Intense Parliamentary Debate Over Climate Change Bill's Agricultural Emissions Exclusion

In a charged session at New Zealand’s parliament on Wednesday, lawmakers engaged in robust debate over the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill 2024. The discussion revolved around Clause 1 and Clause 2, which focus on the bill’s title and commencement date, reflecting deep divisions over the removal of agricultural obligations from the country's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Calls for Title Amendments

Labour MP Rachel Brooking critiqued the current title of the bill. She suggested alternatives such as "Climate Change Response (We're Totally Relaxed) Amendment Act 2024" and "Removing Agriculture Despite Agreeing that it Makes up over 50 Percent of our Emissions," citing that agricultural emissions account for about 53% of New Zealand's total emissions according to the Ministry for the Environment. Brooking also highlighted concerns regarding the lack of clarity on future emission budgets.

Green Party MP Steve Abel proposed renaming the bill to "Climate Change Response (Agricultural Emissions Climate Delay) Amendment Act 2024," emphasizing that removing agriculture from the ETS misrepresents the legislation as a proactive climate change response. He argued that such delays are tantamount to denial and stressed the need for titles reflecting these concerns.

International Economic Implications

Francisco Hernandez of the Green Party raised issues about potential international economic impacts due to changes in export obligations, warning that excluding agriculture from ETS could make New Zealand exports more expensive. Labour MP Barbara Edmonds supported this view, proposing a title change to "Climate Change Response (Making New Zealand Exports More Expensive) Amendment Bill." She referenced insights from the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s banking inquiry, which highlighted climate obligations as a risk for exporters.

Global Climate Concerns

Lan Pham of the Green Party suggested that the bill’s exclusion of agriculture from ETS could contribute to a "Global Climate Train Wreck." He emphasized the urgency of addressing emissions across all sectors. The Climate Change Commission had expressed concerns about risks in meeting second and third emission budgets, particularly due to the absence of pricing mechanisms or incentives for agriculture and transport.

Legislative Outcome: Bill Passes Without Changes

Despite these compelling arguments and proposed amendments, the bill passed without changes to its original title or commencement date. The votes were cast along party lines, with 49 from New Zealand National, 11 from ACT New Zealand, and 8 from New Zealand First supporting the government's position, while 34 from New Zealand Labour and 15 from the Green Party opposed it.

The debate highlighted significant divisions over how best to address climate change in New Zealand, particularly regarding agricultural emissions. As policymakers continue to navigate these complex issues, the discourse reflects broader societal debates about balancing local economic concerns with international obligations in the fight against climate change.