Doha to administer last rites to Kyoto

Nick Smith: Keen to see Kyoto extended
John Key: Sticking to his guns

OPENING SALVO

More than 25,000 people will soon fly to Doha for the UN’s 18th climate-change jamboree.

The 25,000 will fly home after failing to extend the Kyoto Protocol or agree on anything meaningful.  The Kyoto system will then end as scheduled on December 31 and the international carbon price will collapse further – including under New Zealand’s ETS, the most extensive such policy in the world.

All informed observers have known this for five years, but the climate-change jetset has had an interest in denying it.  How else would they accrue air points?

Kyoto collapse
Doha’s certain failure is not stopping local greenies from demanding New Zealand unilaterally announce further self-flagellation under the Kyoto system.

Our trading partners will require it, they assert nonsensically.

The truth is that Kyoto never covered more than 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

China, the US, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea were never in.

EU countries signed up only because their mining and manufacturing sectors declined after 1990, Kyoto’s Year Zero.

Similarly, former Soviet republics joined only because their emissions also plunged after economic collapse post 1990.

Australia joined belatedly under Labor, and remained in only because Julia Gillard blatantly lied one week before the 2010 election: “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.”

She u-turned immediately after re-election.

 Even among the minority that signed up for Kyoto, most countries have announced they won’t extend after December 31.

The top three emitters, China, the US and India were never in.  The fourth and fifth, Russia and Japan, won’t be re-joining.  Nor will Canada, the seventh biggest emitter.

In fact, in the whole world, only the EU and Australia say they will continue.

Even then, nothing Ms Gillard says on Kyoto means anything, and the EU’s commitment is in doubt, having failed to agree on a negotiating position thanks to Poland’s rebellion against Brussels.

Settled policy
Back home, New Zealand has a settled climate change policy.  For better or worse, both major parties agreed to an ETS, linked to the prevailing international carbon price.

Labour said it should cover all sectors and all gases as soon as possible, and ahead of anyone else.  National preferred to include only sectors and gases with access to emissions-reductions technologies.

Now the international carbon price is low, Labour wants to artificially inflate the local price and link our policy to Australia’s.

National’s Nick Smith agrees and is believed to be working with NGOs and other parties in parliament to pressure John Key to increase costs on manufacturers.

This strange coalition believes New Zealand should ignore that only Europe and Australia want to extend Kyoto and that Australia will anyway pull out when its government changes next year.

New Zealand, they say, should back Ms Gillard and sign up for five more years of Kyoto.

Allowing Ms Gillard’s disgraced, dishonest and outgoing government to set New Zealand’s domestic and international climate change policy would be absurd – but that is what Dr Smith, Labour and the environmental NGOs are agitating for.

Luckily, Mr Key appears to be backing common sense.  He defends his ETS but says it will be based on the international price, not a government-imposed domestic one.

His ministers have also indicated that New Zealand won’t unilaterally sign up to a Kyoto 2 treaty that hasn’t been negotiated, never will be, and which no one else except the EU and Ms Gillard are interested in.

A small bit of sanity is creeping into New Zealand’s climate change policy.

This article is tagged with the following keywords. Find out more about My Tags

Post Comment

27 Comments & Questions

Commenter icon key: Subscriber Verified

Is it true that Neville Key plans to put Crazy Nick back in cabinet in a few weeks?

Reply
Share

After lunch on Monday

Reply
Share

Mr Hooton your summation deserves framing. I'd put money on it that all will come to pass as predicted but seeing as I already am getting stiffed in tax I'll leave that wager alone. I wish the Melbourne cup was as much a cert.

Reply
Share

Your odds would be crap - you'd be buying your money back.

Reply
Share

Hooten. Top of the class.

The irony being to all of this, SKey said Global Warming/ETS was a hoax in 2006 / 8. Then his limp n lame whimpy government became the hoax by implementing Labour's hoax in difficult economic times to both disadvantage business and labours own faithful. Key's hoax since has had the widely fore casted, severely negative influence or distorting effect on how business and consumption occurs within the economy. But, where a token-gesture of sanity now "prevails" the hoax continues where there should be no climate-change policy at all. It's a scam. It is corrupt. And tools like Smith shouldn't be allowed to blow anymore hot air on the hoax. As SKey said, It's a hoax and the polar bears are doing just fine.

In terms of it's collapse, the major collapse relates to the electorates confidence of Key "hoax" government's 2014, should the scam/hoax/ETS persist. It'd be nail in National's 2014-coffin if crazy Nick was brought back. The bloke has no credibility whatsoever.

Reply
Share

I don't at all see how having Australia decide NZ's emissions trading policy could be any worse than the status quo - having Business NZ write NZ emissions trading policy.

