Milkshakes at Bellamy’s?
I’m starting to wonder if there’s something a bit strange about the food they feed people at Parliament these days. The MPs are all acting up and acting strange. In fact, the last seven days have been downright bizarre when it comes to environmental politics.
I’ve previously blogged about the ambiguous approach of the Maori Party to tackling climate change and wondered which way they’d jump on the emissions trading scheme. A couple of weeks ago it was looking good. Te Tai Tonga MP Rahui Katene spoke out strongly in the media in favour of protecting Papatuanuku and said the Maori Party would only agree to strengthening the emissions trading scheme and said that bringing agriculture into the scheme by 2011 would be a bottom line. But yesterday afternoon, the Maori Party agreed to back the Government in gutting the scheme.
The Party agreed to a range of changes to the existing ETS that will transfer much of the cost of meeting a climate change target from polluters onto taxpayers. Unless the Government increases taxes (very unlikely) people will have to go without public services so that the greenhouse pollution from our biggest polluters is subsidised by the taxpayer. The Business Council for Sustainable Development has slated the scheme as costing taxpayers billions of dollars. What’s worse, because polluters will have little incentive to change their ways, New Zealand’s emissions will go up, not down.
This is mostly a huge sop to Fonterra so that the dairy sector can build lots more industrial dairy farms – that you’ll be subsidising with your taxes. When I was a child there was a series on TV called “Count Homogenised.” Perhaps Bellamy’s has got the MPs addicted to milkshakes.
A friend pointed out to me that while Rahui Katene had spoken in favour of saving the planet, it was Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples who seem to have struck the deal with National. Rumour has it that both Rahui Katene and Hone Harawira have been sidelined within the Maori Party on climate change. If so, that’s a pity.
Then there was Labour’s truly bizarre display in Parliament last week over National’s changes to the Resource Management Act. Labour MPs opposed a number of the reforms in passionate speeches, and then voted for them.
Two MPs do emerge from the week with credit. Firstly, I’ll giveJeanette Fitszimons credit for taking informed, principled stands on both the emissions trading scheme and the changes to the Resource Management Act. Secondly, I’ll give Charles Chauvel credit for taking a principled approach to his negotiations with National on the scheme. It may have cost him a deal with National, and politics is often about making deals that get things done, but
sometimes principle is more important than the deal.
Related posts
Email This Post
Thanks for this,
What’s Greepeace New Zealand’s position on allowing New Zealand’s emissions be offset by through purchasing credits from overseas / the REDD mechanism???
How much of the 40% would Greenpeace accept being offset by purchasing credits through REDD [privatisation of rainforests] and other market based carbon trading schemes / not actually reducing emissions in New Zealand? I read this quote [see below] from George Monbiot recently and wondered whats the point in getting a target if it doesnt mean countries like NZ actually have to make changes here in New Zealand, where it seem to me the real long term changes need to be happening.
“Carbon offsetting makes sense if you are seeking a global cut of 5% between now and forever. It is the cheapest and quickest way of achieving an insignificant reduction. But as soon as you seek substantial cuts, it becomes an unfair, impossible nonsense, the equivalent of pulling yourself off the ground by your whiskers. Yes, let us help poorer nations to reduce deforestation and clean up pollution. But let us not pretend that it lets us off the hook.”
— George Monbiot, The Guardian, July 2009
Stevo,
That’s a great question. Greenpeace reckons that emission reductions should primarily be done at home. We’re not happy with offsetting in general, but we accept there will be some. We don’t want REDD in the carbon markets, for a number of reasons; we want to see a global fund to halt deforestation instead. We’re very unhappy that the Government’s strategy is to rely almost completely on international carbon markets and ignore opportunities to reduce emissions here in NZ (except for some forestry). So to sum up, no REDD credits and as much as possible should be done at home (such as 100% renewable electricity sector, smart farming that reduces emissions and sorting out our transport system). Hope that helps provide some clarity.
Thanks Geoff
Looking forward to seeing Greenpeace loudly opposing the REDD mechanism
I believe the government is planning on offsetting 75% of their reduction
here’s some info i found at:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/emissions-target-2020/09-b-00576.html
——
Performance against a 2020 target
22. The use of these mitigation estimates along with baseline projections allows performance against particular hypothetical targets for 2020 to be assessed for each of the policy scenarios. To use a purely hypothetical example (for illustrative purposes only) of a 2020 target to reduce emissions 20% below 1990 levels, our analysis suggests that a $25 price on all emissions would result in the target being met approximately 25% through domestic mitigation and 75% by purchasing units offshore. This is shown Figure 6. With a $50 price on all emissions, approximately 43% of this target is met through domestic mitigation.
———-
& its pretty clear that the price of carbon will never get anywhere near $50 so – …offsetting it is.
looks like its up to ourselves to shut down the sources of emissions here in NZ – the government dont seem at all interested