Positive Pete
Climate Change Minister Pete Hodgson was, as noted yesterday, effusive in his praise of the Greens’ Turn Down the Heat proposals when opening the Climate Change and Governance Conference in Wellington, and he repeated that sentiment in the House later that day when questioned by Metiria:
Metiria Turei: What quantity of greenhouse gases will be emitted from the conversion of forestry to pasture, as in the central North Island by Landcorp Farming Ltd and the Waikatea Station by the Bayly Trust, and does he agree that there is an urgent need for Government policy to incentivise maintaining forest cover, as proposed by the Greens paper Turn Down the Heat?
Hon PETE HODGSON: I congratulate the Greens on their paper, which I had the pleasure of reading over the weekend. I do not agree with all of it, I might say, but I do think the vast majority of it is really refreshing. Some of it is thoroughly useful and the ideas are welcome. I am sorry that other parties around Parliament do not seem to bother to do that, especially National, given its activity in the 1990s. However, the answer to the member’s question is that for every hectare cleared and turned into farmland, the carbon tonnage cost is something like 800 tonnes.
Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that the examples of Stockton, Happy Valley, Marsden B, and forest clearance for pasture, demonstrate why it is so vital that climate change be considered under the Resource Management Act, and will his Government be supporting Jeanette Fitzsimons’ Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill tomorrow in the House?
Hon PETE HODGSON: The easiest way to answer that question is to answer the last part of it, and the answer is yes.
Jeanette’s Bill seeks to restore the ability of local councils to consider climate change implications as a criteria for resource and planning consents. This ability was removed in anticipation of a carbon tax taking care of the issue at a national level, but since this has now been axed, it makes sense to reverse the change. It comes up in the House today, and it’s great news that the Government will support it through to the select committee stage, as there’s heaps that can be done at a local level to deal with climate change.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:38 am
‘Local Councils’ are ill-equipped to do much more than the roads/drains/sewers schtick they blunder through now. Adding another planning impost is, IMAO, a recipe for even slower and more expensive/erratic planning decisions than are already the case.
And if ‘Local Councils’ means the Regional level, then the track record looks even worse. Consider ‘Environment Canterbury’ and weep.
‘Climate Change’ considerations would be dealt with at a local Council level by reaching for the consultant-du-jour. This will result in either:
- a slew of disparate and (because of that very fact) challengeable approaches which rather negate the national-policy aspect
- use of a handful of national consultants with the requisite connections
And in either case, the democratic aspect flies out the window. At least, at a national level, one can at least vote for a party with a publicly stated policy on the topic. At no level can one vote for a consultant.
Heart’s in the right place with this proposal. Head ain’t.