뉴질랜드 환경법에서의 CCS 및 시사점

The main industry of New Zealand is the tourism which features the beautiful natural landscape and the leisure industry using it. The number of tourists in New Zealand is increasing constantly because the environment of New Zealand is always kept clean and green. New Zealand is making many efforts to preserve the environment and these efforts are evaluated to be great. For example, the percentage of the environment-friendly energy is increased and enterprises are trying to minimize the emission of the waste. The awareness level of the New Zealand government and people on the environment protection is substantially high and most of environment technologies are being born in New Zealand because new environment technologies are always developed. Although retaining abundant coal resources, New Zealand is using the alternative energy to prevent the air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuel. They are also making many efforts in developing the technology that restrains the release of carbon dioxide that is caused by the use of fossil fuel, and the legislation of law for it is also active. CCS technology is the most substantive alternative for preventing the global warming and the confusion of ecosystem caused by the climate change. Currently South Korea is also making many efforts in developing the CCS technology and arranging CCS single bill in order to cope with the climate change. Therefore, the case of New Zealand, the environment advanced country, will give us many implications. The decree of New Zealand closely related to the CCS technology includes Resource Management Act 1991(RMA) and Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012(EEZ Act). It was confirmed New Zealand was paying careful and much attention in arranging the CCS bill. This paper is analyzing how CCS project contradicts RMA evaluated as the most important act in New Zealand environment law, and analyzed all complementary fields minutely to review the direction in which CCS single bill will go. The remarkable thing is that it was confirmed that it was easier to enact a new CCS single law than revising existing RMA. It gives many implications to us who are already arranging the CCS single bill. Another distinguishing thing is that it is agonizing even about general people’s safety as well as the relevant workers in installing and operating the CCS facility. It is judged through this that the government should reflect on itself seriously that the discussion on general people’s safety which is most important part is very insufficient while directing much energy to the communication with the public, and they should present an alternative.