Climate inquiry will look at science theory - Hide
ACT leader Rodney Hide believes a parliamentary inquiry into climate change policy will get the chance to question the science that says human behaviour is responsible for global warming.
The National Government has put the emissions trading scheme (ETS) on hold while it conducts a complete review.
Draft terms, released when National signed up ACT as a support partner in post-election negotiations, included an examination of the scientific claims underpinning climate change theory.
Prime Minister John Key said at the time the terms had been drafted by ACT, which has questioned whether human-induced climate change is real.
The party wants to scrap the previous government's ETS, whereas Mr Key wants to water it down.
A new set of terms, released today, does not include a direct reference to an examination of the science behind climate change.
Other than that, it is broadly similar to the draft.
Mr Hide, who will also sit on the committee, said as far as he was concerned the committee will get to look at the issue of the science theory behind climate change.
He was pleased that sceptics would get a chance to have their views heard.
"The previous government took it that human induced climate change was a sort of fact. It isn't a fact it is a theory the evidence does not appear to support."
Mr Hide said there would be a reference to central projections, risks and uncertainties and this would allow examination of the science.
In the terms of reference circulated in Parliament there was no reference to the words mentioned by Mr Hide, but he thought they would be included.
The 11-member special select committee is predictably dominated by National and its support parties, which have six votes.
Mr Key announced yesterday that United Future leader Peter Dunne, who is a minister outside Cabinet, will chair it. ACT leader Rodney Hide will also sit alongside the four National members.
The committee is rounded out by three Labour MPs and one each from the Greens and Maori Party.
Terms include:
* looking at the merits of mitigation versus adaptation to a warmer climate;
* looking at the merits of an ETS, as opposed to a carbon tax;
* hearing views how New Zealand's climate change stance could affect its international relations;
* requiring a comprehensive regulatory cost-benefit analysis;
* considering the impact of policy on households in light of the weak economy, New Zealand's international competitiveness and the actions of competing countries;
* considering the case for increased climate change research;
* considering the need for additional regulations if an ETS is retained;
* considering the timing of implementation.
It is unusual for a government minister to sit on a committee and Green Party co-leader Russel Norman yesterday said he hoped Mr Dunne took his position of independence seriously.
Mr Key said Mr Dunne was qualified for the role.
"He's a seasoned member of Parliament, he's neutral if you like so there's no particular disagreement.
"I think he'll do a good job of it."
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions9
Mr Hide
This is an argument that could go on for years and years and for the life of me I don't think our best intention to get to the bottom of this big question is going to answer it. I don't think you need to be a rocket science to realise that Humans pollute.
My example to this arguement is the family home. If the members of the house did not keep the house clean and tidy eventually it would get dirty mould would arise flies would come rats etc etc the place would become uninhabitable. I believe the world is a bit like a big house we have to keep it clean otherwise it gets dirty. The differences it house is a small place the damage is very visiable the world is a large place and its less visiable but never the less as time goes by the signs of place kept unclean will be fairly obvious. Unfortunately we can't knock the the planet down like a house so we have to look at maintaining it.
Trying to justify the rights and wrongs of climate change isn't the real issue, its "We have a big house should we keep it clean?"
That at long last we may have some senisible debate on this issue and not just the theory from one side.
Lucy -
Let's be clear on one point: The climate change sceptics are overwhelmingly NOT experts in climate, atmospheric and planetary sciences. The debate at this juncture is about how we mitigate the changes which are already occurring. The denial crowd love to talk about having two sides to the discussion, but they're coming off as credibly as flat-earthers wanting to argue about the scientific theory of gravitational attraction.
National did not need this cretin and his fringe followers in order to form a government. What other wacko, extremist far-right lurches are up Mr Key's sleeve?
The scientific evidence is overwhelming, What the hell are they doing it's a total wast of time. The scientific community is only going to tell them the same thing "We have to ACT ;-)". Has the NZ government taken the place of the outgoing republican government in the USA as the number one dumb administration on earth. We should be well past the point of deciding weather we have a problem, there's no debate it's happening. Most of the west are actually taking steps to address these issues... while we debate if it's actually happening.... NUTS!
I would like to make a pertinent point! There are as many scientists telling us climate change is not caused by humans as there are that say we do.
I know one thing for sure and that is that before long all animal life will disappear if we are not changing our farming methods. The scientific community does not give a toss about the results of their tinkering with the natural order of things.
Why would scientists develop poisons affecting all life and releasing them onto the market if they had any sense or even a genuine understanding of what they do. Where is the scientists screaming against fluoride dumbing down every living thing on this earth. They have no conscience and should be banned forever!! Revert to proper farming without run offs creating havoc in the oceans and we may yet be able to breathe in the future. Remove Fluoride and Chlorine from our water supplies and sanity will return in our thinking instead of accepting decisions like zombies.
Those are just a few effects of SCIENTISTS promoting theory and having NO PRACTICAL IDEA into their stupid compartmental heads.
If we listen to scientists of any kind, only disaster will be our reward.
Have a good look at the so called WOMD and ask the scientists what the hell do they develop them for, for me to knock my neighbor down?
Or is it to get fat salaries and kill off as many people as possible without having to lift a finger?
The majority of climate scientists believe human activities are affecting climate change. Rodney Hide knows this and has set this inquiry up as a cynical time waster. I guess the world will now judge the Key administration as it judged the Bush administration.
Climatologists and geologists advise us that the empirical evidence does not show any linkage between CO2 and global warming beyond historical levels despite $50billion being spent on research on this issue. The main reason for any ETS is to help reduce rate of use of natural resources.
Fact is nobody knows where the climate is going but some empirical evidence suggests we may be entering a cooling period which would be worse than warming.
Emotive slagging of 'deniers' suggests ignorance
and no knowledge of science
Please continue, names and paper references of respected "Climatologists and geologists" would be great.
Yesterday, President-Elect Obama met with Al Gore to discuss how to deal with climate change. Obama said the time for arguing the science of climate change is over, we know it exists and now is the time to plan how to deal with it...
And here we are, backwards little ol Nu Zeeland, re-examining climate change... I'm personally embarrassed and it's not long until this story goes out to the world and we're the new laughing stock. Watch the long term impact on our clean green image, exports and tourism industry.
Why do these far right types only understand economies of scale? Our image is vitally important to our economy.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below