The great climate debate
The Rainbow Warrior arrived in Wellington yesterday, and to back up our survey of political parties, we cut straight to the chase with an on board political debate last night.
Climate spokespeople from four main parties came to defend their climate credentials – David Parker from Labour, Nick Smith from National, Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Greens, and Hone Harawira from the Maori Party.
But before the political jousting began, the politicians, media and ship’s crew all sat down for a civil meal together. The mood was great – Hone even grabbed a guitar and started strumming as everyone sat down to eat.
After dinner, we moved down to the ship’s hold to begin the debate, and things got a bit more serious. Speeches were made, contradictory graphs brandished, and the MPs’ favourite political catchphrases repeated.
Radio New Zealand Morning Report presenter Sean Plunket hosted and did a fantastic job of pinning down policy commitments from the MPs. He gave each party spokesperson 5 minutes to outline their party’s policies on climate change before posing a number of specific questions about emission reduction target, burping cows and other climate hot topics.
Nick Smith attacked Labour’s record on climate change, but the opportunity to enlighten the crowd on National’s elusive policy solutions was largely passed over. David Parker promoted the Government’s emissions trading scheme, energy strategy and proposed ban on new thermal power stations. Jeanette Fitzsimmons presented by far the most detailed and progressive climate policies, including no delay on a price on agricultural emissions.
Hone Harawira spoke broadly about the need for action on climate change, for agriculture to be included in the emission trading scheme before 2013, and for short-term incremental emission reduction targets. He expressed concern about the injustice of delaying the entry of NZ’s most polluting sector from the emissions trading scheme: “If we go slack on the big boys, why should the little boys care?”
The Greens and Maori Party were the only parties to support Greenpeace’s proposals to bring agriculture into the emissions trading scheme earlier than 2013 and an emission reduction target of 30 per cent by 2020. Nick Smith stuck to the National Party’s 50 by 50 line, committing to no interim target pre-2050. Yet as Hone Harawira noted, 2050 is too far out for any form of electoral accountability. Who’s to know emissions reductions wouldn’t be left until 2049 – well too late? 50% reductions also aren’t nearly enough – the science is telling us we need emission reductions of 80-90% by 2050. We were pleased to hear Nick Smith commit to achieving these 50% reductions domestically, stating that simply purchasing offsets offshore “lacks credibility”.
We were even more pleased to hear that the Green Party’s target of 60-90% reductions by 2050 range is under review. Our survey identified this as a weakness in the Greens’ approach on climate change. The Greens are now aiming for a goal of 60% domestic reductions, but that New Zealand takes responsibility for 90% emission reductions (so that 30% could be offsets, purchased by helping developing countries become more sustainable).
David Parker refused to commit to an overall emission reduction target, instead offering a target of carbon neutrality in the energy sector by 2050 (through an unstated combination of domestic emission reductions and carbon offsets). He also refused to commit to an emission reduction target for the agricultural sector, which accounts for half of New Zealand’s emissions.
Labour’s excuse for committing taxpayers to pay for agriculture’s emissions until 2013? That if they did the Government would have had a big fight on its hands, with tractors up Parliament steps, driven by National MP Shane Ardern Perhaps its time the rest of the country fought back, because this concern over tractors is currently costing New Zealand taxpayers millions of dollars every year in Kyoto penalties and destroying our clean, green reputation.
The debate was streamed live from our website and we’ll put highlights up soon. But in the mean time you can view the full debate as recorded by the good folk from scoop.co.nz at www.greenpeace.org.nz/webcast
Related posts
Email This Post
no comment on coal reductions and stances on the ‘Cypress Mine’ Solid Energy want to devistate Happy Valley with?
Yes there was comment on coal mining and exports. David Parker and Nick Smith said that they will not restrict coal mining in NZ or exports from our shores. Parker’s excuse? That if we don’t export coal, China will just import it from somewhere else. But this kind of argument doesn’t fly – if everyone said the same thing, we’d never make any progress. We need to stand up, speak out, and remove ourselves from an industry that we know is destroying the planet. How can we possibly have any credibility at international climate negotiations trying to convince other countries to transition away from coal, when we’re the ones supplying it?
Jeanette Fitzsimons said that we shouldn’t have any new coal mines in New Zealand and that we should gradually phase out coal production. Hone Harawira agreed.
I know we have to include agriculture emissions (which usually means methane) in the ETS because of the Kyoto protocol but I’m confused … can someone please explain why we would want to reduce agriculture emissions anyway? As far as I’m aware (and according to the IPCC) methane levels are not currently increasing. So do we actually know i.e. has any study shown, what net effect agriculture actually has on global methane levels? A typical farm animal can’t produce carbon molecules on its own, it has to get it from somewhere e.g. the grass it eats, which in turn gets it from the soil and from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. To me, logically, even if one of these animals was to convert 100% of the carbon they consumed into methane they surely wouldn’t be increasing or decreasing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere (methane breaks down into CO2 in the upper atmosphere relatively quickly i.e. on the order of years so whether it’s CO2 of methane is largely a moot point). These farm animals don’t though. They convert some of that carbon into growing their bodies, producing offspring, producing milk and removing it from their bodies in other ways. I’m just not convinced that we would be achieving anything by effectively taxing farmers and if farm animals proved to be carbon sinks we may actually be exacerbating the problem.