Reply
Share

The idiot Smith might be just the man Key needs to take the media heat off his latest faux pas. Key is becoming a bit nimble at bending it like you know who on any subject. Cant trust the man on much these days.

Reply
Share

The trouble is with NZ craving global leadership status on the Carbon / global warming scam, we are the laughing stock of the rest of the world....... "Who / where is that NZ place"??

This is almost a case of lets become as the global leader even if doing so destroys our economy.......good one Key....and don't let that Smith guy any where near the cabinet table.

Reply
Share

Smith is a disaster, period. It's way past time he left politics altogether.

Reply
Share

Climate change needs to be addressed urgently. Instead, both National and Labour tinker around the edges. In fact, they do worse than nothing by appearing to do something, while in fact continuing to support increasing emissions through various forms of government support.

Economic incentives work, whether it's an ETS or something akin to the Gillard Government's carbon tax (which has dramatically reduced emissions, by 6.3% in its first quarter) at far lower than expected costs (see http://www.smh.com.au/national/impact-of-carbon-tax-lower-than-predicted...), or some other combination of policies,(no individual policy is a panacea) NZ has to play its role, however small it appears to be, because the required level of emissions reduction means no-one gets a free ride.

(As for whether Gillard "lied", as opposed to doing what she needed to secure independent/Greens support to govern, that's irrelevant. The ETS is a policy that is proving to be effective without the doom and gloom predicted by people who knock those who predict doom and gloom from climate change.)

Reply
Share

Australian emissions downturn coincides with economic downturn. Funny that.

NZ foresters bleating incessantly about the ineffectiveness of the ETS as a consequence of global carbon prices falling to $0.50/ tonne. (and dropping)
Even funnier that.

Your inane comment above still takes the cake in the funny stakes though.

Reply
Share

Which part/s is/are "funny"? Don't NBR readers "believe" in climate change or the need for urgent action? Or is there something factually incorrect in the articles I've read re: the effectiveness of Oz's carbon tax? Or don't you agree that economic incentives work? Or something else? I genuinely would like to understand your perspective.

Reply
Share

You are reading the wrong articles.
ETS is a scam. Man made global warming or cooling or change is a fraud.
If you need some purpose in life go find a hobby or religion anything that dosn't involve stealing other peoples money to fund your fantasy.

Reply
Share

I can only suggest that you catch up with climate science. A great deal has been done in the last couple of years, and the myth of CAGW has been consigned to history. No interference in the natural order of things is required. Our current climate change minister Groser publicly expressed his doubts in a recent Listener article.

The MSM doesn't report science ; it deals in trivia and sensation.

Reply
Share

I can only suggest that you catch up with the science and avoid the hysterical climate catastrophe nonsense that is a regular feature in the NZ Listener.

CAGW has failed as a scientific hypothesis : that is the long and short of it.
It was never more than the output of some computer modelling which has been shown to be woefully inadequate. Reality refused to comply with the models.

Reply
Share

Taxing people, businesses, and or stifling economies with global taxation n control schemes (or scams) has NOTHING to do with big yellow thing in the sky which is called a Sun.

Reply
Share

You should be thankful that dangerous AGW has been stopped in its tracks.
It was definitely dangerous, just like all religion/superstition/ pseudoscience.

The pseudoscience of AGW has now been completely exposed as no more than the output of some very dodgy climate models which are noe totally discredited.

Your pseudoscience has been exposed.

You lost. Eat that!

Reply
Share

Wow. So many vitriolic comments. I guess the truth cuts deep. If you deny climate science, I hope you also deny other scientific findings that are equally lacking in accuracy, e.g. antibiotics, geological surveys, hydrological cycles, etc. etc etc.

Why you would think that anybody would *want* anthropogenic climate change beggers belief. We scientists (yes, I'm one of them) don't want it. But it's a reality. You don't want it either, but instead of acknowledging and working with the scientific reality, you just call people names and compare our work to religion and superstition. Tragic.

Reply
Share

How silly. Climate science has failed to show the existence of the CAGW that the models seemed designed to produce. Those models are now known to be wrong. Science has prevailed .
The only ones now denying that fact are those clinging to the discredited CAGW, which has no scientific basis.

The last sentences were a joke ; a quote from Michael Cullen, no less.

Of course every organism alters its environment. But a degree of warming over the next century would be a good thing , as would a higher level of atmospheric CO2, enhancing plant growth.
If you have science showing otherwise , please produce it. A Nobel prize awaits.

Reply
Share

You say AGW is a reality. That is your opinion and that is fine but there are large number people ( very well qualified and experienced scientists and engineers included) who don't think it is a "reality" or at least think man's impact on any climate change is insignificant. But I think they all agree that climate changes , always has and always will.

