opportunities
that helps us set these stepping stones to the 2050 target. And the 2050 target is, of course, to reduce greenhouse gases to net zero or lower by 2050, except for biogenic methane. Biogenic methane has its own targets which are 10% reduction below 2017 levels by 2030 and a range of 14 to 24% by 2050.
That last target, the 14 to 24% range, is the one that was recently changed and that and that's why we're seeking specific input on how we address it. More on that shortly.
So what's the the Climate Change Commission's role in all of this? Well, we provide the government of the day with advice, and we monitor the country's progress on emissions reduction. In particular, we provide advice to the government on how it should set emissions budgets. Back in 2024, we provided advice on the 4th emissions budget for the period 2036 to 2040. However, this advice needs updating since the government made changes to its targets at the end of last year.
We also do an annual emissions reduction monitoring report, which is due out soon at the end of this month and that will evaluate how the government is progressing to meet its current emissions budget and forecasting forward to the next budget.
I'll just note that we have noted the request to to switch the screens around and we're working on that.
So our previous work on the 4th submissions budget. In June 2023, we put out a call for evidence. From April to May in 2024, we consulted on draught advice on the 4th admissions budget and after that we recommended a fourth emissions budget of 160 megatonnes. That's 56% lower annual average emissions than in 2022.
We also recommended revising the first three emissions budgets to reflect methodological improvements in New Zealand's greenhouse gas inventory and higher than projected rates of forest planting, which meant the budgets could be achieved with less effort than was intended when they were set.
At the end of 2024, we delivered our that advice to the Government and that report reflected input from around 1,000 people who engaged in the consultation – and those people represented over 300 organisations and groups.
Now, some some things have changed since then. In December last year, the Government amended the Climate Change Response Act to change the 2050 biogenic methane target from its previous range of 24 to 47% below 2017 levels to a new range of 14 to 24% below 2017 levels.
The legislative change also added the implications, or potential implications for domestic food production into the list of matters which must be considered when advising on and setting emissions budgets.
In addition to those, there were some process changes: delaying the date by which the fourth emissions budget must be set from the end of last year until 31st of December 2027, so the end of next year. Secondly, to require the Commission to update our previous advice, to take into account the revised methane target and to require the Commission to provide update updated advice by the 31st of March 2027. So that's the process that we're beginning now, and what we would like your input into.
This is a targeted update to our existing advice. It's not fresh analysis and we're not starting from scratch. We're adding to our 2024 advice to update it rather than redoing it. However, other thoughts, if you have them, are not wasted. We are also inviting input on other relevant issues, and that's something we will consider across our suite of work, our other reports such as the annual monitoring report, and then when we come to to giving advice on how to set the 5th emissions budget, which rolls around pretty soon.
We know that across Aotearoa, communities are experiencing more frequent and severe climate impacts, including storms, rain, landslides, droughts, sea level rise. We know that adapting to the changing climate is essential, but it will not be enough on its own. And limiting the risk that climate change poses depends on reducing global emissions. Aotearoa New Zealand has a role to play in that collective effort and emissions budget set the pathway for Aotearoa New Zealand to meet our 2050 emissions reduction target. Sharing your evidence and your insights is an opportunity to help inform our advice to the Government on what the level of ambition for the fourth emissions budget should be. It's important for us to understand what that transition looks like on the ground, what's changing already, what's helping make progress, what's getting in the way, and what does that tell us about New Zealand's ability to deliver emissions reductions over the next 15 years.
I'll pass now to my colleague Rob, who's going to talk about the process from here.
Rob:
Thank you, Robin. Tēnā koutou katoa. My name's Rob Carr. I'm one of the project directors at the Commission. We are now seeking your input as we go through developing this advice. You can find the link for how to share your views on the link that's at the bottom of the slide here.
In particular, we're looking for your feedback about how we consider the change to the 2050 biogenic methane target as part of this advice, we're interested in your views about how we consider the potential impacts for food production, and we're interested in any notable changes that have occurred since we presented our advice in December 2024. We recognise that some people might have limited time to provide their responses to this, so it's okay if you want to only want to answer some questions. You do not have to answer them all.
