What The Heck Are We Doing Here?
It was after about 11 hours of running between bunk and toilet late yesterday that I began to ask myself: “what the $%#@ am I doing? Is this really worth it? WHY IS THIS HAPPENING TO ME????!?!”.
Which brings me to what I am doing. In fact, what we’re all doing. The main purpose of this ship tour is to talk climate change - to anyone who’ll listen really. Because there’s a sense in New Zealand that the climate problem is solved; that the government is doing all it can, and that on a global scale, we’re totally doing our bit. But a) this actually isn’t true and b) the risk with this attitude is that it leads to complacency, and people forget that we’re up against the biggest threat that civilisation as a whole has ever faced.
So we’re going out there to remind people that there is lots more to be done and that the time to do it is now.
Greenpeace reckons there are two main things that must happen in New Zealand if we’re truly going to nail climate change. One is for a domestic reduction target to be set, and the other is for us to meet it. And to meet it, we need agriculture to start taking responsibility for its pollution. First things first though - the target.
Targets in themselves don’t stop climate change. But they do set the scene for what needs to be achieved, and give a clear signal to policy makers that they should formulate policies capable of achieving the target set. Countries taking a leadership position on climate change have set national targets, for example: the UK has a target above and beyond its Kyoto commitment - 20 per cent by 2010. It is expected to achieve a reduction of almost of 17 per cent by 2010 as a result. Germany has a domestic target of 40 per cent overall reductions from 1990 levels by 2020, which it’s on track to meet. Even Australia, which has been a little slow on the uptake with climate solutions, has a long term overall emission reduction target. In Sweden, the Swedish Parliamentary Council on Climate Change recently agreed on an emission reduction range of 75-90 per cent by 2050.
Experts agree that developed countries like New Zealand should have an emission reduction target of between 25-40 per cent by 2020, and should be aiming to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 (this certainly puts the National’s Party’s target of only 50 per cent by 2050 into perspective!) So Greenpeace is calling on the government, and in fact, all political parties, to set a target of 30 per cent by 2020.
And we’re asking for agriculture to be brought into New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme within the next two years (rather than in 2013, as the legislation currently provides).
Despite the fact it makes up almost half of all New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, agriculture is exempt from the scheme for another five years. This is, in a word, madness. It’s going to set us back hugely in the fight against climate change, make a mockery of our climate policies and mean we don’t meet the target.
We’re also asking New Zealanders to do their bit- either as individuals, groups or communities - by adopting emission reduction targets in their own lives, and cutting their emission by a third. And during our open days we’ll be offering hints and advice about how to do this. Because if the public can show our leaders in parliament what’s possible, then the politicians are more likely to do what’s needed.
So that’s what we’re doing here. And despite the rolling sea, and my body’s unfortunate response to it, I’m glad and proud to be part of it.
Related posts
Email This Post
If it makes you feel any better Kathy, I once got seasick on my surfboard.
Mmm embarrassing..
I’ll trade you - come back to the office & I’ll take your place!
On the global scale thing, if NZ can’t do our bit, what hopes do we have of other countries doing theirs?
NZ has to set and meet our targets not only to “do our bit” but also so that we can help get other countries to do the same thing. If we sit on our hands and say “not our problem” and refuse to set targets we will only be undermining international negotiations.
In just 3 weeks NZ Govt reps will be in Bangkok, discussing with other Kyoto Parties the “principle” of cutting 25-40% by 2020. How will we help strengthen those talks without our own target?
At best, our voice won’t be heard because nobody will take us seriously. At worst: we’d be making sure those talks go nowhere. How can we get others to act when we won’t act ourselves?
Yet we would still suffer the effects of climate change. We all will.
Indeed shindig indeed!
New Zealand could be a shining example for the world. Perhaps better than any other nation we can lead the way. We are small and nimble. We are blessed with a small population and abundant renewable energy sources. We can set bold emission targets. We can work towards moving away from the fossil fuel addiction.
Like when we announced to the world that we would be nuclear free we can set an example for the rest of the world and be proud of it.
Keep your eyes on the horizon girl. It helps. Home isn’t the same without you. x
“And we’re asking for agriculture to be brought into New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme ..”