Until scientists like yourself start to condemn comments like these made in recent days you will never get any respect from those that disagree with you.

“This is a Sophie’s Choice: If we respond to the moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm about climate, we have to be deceptive.

If we are committed to truth and scientific accuracy, we have to talk in hedged, caveat-filled, probabilistic language that is utterly ineffectual in reaching and activating a tuned-out public.” -David Roberts, Grist

Cara Santa Maria (Los Angeles, CA) HuffPost Senior Science Correspondent @CaraSantaMaria [Amusingly, around the 7:00 mark, Santa Maria brings up a "difficulty": If you tell the truth about global warming, "you're giving fuel to climate deniers"]

Add to those the antics of Dr Micheal Mann trying to claim a Noble Prize --- but no one from your side of the debate ( as far as I am aware) has come out publically saying he was wrong to claim what he did.

Reply
Share

If there is one cetainty sciense has taught , it is that what ever we believe now is probably wrong. Science is an imperfect art of selecting facts to match an agenda and climate change science is a perfect example.

Reply
Share

I'd call you worse if I found you were a scientist profiting from perpetuating the fraud and the fact so many scientists are afraid to speak out for fear of the jobs I hope you are well published so in a couple of decades the public can judge the scammers and fraudsters.

Reply
Share

Of course climate changes but AGW - please! Given humankinds contribution to Co2 is a mere 3% of the total...with 97% occurring 'naturally'...how can anything we do be cited as the driver?

Anyone sane is anti pollution and anti waste...but AGW is a crock desisigned to redistribute wealth away from from the West a la Agenda 21. Even the lefties in the US are starting to wise up:

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

Simply put, as evidenced by Climate Gate, this crock has been designed as a power grab...no warming in 14 years, Gore and his Hollywood cronies buying up beachfront...sheeshh.

Science...this is pseudo-science...the lionhare of externally released IPCC material was co-authored by Greenpeace activists. You're no scientist you're an anti-capitalist.

Reply
Share

Anon #1:
Dr Smith's return to Cabinet is being talked about quite a bit in the Beehive and has been extensively covered here at the NBR: see http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/key-will-recall-nick-smith-bid-blue-green-v...–-pundit-ck-121239 and http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nick-smith-new-mining-czar-ck-126120
Certainly Greenpeace and the other environmental NGOs such as the so-called Sustainability Council are very keen to see him back.
I expect a decision will be made very late this year or in January - that is when I expect the announcement about Lockwood Smith going to London and David Carter becoming Speaker will be made, which is when John Key will have to announce who will replace Mr Carter in the Cabinet.
The two candidates are seen to be Nick Smith or Simon Bridges, regarded as the best performing of the current ministers outside cabinet. Choosing Mr Bridges would represent a switch to a new generation (he was first elected in 2008 whereas Dr Smith has been in parliament since 1990 and was a minister in the Bolger/Shipley Government) but Bill English is very keen to see his friend Dr Smith back around the Cabinet table and Mr Key may not want to risk upsetting him. So it will be a difficult decision for the prime minister.

Reply
Share

It must be bridges then. Key choosing smith would be an insult to all businesspeople and all rational people

Reply
Share

What is it with Smith and Key?
Have they got a secret agenda to make our economic recovery as hard as possible?
It is quite clear that the ETS is a scam and that's why thinking people and nations steer clear of it.
liberte

Reply
Share

King Key should display a bit of common sense and drop the whole thing!
WG

Reply
Share

Post New comment or question

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

NZ Market Snapshot

Forex

Sym Price Change
USD 0.7733 -0.0013 -0.17%
AUD 0.9501 -0.0003 -0.03%
EUR 0.6313 -0.0023 -0.36%
GBP 0.4955 -0.0002 -0.04%
HKD 5.9975 -0.0098 -0.16%
JPY 92.7030 0.1190 0.13%

Commods

Commodity Price Change Time
Gold Index 1195.4 -2.890 2014-12-19T00:
Oil Brent 61.4 1.580 2014-12-19T00:
Oil Nymex 57.1 2.910 2014-12-19T00:
Silver Index 16.0 0.096 2014-12-19T00:

Indices

Symbol Open High Last %
NZX 50 5527.8 5553.7 5527.8 0.25%
NASDAQ 4759.0 4779.2 4765.4 0.20%
DAX 9827.3 9924.0 9787.0 0.81%
DJI 17812.2 17911.6 17804.8 0.49%
FTSE 6545.3 6620.9 6545.3 0.48%
HKSE 23264.0 23478.9 23116.6 1.26%
NI225 17685.5 17692.6 17621.4 0.08%