You're also able to, if you have technical input that you want to provide, to upload one big document or to just share one thought through the One Big Thing section that we're provided in the survey.
Through this consultation process, we are keen to reflect the views of the community, individuals and businesses from across Aotearoa New Zealand. So if you're able to share your thoughts, we'd really love to hear them. And you can also share your thoughts by post or by e-mail and we'll share how to do that in the chat here, but would prefer you to do it through the online survey if you're able to.
Our first area that we're looking to get feedback on is around the 2050 biogenic methane target. When we gave our original advice, the 2050 biogenic methane range was for a 24 to 47% reduction in biogenic methane by 2050, and our previous analysis found that a 38% reduction in biogenic methane by 2050 was technically and economically achievable. Since then, the 2050 target has been changed to reduce that target range down to 14 to 24%, which may limit how much we can find biogenic methane can be reduced as part of this advice. We're keen to get your feedback on how we should consider that 2050 target change as part of this advice and the responses that you provide to that question will help inform what the level of biogenic methane comes through in our modelling as part of determining the budget level.
The second area that we're seeking your feedback on is around food production.
So the Act has been changed to require us to consider the implications or potential implications for food production of emissions budgets when providing advice on them. To understand those impacts, we will be using the New Zealand Forestry and Agricultural Regional Model as part of this analysis, which will give us a more detailed understanding of what emission reductions are feasible for agriculture, and it will also give us a better understanding of what the impacts of those changes look like for particular farm types or for regions. That will give us a better understanding of what those changes will mean. We're keen to understand your feedback for what other areas we should be considering as we look at food production as part of this advice. And the feedback that you provide in response to that question will help shape what impact advice we give when we're providing the final advice.
So for our third area, we're looking for feedback on our noticeable changes since 2024.
Under the Act when we give advice on emissions budgets, we consider when whether any previous emissions budgets that have been set should be revised to take account of significant changes that have occurred when since they've been set. When we're looking for significant changes, we're looking for things that go beyond just something that affects the next year or two of emissions. So sometimes there might be things that are really big and really meaningful for a year or two, but ultimately they don't change that long term path of what is needed for emission reductions out into the future. We're looking for something that is really going to significantly and meaningfully change things in a lasting way.
When we did our advice last time, we found one area of significant change which related to forestry. So we found that the level of forestry planted in the previous four years before we gave that advice was more than was expected than at the time that the first three emissions budgets were set, which meant that those emissions budgets could be met with fewer gross reductions in emissions than were expected when they were first set. And we said that meant that there was a good case for revising those emissions budgets to take account for that increased forestry.
The responses that you give us on this area will help inform what significant changes we need to consider as part of updating those previous budgets. And we'll also be looking at whether there's any big changes that have occurred for the fourth emissions budget. That means that we should change the advice we recommended on that since we gave it in 2024. So we're particularly interested in your feedback about what has changed in a significant way since 2024 when we gave that original advice. And the fourth area that we're seeking your feedback on is around our modelling assumptions.
So as part of this advice, we'll be considering whether we should make any changes to the specifics of what we've modelled to be achievable for each sector in area within the economy. So if you have specific feedback on any assumptions that you think should be changed within our modelling then we're keen to hear them as part of this process as well.
In terms of next steps, this request for input isn't the end of our engagement. We'll be continuing to engage with people through to September to test our thinking as we work through our analysis on this project as part of the survey, giving your feedback. In the final question, there's the ability to book in a meeting with us in the next month if you'd like to talk through what we're seeking feedback on at this stage. And you can also indicate if you're happy for us to talk to you and what you've got to talk to us about as we move through this further stages of analysis and confirm, or start to confirm, what assumptions we're going to make as part of that.
And when we get to later in this year, we intend to release a summary of some of the key information underpinning our analysis for transparency for people. Given the short time frame that we have to produce this report, we're not planning to release a full draft for consultation as part of this process. We're seeking people's feedback upfront at the start to help shape how we do the analysis as we go through. And so please don't hesitate to get in touch and share your thoughts and your evidence that you'd like us to consider as we go through this process.
And we're now happy to take any questions that you have as about this consultation process and about our emissions budget advice more generally.