And here is the point at which Greenpeace loses the plot. The emissions trading scheme is designed to serve the interest of rich people who do not care. It is for those who put zero value on carbon and have no sense of stewardship. The scheme actively punishes individuals who place a high value on carbon and refuse to fly/own cars etc and have low carbon emissions. They are taxed to pay the offset of those who care only for money while also having to subsidise cars, jets, agri-corps etc. The scheme is designed to promote the interests of an elite of money pushers, not the wider society.
On a deeper level the scheme contains a fundamental psychological flaw and is simply a denial of change – the fact is no one can ever be carbon neutral. We are born to be stewards of the carbon potential –whether we like it or not. The scheme teaches our children that this fact is untrue.
The scheme is spiritually bankrupt and a recipe for war and famine. Not having a trading scheme is better than having a trading scheme. At least then we are being honest that we don’t care and put zero value on carbon. By comparison, even a small carbon tax puts a value on carbon and reduces the penalties currently imposed on those who personally put a high value on carbon.
The recent Meridian-Comalco secret contract to 2030 reveals the tragic farce. NZ households are now committed through their Bulk-gen electricity to (1) paying carbon offsets because Comalco is given half our current hydro resource and to (2) subsidising cheap aluminium car parts in Asia and N America so the rich can continue polluting with greater ease.
More hilarious (and scary) thoughts on the farce in my latest blog at
http://tinyurl.com/2bj8eh
My sad conclusion is that Greenpeace is yet again its own worst enemy. Its support for carbon trading is a direct and inevitable product of its wider denial of change. Its role and reputation as a “green model” among caring folk makes it one of the ultimate endorsers of the carbon-trading ethos.
Note: The fact I sign my full name to this statement is testimony of my commitment to sustainable uses of our carbon potential. See my Bonus Joules website. I believe every citizen has to stand up and be counted on the issue.
Would it be simplistic to suggest that on each farm that is contributing to emissions, they must have the equal amounts of attention directed at the solution?
Could it be law that equal amounts of trees must be planted to a ratio of cows?
We must all look at solar power… not only does tapping into the free energy of the sun save money for the consumer but resources as well… Will the government sponser individuals to help themselves by giving a grant to install solarpanels… Please
I like the new seven deadly sins
Shindig this is exactly right, and it’s what underpins the need for New Zealand to take strong action over climate change (and it’s something we’ve been telling the government for a long time!) For New Zealand to be taken seriously and listened to on the international stage, we need to have our own country in order first.
It’s always been said we “punch above our weight” internationally, and we are held in high regard when it comes to environmental matters. This reputation is crucial, but is it deserved and will it hold? What we have to do is encourage our political leaders to do more than talk the talk on this issue, lest we’re outed as followers rather than leaders and so we can truly play a leadership role in future negotiations.
Hey Dave, I’m a campaigner on board the ship. I share your concerns about emissions trading simply creating a money go round, with the wealthy inevitably finding a way to make a buck out of the system. Greenpeace’s first preference has always been for a carbon tax because it prices emissions in a simple way and avoids the the complex game playing of emissions trading.
Like you, I’m concerned that the implementation of an emissions trading scheme will lead people to think that we’ve got the whole climate problem wrapped up in NZ, when the truth is we’re still way off the mark.
But I draw the line at saying that “Not having a trading scheme is better than having a trading scheme.” Yes, I’d rather have no trading scheme than a useless trading scheme. But a carbon tax is off the table, and an ETS is all we’ve got to price emissions in NZ. Hence why we’re not standing up and saying “out with the ETS” but instead saying “Finally a price on emissions, now let’s make this the best scheme that we can - a scheme that will actually drive emission reductions”.
How could the scheme actually work? Well, first we need all sectors to be included so that everyone faces a price on emissions. Second, we need a shrinking cap on the number of emission permits available on the market, in order to force emission reductions within NZ. And thirdly, the Government needs to auction emission permits rather than giving them away for free. THEN it will be polluters rather than taxpayers that will pay for emissions and the revenue generated could be invested into helping people adjust to a low emissions world (investing in cheap public transport, for instance).
If the scheme was well designed, polluting industries would be the ones who paid, not taxpayers.
I’d love a carbon tax, but it’s simply not on the cards. If we were to call for the ETS to be scrapped we would only be playing into the hands of people who are trying to prevent any action on climate change. We’ve got to work with what we’ve got and make it work. So we’ll continue to point out that unless some serious changes are made to the scheme, it will remain just a pretty piece of policy. We’ll also continue to push for additional policies to drive real emission reductions across the economy.