Member log in

NZ must choose between Europe and the rest on climate change

BUSINESSDESK: New Zealand’s biggest choice in the emerging global deal to combat climate change is whether to side with Europe and Australia, which have emissions trading schemes, or with the rest of the world in whatever binding deal emerges, says Climate Change Minister Tim Groser.

In his first speech in the domestic climate change role since the resignation of previous minister Nick Smith on March 20, Mr Groser told the Iwi Leaders Forum that Australia’s decision would be crucial to New Zealand’s choice.

It remained unclear “whether it will be just Europe or Europe plus New Zealand and Australia” that uses the framework of the existing global deal on climate change, the Kyoto Protocol, in the second period of international carbon emission reduction commitments, which will run from January 1 next year.

The Kyoto Protocol's so-called “First Commitment” period runs out at the end of this year, with no new international order agreed.

But a decision to spend from 2013 to 2020 on a transition to a “single and probably legally binding Agreement that will end the Kyoto distinction between developed and developing countries”, Mr Groser said.

The speech lays out more clearly than previously his view that New Zealand did well at the Durban negotiations last year - in no small part thanks to New Zealand’s deep involvement in key parts of the detail of the negotiations.

As well instigating a 30-country research coalition on reducing agricultural greenhouse gases, New Zealand is co-ordinating a working group on what Mr Groser described as “the missing part” of the current agreements to price carbon – action on subsidies that support hydrocarbon extraction and exploration.

The minister is chairing what he calls “endgame negotiations” - the international negotiations that will lead to “the entire developing world and many of the largest developed country emitters led by the United States will make their commitments beyond 2012”.

With Kiwi diplomat Adrian Macey chairing last December’s Durban talks, Mr Groser claims New Zealand “ended up with 100% of the responsibility for the mitigation equation”, the core of the climate change debate.

As a long-serving diplomat and ambassador before entering Parliament, the international trade and climate change negotiations minister said this achievement was “quite extraordinary in terms of my experience of international negotiations and New Zealand’s contribution”.

“So the next time you read some loose and flamboyant comment about ‘New Zealand’s international reputation’ on climate change because the government will not endorse some extreme response on our ETS domestic legislation, I suggest you reflect on that,” he said.

“We will not take a political step back on this point.”

He warned that he would not curtail his heavy schedule of international travel on both the trade and international climate change portfolios, and was looking to the newly appointed associate minister Simon Bridges to do much of the heavy lifting on domestic climate change policy.

“I have become deeply involved in bits of the international climate change puzzle that are, frankly, rather important.”

He warned also that the government’s over-riding responsibility was to manage the New Zealand economy soundly, and extravagant or overly costly solutions would not fly.

“That limits political soft choices,” Mr Groser said. “This will influence the government’s final choices” following the current consultation.

“Do not be surprised.”

Comments and questions
14

Groser - The new King Canute

Global warming, Global cooling, climates been changing for eternity. Scam of the century and money for nothing.

Too many people = too much polution and resource usage. Too many bureaucrats = pointless paper shuffling (hopefully recycled paper!)

Too many people?! Another complete lie like "climate change" that the mass majority just accept hook, line and sinker. The truth is in fact far from thiis. Yes, where most of the globe's population live, it does feel over crowded - hense the ease of persuading the majority - however thousands of provincial towns are either ghost towns or quickly becomming so - great places where thousands called home for generations, are sadly now quiet backwaters...
The truth is quite different - actualy we have the technology and resources to feed, water, house (& still enjoy the wide open spaces), for many multiple times our current population....

The climate bubble has burst. Time to repair the economic damage with minimal egg on political faces.

Global warming, climate change, global financial enslavement scam. How long are we going to put up with our globalist-lead politicians incrementally leading us into a one world government?

The Oz election next year will dump on the ETS [Labour/Greens[ alliance and make life politically easier for our Gov't to bury it here also

I have great difficulty in un-elected diplomats making decisions that could bind New Zealand into years of additional taxes because it secretly suits their political persuasion. I hope Tim Groser is not a radical supporter of the myth that humans can influence the earth's climate in any significant manner.
In a recent article by Gerald McGhie, a former career diplomat, published in the NZ Herald 10th April 2012, he states :
"But there is only one organisation that represents New Zealand as a whole, not just as a seller of quality agricultural produce or a nation of sporting titans or a desirable tourist destination. That institution is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Diplomats are the official face of New Zealand. They represent all of us: our attitudes, our governance, our sporting prowess, our scientific achievement. In short what we stand for as a nation."
Whilst all of the above might be true, how do we know what policies these un-elected career individuals actually wish to pursue? How many are closeted Helengrad supporters, or one world government supporters, or suckers for the myth that humankind can create conditions that affect global weather patterns? For instance, how much incorrect information has been delivered to policy makers here on the wrong basis that shoppers in the UK will boycott New Zealand produce unless we agree to shooting ourselves in both knees to support their carbon footprint policies? I suspect that in pursuit of "balance" from their own perspective, it is all too easy to choose to follow the crowds as this is the easy way, and doesn't upset the cosy cocktail circuits too much.
Since our economic future resides not in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and not in the UK, but in Asia, we should align our economic strategies in a similar manner. Whilst the former countries are no doubt extremely comfortable postings, our career diplomats must change with the times. Tim Groser is extremely hard working, and hopefully now that Nick Smith has lost his undue influence on carbon matters, we might actually start following what our main trading partners are going to do regarding nonsensical additional taxes that don't actually change any emission totals. Fortunately we have upcoming elections in Australia where the Greens imposed carbon tax will be toast.

www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com

www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org

The atmosphere has changed – figuratively, I mean. The notion that the world should be administered by some sort of UN Environmental Tribunal enforcing carbon quotas on industrialised nations – a prospect which seemed likely three years ago – suddenly looks risible.