Meriana:
Kia ora Rob, and thank you as well, Robin. I hope that was helpful for all of you. Seems like we've got a bit of a shy audience or perhaps you're already all across the details. We haven't had any questions come through. So if you have any burning questions, we really encourage you to use this time. We acknowledge that it is a short window and a narrow submission process. So we want to really support you as much as possible to provide detailed and useful advice on this crucial update to our fourth emissions budget advice. I'll kick us off with the question while you're all thinking about what you have to say next.
So there's a question here I want to put to Robin around how this submission process and the input process that we're going through now fits in with the other pieces of the Commission's work programme.
Robin:
Thanks, Meriana. So yeah, we have a cycle of advice and monitoring reports which we give to the government and we're constantly using the insights that we gather for engagement with communities, with sectors, with industries and with businesses and with individuals and with iwi/Māori to inform that advice. So anything we receive through this process may help inform this process of course, but will also be on the table for when we do our next round of reports as well.
Meriana:
Kia ora, Robin. Thank you very much. Nice and succinct. I want to pick up we've got a question here from Katie Glennie, Hope I'm saying your last name prickly there around what some examples of what potential notable changes could be – for example, the availability of methane reducing technologies such as cattle bolus. Would that be considered a notable change? Fantastic question, Katie. I'm going to pass it in the first instance to Rob to pick up.
Rob:
Yeah, absolutely. So we will be looking at the bolus technology in particular as we go through and update our assumptions for how agricultural emissions could be reduced. So kind of irrespective of that significant change test, that's something that we expect to be looking at as part of this advice. And we're really keen for people's input around what we should be assuming in relation to what emission reductions are feasible for agriculture, because it is something we are going to have to adjust as part of this advice for that fourth emissions budget.
For what gets considered a significant change, we're looking at something that is going to materially change the level of emissions. That's going to be long lasting and it's going to apply over a long period of time. In our last advice, we only found one of those – relating to forestry and what had been previously planted.
For something like a significant change in technology, that can meet the threshold for what is a significant change. However, in our previous advice, we already accounted for the potential of the bolus coming through. So in that advice, we anticipated that either a bolus or a methane vaccine would emerge in the future and that would help to reduce emissions. And so when we're looking at what are significant changes, we're looking at how much does what has happened depart from what we expected to happen before. And for the bolus in particular, that's something that we already expected to come through as future technologies, and had accounted for and how we recommended those budgets in the past,
Meriana:
Tēnā koe, Rob. And just before I move to the next question, I want to remind everyone to use the Q&A function for putting your questions in and you can also upvote. So if someone's asked a question that you also want to ask and you want to get that question answered sooner, then you can like that question and we'll make sure to prioritise that.
I want to move now to a question from Lindsay Wood from Resilience Limited. What's the Climate Change Commission's view of forestry planting as an adequate means of offsetting long lived gases. I'm going to pass that question to you again, Rob.
Rob:
Yeah, absolutely. So forests are a really important part of how we meet our 2050 target. They provide benefits for reducing emissions and also for wider benefits for the country. However, they're not the only solution to getting there. And we do recognise as part of our advice that forestry solutions are not permanent and they also have other impacts on communities when you do go down the route of planting high levels of forestry. In our fourth emissions budget advice that we previously presented, we proposed and the first instance you seek to reduce gross and measure reductions and other sectors and then you use forestry to make up the difference in order to meet the budget in terms of what we put forward in that advice about what is the best way to meet emissions budgets. So we saw forestry playing a role in there, but we saw in the first instance the focus should be on reducing emissions so that you know that you have a permanent change in emissions that is going to be lasting. And it is one of the areas that the Commission provided advice on in our national climate change risk assessment earlier in the year – that actually the risks to our forestry is growing over time as extreme weather events increase. And so that store of carbon that we've got is actually increasingly at risk because of climate change itself. And that needs to be factored in when you looking at what solutions you're going to adopt.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe, Rob. I want to move now to a question from Alan Dew. Have your research and predictions taken into account the decreasing availability and increasing price of diesel with regards to food production and distribution and forestry? Rob, I'll put that one back to you.
