This morning’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) auction resulted in a clearing price of $53.85, breaching the $50 price cap.
The government issued an additional 1.6 million ETS emissions units from a reserve to defend the cap.* These extra units will raise New Zealand’s emissions by 1.6 million tonnes. The law requires the extra units to be backed, or offset, so that they do not raise emissions overall. A sound mechanism.
As James Shaw said in a statement:
The Government is committed to balancing out the additional units released today to ensure there is no overall impact on emissions released into the atmosphere.
Great. Shaw went on to say how the extra units could be neutralised:
Officials are currently looking into the best way to achieve this, including by changing the volume of units available to purchase at future auctions.
Excellent. Issuing 1.6 million fewer emissions units in the future will indeed neutralise the extra units issued today.
Another way to neutralise the extra units are actions (reductions and/or removals) which are outside the ETS. For example, buying and shredding EU ETS units, or planting trees provided those trees are excluded from the ETS now and forever.
But what about, say, more EV subsidies to neutralise the extra units? If not, why not, Minister?
The answer, of course, is that EV subsidies will not – cannot – neutralise the extra units issued today because EVs are already in the ETS.
You can subsidise EVs until you are blue in the face. But that will not change the fact there are 1.6 million more emissions units in circulation which means 1.6 million tonnes’ more emissions from the areas of the economy covered by the ETS (which is nearly all of it).
No action which is covered by the ETS cap can neutralise the extra 1.6 million tonnes of emissions unless it changes the number of units in circulation. Why? Because the action – more EVs, for example – will simply free up emissions units for someone else to use. There will still be 1.6 million more units in circulation which means 1.6 million tonnes more emissions.
Which is exactly why EV subsidies and pretty much every other government emissions policy are a waste of time and money: virtually all of it is already in the ETS. EV subsidies can’t neutralise the extra units issued today for the same reason they have no effect on overall emissions: they are covered by the ETS cap, the cap is binding, so total emissions are determined solely by the cap (for the parts of the economy covered by the ETS).
Shaw is right (I hope) to rule out using more EV subsidies and similar policies to neutralise today’s extra emissions units. That would be futile. It’s just that this logic should rule out doing EV subsidies and policies like it at all. Those policies cannot neutralise today’s extra units because they do not lower overall emissions.
* Actually the government issued 7 million units to defend the cap, but 5.4 million were already budgeted and therefore did not raise emissions.