What happened? Each side has its theory. According to the greenies, selfish Westerners are to blame. The 2009 Copenhagen summit was their last chance to save the planet, but they were too downright greedy. Delegates from low-lying countries – 'quiet, sombre people with sad eyes' Johann Hari called them (so it must be true) – were betrayed, their homes condemned to the fate of Atlantis.

Sceptics point instead to the leak, also in 2009, of emails from some of the sacerdotal guardians of the AGW flame: the famous 'hide the decline' messages. Once the public saw climate scientists behaving so tendentiously, they withdrew their deference. In the aftermath of the Climategate revelations, further exposés happened on an almost weekly basis: the Himalayan glaciers were not scheduled to disappear by 2035, climate change was not threatening 40 per cent of the Amazonian rainforest and so on. The old incantations had lost their magic.

Me, I think there is a far more obvious explanation. Since 1998, the world has stopped getting warmer. There are, of course, different ways to measure temperature, and both sides are able to find statistics that support their respective outlooks. What is incontestable, though, is that the planet has not heated in anything like the way that proponents of AGW told us it would. Insofar as a hypothesis can ever be definitively falsified by events, this one has been falsified.

Do the data mean that the upward trend in temperature has ceased? No, it could start again tomorrow (that's the thing about weather – it's hard to predict). Do they mean that there is no connection between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect? Again, no. Do they mean that human activity has no impact on climate? Nope.

What they do suggest, though, is that the Biblical warnings routinely being issued in the 1990s were false. The world may be warming, and that warming may have an anthropogenic component, but the change is nothing like as cataclysmic as claimed. To decarbonise the global economy is now seen, by most governments, as a misallocation of resources.

Some commentators complain that 'populism' has trumped 'science', but it would be negligent for elected governments not to take such decisions. Politicians, unless they happen to be trained oceanographers or meteorologists or whatever, are not the best people to interpret scientific research; but they are the best people to decide what constitutes a proportionate governmental response. If we disagree with their judgment, we can replace them. That's how the system is supposed to work.

These thoughts are prompted by the book I read over Easter: Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing your Children's Future by James Delingpole. James was the man who, right here on Telegraph Blogs, broke the story of the leaked emails – an achievement which, characteristically, he rates as being up there with the discovery of penicillin and the defeat of Hitler.

Not that I blame James for dwelling on his victory. It was a tremendous moment. And it's useful to have those emails explained and contextualised. At the time, the sheer mass of detail was too much for me, as I suspect it was for most people.

The thing that really interests Delingpole, though, is what motivates the greenies. Why has the recent decline in temperatures had no impact on their Weltanschauung? Why is there such a gulf between the raw evidence and the interpretation they put on it? Because, he avers, AGW was never really about the science. The science – or one version of the science – was simply one more way to advance a series of political objectives: supranationalism, redistribution of resources, a bigger role for the state and so on.

While some eco-campaigners are motivated by a more or less uncomplicated desire to preserve the natural environment, those setting the agenda have an altogether more ambitious end. They see the underlying problem as one of overpopulation. Man is, as the first issue of The Ecologist put it, 'a parasite', a 'disease which is still spreading exponentially'. Their long term goal is deindustrialisation and depopulation.

When put like that it sounds extreme, and Delingpole is acutely aware of the danger that he will come across as a conspiracy theorist. So he does his best to let the greenies speak for themselves. He quotes book after book, paper after paper, in which the goal of a smaller and poorer human population is openly advocated. If this is a conspiracy, it is perhaps what H G Wells called an 'open conspiracy'.

A most intelligent piece.
And I'm not just being 'nice' because the thought-police kicked my attempted contribution into touch for using a naughty word.

I thought Groser had more brains than to push forward with this Nick Smith abomination ... clearly not.

Redcoats in the blue team seem to be multiplying ... can we get a true blue right-wing party back into NZ please?

CO2 became the baddie because Enron, to capitalise on its investment in its gas pipe network, wanted gas to take over from coal as the primary means of electrical generation in the US.

They hooked up with Hansen, put together a pitch to Al Gore and we are where we are.

In reponse to Man BearPig | Thursday, April 12, 2012 - 3:05pm

Keep the champagne on ice. I don't think the one world government mafia will give up that easily. Either they will just re-introduce the plans in five years or so or they will try to find another vehicle for global centralisation.

These people need to beaten, not just their ideas.

Check out the Anti-Communitarian League

The obligation to purchase carbon credits is imposed by law, and the Government will sell them by auction. No overseas competition will be allowed, so the monopoly supplier can push the price up to the $25 cap.

Can the delicate economy withstand an eight-fold increase in ETS costs?