Rob: Yeah. So that is something we can— when we do our modelling, we update for a sort of series of base assumptions about what is happening in the economy at the time, in addition to when we look at what is changing in terms of feasible reductions in technology. So prices for diesel and other fossil fuels is absolutely something that we will consider as part of producing that updated advice. At the time that we gave our last advice that was obviously prior to the conflict in the Middle East. And so we weren't in that situation of escalating prices, we've been and more recently, but it is a picture over a long period of time that the fossil fuel sources that we import to New Zealand are volatile in their prices. And there are real advantages to adopting alternative fuels as part of this transition to help reduce that dependence and reduce that exposure to those high prices.
Meriana:
Kia ora for that, Rob. The next question from Christina Hood. Kia ora, Christina. Could you outline the range of factors the Commission is required to consider in budget recommendations? I'm going to pass that over to Robin Campbell to answer.
Robin:
Thanks for the question. I'm going to have to take a deep breath as I get through this whole list. The Act sets out a comprehensive list of things which the Commission must consider, have regard to, and the same list applies to the Minister and the Government when they set the budgets. This is Section 5ZC of the Act for those who might want to look at that later.
Firstly, we must have regard to how the emissions budgets and targets may realistically be met, including key opportunities for emissions reductions and removals and the main risks and uncertainties associated with emissions reductions and removals.
Then we must also have regards to almost a dozen other things, so the latest projections of emissions so that we have a good baseline to work from; a broad range of domestic and international scientific evidence; existing technology and also anticipated technological developments, including the costs and benefits of early adoption of those in New Zealand. So that's a very relevant criteria to the question before and in the discussion around the methane bolus, for example.
Next on the list is the need for emissions budgets that are ambitious but are likely to be technically and economically achievable. So that sets some parameters for us. We do need to be ambitious. This is an important challenge to reduce our emissions, but we need to do that in a way that is technically feasible and economically achievable.
The next is normally the results of public consultation on an omissions budget. There is a special criteria in this particular piece of update work, which means the normal consultation requirements don't apply this time. Nevertheless, as you can see, we are still inviting your input into this process.
Next on the list is the likely impact of actions taken to achieve an emissions budget, including on the ability to adapt to the changing climate.
That's followed by the distribution of those impacts across the regions and communities of New Zealand and from generation to generation. So we do need to look at how the how the transition pathway is going to affect different regions differently and also about the time periods, you know, between now and 2050.
Next on the list is the economic circumstances and the likely impact of the decision on taxation, on public spending and on public borrowing. So that's really about what costs are going to fall to the government and how might those be met.
The next is the implications or potential implications of land use change for communities. This goes to how we think about agriculture, horticulture, the forestry sector and also urban land use planning.
Following that, we must consider responses to climate change taken or planned by parties to the Paris Agreement – so that's the criteria with which we look around the world and look at what other countries are doing as well.
Following that, New Zealand's relevant obligations under international agreements and other one, a broader international requirement.
And finally the new criteria: the implications or potential implications for domestic food production. So there is a lot in there that we need to weigh up and consider as we arrive at advice on what each budget level should be.
Meriana:
Ka pai – well done, Robin for getting all getting through all of that. And there's a summary of these considerations that people can view if they complete the request for input on our engagement platform. I want to move now to another question from Katie around which has had a couple of people also interested. Is the food production pātai focused on domestic consumption or domestic production? We export most of our kai.
I'm going to pass to Rob Carr to pick that one up.
Rob:
Thank you very much for the question. So food production in the Act is not something that's defined. So what it says in there is the implications or potential implications for domestic food production. Our understanding is the intention is that also includes exports, but it's not something that's explicitly defined by the Act, exactly what we should consider when we're looking at food production. So as part of the engagement that we're doing on this, we're interested in understanding both what is the information that we should consider when we're looking at what are the impacts on food production, but also what do you think we should be considering and looking at when we're looking at that question. So we can to have people's feedback on both of those parts as we consider that question.
Meriana:
Kia ora. Now I'm also going to take a deep breath and potentially cut this question down a little bit. If you want to read Steven's question in full, you can check the Q&A. I will just give a summary of it. So does the current budget for transport sector GHG emissions already consider Minister Bishop's proposed switch from petrol excise tax to petrol car RUC? Has this been modelled and been accounted for? Rob, I'll pass that question to you.
