Starting with the legislation.
As I’ve written, I do support the introduction of an independent Climate Change Commission and I’m heartened the intention is to get all political parties to agree on its membership.
You’ll all be aware of the reduction targets, methane 10% by 2030 and 24-47% by 2050. All other greenhouse gases will need to be zero by then.
Federated Farmers climate change spokesman Andrew Hoggard said the methane target is unjustified and I agree.
A 10% reduction in methane emissions by 2050 will have no extra impact on global warming so why we’re wearing a hair shirt on methane is beyond me.
As Feds have said, the targets for methane emissions will send a message to New Zealand farmers that NZ is prepared to give up on pastoral farming.
Again, I agree. The Government target completely ignores sound scientific evidence.
It is also contrary to the Paris Accord.
In the preamble you can read the agreement recognises the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger and the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse effects of climate change.
Article 2 (b) of the agreement says countries should have the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low emissions developed in a manner that doesn’t threaten food production.
My take on that is simple. The Paris Accord is adamant there should be no threat to food production and the Government’s methane target is just that – a real threat.
It is also strong on building resilience to climate change and, to this country person, the way to build that resilience is simple, build more water storage, support irrigation and encourage genetic engineering.
I look forward to a change in the Greens policies to reflect that.
Getting back to the legislation, we have emissions targets being set and notified. That’s all very well but those targets aren’t enforceable in a court of law so, in my humble opinion, it all means little.
The Zero Carbon Bill passed its first reading by 119 votes to one, proving, yet again, farmers have no friends in Parliament.
In his introductory speech to the legislation Climate Change Minister James Shaw said climate change is the greatest challenge of our time.
On that point I agree with him. Where we’d differ is the handling of that challenge.
He says as far as we’re aware we’re one of the first countries in the world to embed that requirement (keeping global warming to less than 1.5C) in our climate change legislation.
Why are we leading the international charge on climate change legislation? Why are we leg-roping our productive rural sector to be an international first?
According to Statistics NZ we produce 0.1% of global greenhouse gases. The United States produces 14% and is ignoring the Paris Accord.
Russia produces 5% and has signed the accord but has not ratified it.
The accord proudly tells us the parties to the agreement are responsible for 55% of greenhouse gases. Take Russia and China out and it covers but a third.
I’m not suggesting NZ shouldn’t be a good world citizen. What I am saying is that we’re going right over the top by leading the world in climate change legislation and we’re putting food supply at risk when our contribution to global warming is absolutely insignificant.
What frustrates me is that we’re playing with the problem.
For a start, our population has grown by 44% since 1990. That will ensure a similar growth in cars, heavy transport, building and roading.
Our population growth, mainly through immigration, continues at pace.
If we’re serious about our contribution to global warming stem the flow.
As I’ve written, we welcome tourists arriving by air and sea with the massive pollution that encourages.
We’re spending a fortune on cycleways, $333 million to June last year. Recently we’ve had the announcement of $94m for a Wellington-Hutt Valley cycleway and $6.5m for Otago.
I’d love to see a cost-benefit analysis compared with the same amount going into methane mitigation research.
So, my view of the legislation is that it’s woolly and not in line with the Paris Accord, certainly as far as food production and agricultural resilience are concerned.
And the international recognition and accolades our politicians will be hoping for, leading the world on climate change legislation and all that will be a little like having a pee in a wetsuit, you feel nice and warm for a while but nobody notices.
