Climate change in da House
A fascinating session in Question Time this afternoon - statements from the parties on the situation in Fiji, the first clash between John Key as Leader of the Opposition and Helen Clark, a barrage of questions on climate change and carbon neutrality from the National Party, and alarming revelations from the Minister of Biosecurity about the amount of GE contaminated corn that has made it into the ground and what will happen to it.
If someone had told me a year ago that National would be using its first three questions in the first session after a recess, with a new leader, to challenge the Government on climate change, I would not have believed them. The extraordinary turn-around from that Party signals a widespread public acceptance of the vital importance of this issue - so much so that it is now the number one political issue in our country. Great stuff.
However, the nature of this transformation signifies that the National Party has only started championing the cause of climate change for reasons of political expediency. This is what John Key had to say (scroll down till you see his name for his full comments) about climate change in the house a little over 18 months ago:
This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming-and I am somewhat suspicious of it-is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem.
In the same 18 months, a quick search of the National Party website shows one solitary speech under the Environment heading. In the same period, the Green Party website lists 23 speeches and 69 press releases just on climate change.
Jeanette tabled documentation of this fact in the House today. Hearing the enthusiasm with which the National Party were willing to attack the Government on its climate change record, the Green MPs also sought leave to have their six bills on climate change set down for first reading - surely there could be no objection? But strangely there was.
I’ll post excerpts from Hansard from today’s Question Time when they become available.
December 5th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
frog…just a thought..
how about drawing a line in the sand at keys’ election..?
and waiting and seeing what policies they come up with..?
quoting him from 18 months ago is just so..2005..eh..?
and yes..i hear the words of those saying..”it’s all marketing..”
well..if marketing is recognition of that widespread idea in society that ignoring climate-change is no longer an option..so be it..
if marketing is announcing an end to maori bashing..so be it..
if marketing is pledging to stop bashing benificiaries..( group clark/labour have done nothing for/studiously ignored..) so be it..
if marketing is pledging to remove the onerous 90% clawback on any monies earned by beniificiaries..so be it…
i reckon you should just wait and see..and start looking forward..and not just backward..(and ‘carping’ with it..!)
and i have moaned/bitched long and hard at how those piddly policy baublettes from labour have emasculated the greens..
and stopped them fufilling their (supposed) role as an opposition party..
and defenders of the environment..
and surely you must have all felt somewhat uncomfortable with key going this government of environmenrtal vandals over the shocking fact we are burning three times the coal now as in 1999…?
isn’t that something the greens should have been hammering at this government about..?..for some time now..?
if not you..who..?
and while we are at it..is there anything this government has or hasn’t done that has caused the greens to get up on their hind legs and go “oi..!..”..at clark/this government..?
i can’t think of anything..myself..
and is that to protect your policy baublettes..?…and not to offend helen…?
now c’mon..!..face the fact you have all been lame-ars*/invisible since the last election…
and you really need to get your acts together..eh..?…
and start working parliament like a true green party….
(forget the baublettes..every one else does..eh..?..)
or the changes of history are just going to walk all over you…
as a party the greens give every impression of being a possum caught in headlights…
that must change…(and don’t just weakly point at your poll rating..you as well as i know that is down to those aforementioned changes in attitude in society..)
those ratings certainly aren’t down to anything the greens have done..eh..?
and don’t just weakly point to your policies…
cos’ none of us know what is in them..
and what that tells us is that you have all done a real lousy job of selling/publicising/promoting… those ideas/policies..
and c’mon ..!.don’t try the ‘it’s all the medias’ fault..”
um..!..no it’s not…
people want to hear your solutions….(in fact are hanging out to hear/see your solutions..
and you haven’t even been able to react to/reach such a receptive audience..wtf..?…eh..?
and looking forward..i don’t think the greens appreciate the quantum increase in their power to make some meaningful changes…now that they can bargain/deal with both parties..