Rob:
Thanks very much for the question. That wasn't something that was in place at the time that we produced our fourth emissions budgets advice, so we wouldn't have been able to take it into account in the modelling. When we do our update, we will update for changes that have come through in the latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory and also changes that have come through in government projections. And those government projections include what policy changes the government has made that could affect emissions out into the future. And so when we get those through, those should account for policy changes like the road user charges. And we will include that within our modelling to understand the reference scenario of what would be likely to happen to New Zealand's emissions if we did nothing. What we set the emissions budget based on is a demonstration path, which reflects what we think is feasible if the right policies were in place. And so when we're developing that pathway, we're not necessarily fixed to the current policies in place in terms of thinking about what's possible. We're thinking about if you had the ideal mix of policies, what would be the best way to achieve emission reductions. And so that assessment that we're doing there is kind of policy neutral and respect to what's particular solutions the government gets. We're just looking at what is actually feasible to do.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe, Rob, for your fantastic explanations as always. A question here from Charles. As per the comment around significant change, how has genetic solutions been either added into your current assumptions e.g. Cool Sheep or Cool Beef? These solutions are small but cumulative and baked in. So the question is around how have genetic solutions being considered in this? I'll pass back to you, Rob, to pick that one up.
Thanks very much for the question, Charles. In our fourth emissions budget advice that we did in 2024, we assumed that low emissions breeding technology would come through for both sheep and beef in our assumptions. So those are things that were already considered as part of that modelling. It may be that the feasibility of what can be done with those technologies has changed since we did that work. And so that's something that will be considering as part of doing this advice and considering what the appropriate level of biogenic methane reductions should be. So we'd be really keen for your feedback on what you think the assumptions should be for those technologies as part of updating this advice.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe Rob, a question here from Alice. Hi there. Do you think there is too much power to the Minister of Climate Change due to the last few years, with the Minister somewhat disregarding the Climate Change Commission's advice? I'll pass that one to Robin Campbell to pick up.
Robin:
Thanks for the question, Alice, I'm not really in a position to to answer that. The powers delegated to ministers are done so by Parliament under the Act – and that's the same Act which gives the Commission its functions, and gives the minister their powers in response to that. However, what I would say is that, you know, the Commission's advice continues. We are continuing to advise and monitor the government on adaptation and mitigation. And for our advice to be as useful as possible and it is meaningful for decision makers, it does need to be informed by a broad range of inputs. And so that's why we're asking for people to provide input into this process so that we can present the most well-informed advice possible to the minister.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe, Robin. And a supplementary to Alice's question. I'm interpreting this as more generally impacting on climate change, but what have what have you considered on AI impacting climate change?
Robin:
Yeah, another good question. I mean, the energy use impacts of AI are well known. In that sense, those impacts get bundled up in how we look at energy use across the rest of the economy domestically. But we don't generally look at energy use overseas in a sort of specific measurable way as inputs into our advice, because that's beyond our mandate. We do keep our focus within the New Zealand economy.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe, Robin. A question here from Aslan. Many customers and companies pursuing net zero commitments place a strong emphasis on improving emissions efficiency alongside achieving absolute reductions. How does the Commission consider the role of efficiency improvements when setting emissions budgets and evaluating pathways to meet them? Great question. I'll pass that over to Rob to answer.
Rob:
Thank you very much for the question, Aslan. Efficiency is something we consider as part of doing this analysis. So for pretty much every part of the economy, alongside looking at what emission reductions can be made by changing the technology we use or moving to different practises, we'll also look at what is the potential for efficiency improvements. And so that's something we consider through every part of our analysis and something that we build into our modelling, and absolutely does play a significant role in what emission reductions are feasible into the future. So something that we're very keen to look at.
Meriana:
A question now from Lindsey Wood: over what time frame into the future do you consider appropriate for assessing economically feasible and comparable cost related parameters? I think that's another question for you, Rob.
