The Dreyfus Files - The Age
Over the past three weeks, I’ve been consulting with state and territory ministers, and the government of New Zealand, about minimum energy and greenhouse standards for appliances such as fridges and TVs.
It’s in the interests of both countries that we achieve consistent standards and clear labelling of equipment in all our homes, and that’s what this co-operative reform will deliver.
The proposal is one of a range of energy-efficiency measures that the federal government is working on, which are aimed at reducing household energy bills and reducing business costs. In Auckland, I met the two New Zealand Climate Change Ministers, Nick Smith and Tim Groser, and the acting Energy Minister Hekia Parata, as well as business and industry leaders.
One purpose was to pursue the equipment energy standards proposal, but another was to listen to the attitudes in New Zealand about the carbon price, which has been in place there since 2008, and how we can learn from the New Zealand experience.
The New Zealand carbon price is implemented through an emissions trading scheme (ETS). The New Zealand ETS is presently in a transitional fixed price period with a carbon price of NZ$12.50 per tonne until 2012.
There is assistance to energy-intensive trade-exposed industries, using eligibility tests similar to those developed for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. There is bipartisan support for that ETS.
It seems to be well understood by the New Zealand community that not only has a carbon price not damaged the local economy, it has demonstrably spurred investment in and development of clean energy sources, and other emissions reductions.
In a recent speech, Mr Smith said that there has been a clear switch from significant deforestation pre-ETS to real investment in afforestation.
And that the price signal from the New Zealand ETS is also driving major change in new generation investment in a new wave of renewable energy.
I was particularly interested to note that in New Zealand, there were more renewable projects in the calendar year 2010 than any year previously.
The striking thing about comments made to me about the ETS in New Zealand is that no one spoke about removing the scheme.
In fact, discussion was mainly about expansion of carbon pricing. Business people accept the carbon price, and have incorporated it into their planning.
This conservative (National Party) New Zealand government accepts that a carbon price is good policy, and good for the country’s economy.
Of course, there are great differences between the New Zealand and Australian economies — New Zealand already generates more than 70 per cent of its energy from renewable sources, mostly hydro — but in other respects there are great similarities.
Both countries are developed, industrialised societies, and both need to make the transition to a low carbon economy.
New Zealanders rightly see that transition as an opportunity, not a burden.