(something not possible under the brash/neo-con model of national..)
and i am still getting aftershocks of schadenfreude at the thought of the alliance refugees in the greens…(norman..bradford..locke..) having to get to grips with the idea of ’sleeping with the enemy’…(tee-hee..!.)
but that’s the only humour to be had when looking at the greens since the last election..eh..?
you all need to sharpen up!..eh..?..a helluva lot..!
and have a major rethink of (any) tactics to date…
cos’ those current tactics sure aren’t working..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 5th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Great stuff.
It does all feel a bit empty though–all talk.
That’s a mean looking Pukeko!
December 5th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Actually, I suppose it’s a Takahē.
If anyone is interested, this page is mentioned in the source-code of the Bluegreens site but not linked to.
December 5th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Edit: Ah, I see. The above page was moved to the archive, under 2001. Rather dated then, so not nearly as interesting as I thought.
December 5th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
It may well be that climate change is of interest to NZers, but when the options to reduce their emissions are shown, they will be less interested- it will become just “The gummint should do something”.
Tackling carbon emissions would require us to become sustainable- in the manner of thirld world peasants i.e. no cars, no flights, no cattle, significantly less electricity, and so on. And if the US, Europe, China do nothing (as per current trends) then we will have impoverished ourselves in vain. Moral high ground means little if NZ economy is in poor shape.
IMHO, better start planning those seawalls. The pain of trying to avoid climate change would be worse than climate change itself.
December 5th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
I wonder what Sacha Cohen (aka “Ali G”, “Borat”) would make of all the ironies etc in the climate change area - the politics, the about-faces, the words vs action. Interesting to speculate on.
December 6th, 2006 at 12:19 am
kind of pleased that this subject has hit the “mainstream” , almost fun to watch people , blue green ones even , race around with buzz words , doing the same old soundbite thing when you know that this is a “topic” for them .
the people whom tend to make up the greens have had such “topics” in their worlds and thinking for , well , bloody ages ,
and we may see the contrast when looking for substance , in policy and attitude .
i think we will see ( especially now there exists a chance of implementation ) that the ideas from the greens will have a voice and will be heard loud and clear
December 6th, 2006 at 2:07 am
I agree with richard …
“that the ideas from the Greens will have a voice and will be heard loud and clear.”
Jeanette Fitzsimons is an impressive advocate whose words are reaching people that I never thought would listen (nor would acknowledge her expertise.)
December 6th, 2006 at 9:51 am
uk_kiwi
“Tackling carbon emissions would require us to become sustainable- in the manner of thirld world peasants”
Thats rubbish. Eliminating carbon emissions would possibly require us to live peasants.
Half of our economy runs explicitly ineffieiently. The other half is reliant on a “technology fix” which - as we develop it - may just cement us as leaders in global agricultural IP.
If a price on carbon is placed soon I’d call that (at the very least) half of our economy that can make some pretty basic “carbon gains”.
Mike
December 11th, 2006 at 11:36 am
UK Kiwi said: “Tackling carbon emissions would require us to become sustainable- in the manner of thirld world peasants i.e. no cars, no flights, no cattle, significantly less electricity, and so on. And if the US, Europe, China do nothing (as per current trends) then we will have impoverished ourselves in vain. Moral high ground means little if NZ economy is in poor shape.”
Are you serious?!! Not only is the first sentence blatantly untrue and furthermore based on some inane fantasy, the use of the term ‘third world peasants’ makes me nauseous!
This may be why so many prefer to hide under the guise of ‘oh, everything’s okay, don’t want to make life harder for myself, why bother changing my lifestyle’ etc. It’s easy and immature to convince oneself and others that change is too scary to even contemplate.
As for the US & Europe doing nothing - that seems to be another fictional statement. Changes are happening slowly, and IMHO it’s better to have slow change than none at all. NZ needs to wake up and get on the sustainable bandwagon now! There is no time to wait until the results are in from other nations and then make radical decisions!
NZ Economy means little if there is no high or low ground to speak of.
December 14th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
[…] Original post by frog Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]