Rob:
Yeah, absolutely. Thank you very much for the question. When we're looking at what is economically feasible, that's primarily an assessment that we're applying to the fourth emissions budget period. So we're looking at what is the likely impact on costs and benefits going to be in the period from 2036 through to 2040. And as part of that, we look both at what might the cost be to adopt the technologies, but also what are the potential cost savings that they might generate for us and what are the wider impacts going to be. So how are they going to impact people's health or how are they going to change our efficiency at doing things? So we look at the whole picture of what are potential costs and benefits of the changes that we're making in that period as part of that.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe. We've got another question in the chat, but we still have plenty of time. So if you do have any burning questions, I do encourage you to use this time now with our experts, Robin Campbell and Rob Carr. No question is a bad question. So nai mai, and yeah, pop them in the Q&A chat. If you like something someone's posted, then remember you can always upvote to have that question answered sooner. I'm going to go to the pātai from Martin Free. Could you talk about how you will model the relationships between emissions reduction and domestic food production? Haven't you considered food production levels in previous advice? A great question. I'll throw to our project lead, Rob Carr to answer that one.
Rob:
Thank you, Martin. So as part of the fourth emissions budget advice, we modelled the potential impacts on food production and the likely reductions through two different modelling systems. One is Energy New Zealand, which shows us basically how emission reductions will flow through to the economy overtime. And the other one is called C-PLAN, which is an equilibrium model that models what the impact on GDP and other economic factors is going to be from the level of reduction that we've put forward. And those models look across at agriculture at kind of a nationwide level in terms of what level of change is going to occur. And so we looked at what the impacts on food production would be as part of our 4th emissions budget advice. And the results that came back from those existing modelling systems that were used basically showed that the existing trends that we have in New Zealand of a decline in in sheep and beef production would continue, and that wouldn't be sort of substantially affected in the direction of it by what we're recommending. And that the dairy would continue to grow compared to today under what we put forward in our original 4th emissions budgets advice.
In the updated advice, we're looking at adding an additional model into the sets that we consider, the New Zealand FARM model. And that looks at a regional level and at the specific farm types as part of how it does its analysis, so it enables us to look at the potential impacts on food production at a more detailed level. It will work differently to our other modelling systems, so not everything will translate across, but it will give us another way to look at what those impacts might be and to consider that as part of this advice.
We're also keen to hear people's feedback more generally about other things we should be considering when we're thinking about food production as part of this.
Meriana:
Kia ora, Rob. Another question from Aslan. In developing emissions budgets and pathways, how does the Commission consider the interaction between New Zealand's domestic emissions reductions and global emissions outcomes, particularly when New Zealand may be a comparatively efficient producer of food and fibre? Great question. I will pass to Rob to pick that one up.
Rob:
Yeah, absolutely. I think one of the things to consider as we look at emission reductions and what it means at the global scale is that this is really a collective action issue. So New Zealand produces less than 1% of total global emissions. But when you add up all the countries that produce less than 1% of global emissions, that's 30% of all emissions. And so actually all of those countries need to be taking significant action to reduce their emissions if we're going to limit the extent of global warming.
When we're looking at what emission reductions are technically and economically feasible for New Zealand, we do consider whether the solutions being put forward are going to impact production and whether that might cause emissions leakage of those emissions offshore as part of that change. So that is something we consider as part of what we put forward in emissions budgets advice. In our last advice, we didn't find that what we put forward would cause significant emissions leakage. We thought there was viable technologies on the table that could enable New Zealand to significantly reduce its emissions while still having a growing economy.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe, Rob. A question here, another question from Lindsey Wood: please expand on the logic for using the period of emission budget advice for applying to economic assessment of climate initiatives. It would seem to predicate especially against normal term initiatives. So question here around the period of time for the advice and how it's applied. I'll pass that over to you, Rob, to answer that.
Rob:
Yeah, sorry, I should clarify on that from my earlier announced earlier answer that we're looking at the extent of change that would flow through in that budget period 2036 to 2040 and what the particular impacts would be there. But our modelling systems carry out to 2050 at a detailed level and out to 2070 at a high level. So we have an understanding of how those changes might continue to flow through from that period. And when we're looking at those pathways, we're looking at what's happening from today through until 2040 as well. So it's capturing what's happening over that sort of next 15 years of action as well, not just sort of what's within that one period.
Meriana:
Thanks for that, Rob. A question from Helen: what do you see as the main limitations of the modelling produced by the NZ FARM model, as I understand it wasn't developed for climate specifically? Great question. I'll pass to Rob to answer that one.
Rob:
Yes. So we will be considering as sort of an addition to our analysis rather than the the sole piece of our analysis. So it's one extra model and asset to consider alongside our additional analysis and what might be coming through. So it won't be the only thing that we're relying on and we'll be considering its limitations as we do that. It's not specifically designed for climate and there are some differences to our modelling systems, which means that not everything that comes through from it will necessarily be flowing through in the same way in our own models. So once we get those results back, we'll be comparing that to what is shown in our other models and we'll be comparing across the two and making sure that we're landing a balanced assessment across what all of those things are showing for what the likely impacts will be.
Meriana:
Kia ora. A question here from Helen: have you considered promoting plant based diets as a means of reducing emissions from meat and dairy production? I'm going to pass that question to Robin Campbell.
Robin:
Thanks for the question. I guess the answer to this question goes to the the role of the Commission in the policy system. It's not necessarily that we haven't or have considered promoting plant based diets like that. It's that we don't typically promote a policy with a level of detailed specificity like that, because the Commission's job is to advise on the broader parameters within which governments make choices – and those governments make choices, we help them understand the trade-offs and the implications of those choices, and we monitor their progress on implementing those choices. So I suppose that's that's not a no, but it's not a yes either.
The emissions from livestock production are real and are part of the issue we're trying to deal with and particularly relevant to this advice. And we are interested in receiving input on on what people think we should be focusing on as we approach those questions.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe, Robin. A question from Alice here about what the biggest policy is that a government has implemented over the recent years that has had the greatest impact on reducing climate change. Good question. I'll pass to Robin, noting again that we don't necessarily comment in great detail about different policies, but Robin will be able to expand on that.
Robin:
Well, we are weeks away from releasing our annual monitoring report, which gives a definite amount answer to things which have really bent the curve and made a difference in the last few years. Off the top of my head, I would highlight some of the partnership approaches taken to industrial energy use. Things like the New Zealand steel mill partnership with the government around replacing their coal-fired machinery with an electric arc furnace, and a number of other big businesses who have worked in partnership with the government to make significant upgrades to their production processes to use clean energy rather than coal.
Meriana:
Tēnā koe, Robin. So a question here around modelling economic impacts from Ailsa. I hope I'm saying your name correctly. So alongside modelling economic impacts on food production and potential trends in S&B and dairy, would you also consider the potential for opportunities like adopting horticulture to provide an economic alternative for those sectors and businesses that may be looking to make reductions to biogenic methane? I see Robin Campbell nodding there. So in the first instance, I'll pass to him. And then if Rob has any additional comments, you can follow up.
Robin:
Thanks – and thanks for the question. The short answer is yes, we, we frequently look at the options that landowners, land users have for what to do with their land under different scenarios, different types of food production, shifting between pastoral agriculture, horticulture and forestry and other things. So, so yes, we do look at that all the time in our work.
Meriana:
Kia ora, short and sweet. A question here from Robin Boone. Last year newer announced that our native forests, particularly around Fiordland, could be sequestering up to 170 million tonnes of carbon annually. Is this being considered in our overall emissions nationally? I will pass that over to Rob.
Rob:
Yeah, so making those decisions isn't something that sits with the Climate Change Commission. It sits with the Ministry for the Environment. And each year when they produce the greenhouse gas inventory, they look at the latest evidence and research across all of the areas for emission reductions and consider whether we should change the way that we count those emissions. So they have made some changes in recent years to how we count forestry emissions that takes into account the latest research coming through. But I don't know if they've specifically accounted for the full impact of that one NIWA study, but it is something that they consider each year as part of pulling together the inventory.
Meriana:
Kia ora for that, Rob, last question that we have here from Stefan. We do have a little bit more time. So you have around 5 minutes if you wanna get your last burning question in there. Otherwise we will wrap after Stefan's question has been answered. This is actually a response to Aslan. I'm not sure if there is a question for our team in there around, but a response here around energy efficiency and what the Climate Change Commission considers in its modelling. I'll leave that for others to go and have a read and consider if they like in the chat. Thank you very much for your feedback, Lindsey. Appreciate that. I feel we've covered a lot of content today and we want to give you guys some of your time back. We know it's a busy time of year. We know that this process is rather condensed, but we appreciate all of your fantastic detailed questions and the high level of engagement. We have had on our update to the 4th emissions Budget advice, so I will leave it at that. You can have 10 minutes, an extra 10 minutes for your lunch. Thank you very much again for your thoughtful questions. You've been a very engaged audience. We'll share the link to the recording within 24 hours and feel free to share this with anyone you think will be interested.
If you have any questions in the e-mail that we send the follow up to this, we'll provide you not only the link to how to have your say, but an e-mail address if you do want to take up that request for a meeting or you have any other follow up questions after this. Nō reira, ngā mihi ki a koutou. Ngā mihi to our presenters. Thank you very much for your time. Robin Campbell, our General Manager delivery and our project director for this emissions budget update, Rob Carr. Tēnā kōrua. I'm going to close this out with a karakia.
Ohh, we have a couple more questions. Ohh, go on then, why not? Why not? We've got the time, don't wanna waste it. After all of that, you're going to have 10 minutes less for lunch. Sorry, team.
Helen, I will ask your question and then we'll close. So are you aware of progress and the use of hemp – hempcrete as an alternative to concrete? Good question. I'll pass to Robin to pick that up.
Robin:
Yes, broadly, but I'm sure we could know more. So that's the kind of thing, if there's any emerging technology or materials that are you think we should know more about, you can upload information about them through the submission form. We can take that into account.
Meriana:
Kia ora. All right, last question for real this time. Okay, we've got Barbara. The Baba TDC International Best Practise increasingly considers the wider co-benefits of climate action. How does the Commission incorporate benefits such as improved resilience, biodiversity, public health and economic outcomes when assessing emissions reduction pathways and priorities? Robin, I see nods from you. I'll pass you to pick that up in the first instance.
Robin:
You know, it's a really great point. And we firmly agree that many of the things that can be done and are being done to lead to emissions reductions have massive co-benefits across resilience, health and productivity, things like that. I mean, the very common example people talk about is, is when community centres and marae upgrade to solar energy and batteries, they are reducing the load on fossil fuel electricity generation and also providing a localised energy source for when the grid goes down after a big storm. There are massive public health benefits from reduced air pollution from switching away from fossil fuels, and things like that. So we take this into account. We are working on upgrading the formal ways that we allow for those benefits and incorporate them into our advice. And it's escaped me right now, but perhaps Rob can remember – we do have a piece of analysis we did recently on the reduced cost to the health system from reduced air pollution.
Rob:
Yes, so as part of our recent emissions reduction monitoring report that we released last year, we noted that the potential for health benefits from faster electrification of transport above what the government currently has in its second emission reduction plan could provide benefits of over a billion dollars a year in avoided health costs. So there's really significant health co-benefits from making those changes.
Robin:
Thanks, Rob. And a billion dollars a year is nothing to be sneezed at in terms of health costs, but beyond the quantification of that in dollar terms, you can imagine how many people's lives that is as well, and the quality of life.
Meriana:
Kia ora kōrua. Thank you again. And thank you, Barbara for that last question. Really detailed and insightful. So fantastic question in Don. So you've still, you've now got 6 minutes extra everybody. Thank you again for joining us.
We're engaging with the public about our work to update our 2024 advice on emissions budgets – and we'd like to hear from you.
In this webinar, General Manager Robin Campbell and Project Director Rob Carr discuss how we’re updating our analysis on Aotearoa New Zealand’s fourth emissions budget (2036–2040), with updated advice due by 31 March 2027.
We’re keen to hear your thoughts on the recently changed 2050 biogenic methane target, and how emissions budgets might affect domestic food production. Robin and Rob discuss the scope, response process, and the information and evidence we’re looking for, followed by Q&A with attendees.