by frog
The Niue Declaration on climate change signed last week at the Pacific Islands Forum contains all the usual statements you would expect from a bunch of poor islands with very few carbon emissions to reduce, yet facing the very real threat of global warming caused by other countries. There were calls for international recognition and advocacy, strengthening meteorological services, capacity building to allow greater engagement by the Islands with the issues at an international level, and financial support. And then, shockingly, this statement:
ENCOURAGE the Pacific’s Development Partners to increase their technical and financial support for climate change action on adaptation, mitigation and, if necessary, relocation…[my emphasis]
[Scroll to Annex B at the bottom of this page to read the full document]
It’s horrifying that while New Zealand is still debating how to get started on the problem (and in some thankfully increasingly isolated instances whether there is a problem) some of our closest neighbours are already asking the international community to consider how to relocate them from their possibly soon to be uninhabitable homelands.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, August 25th, 2008
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
It is even more horrifying that the party that claims to be standing up for the environment may well agree to a scheme tomorrow that would do little to reduce the risk of these islands flooding, while damaging our economy and thus reducing our ability to relocate the occupants of those islands should that prove necessary in the future.
Should climate change be correct, the policy the Greens may agree to tomorrow will only be negative for the Pacific Islands. Will the Greens stand up for them and reject the ETS?
We’ll find out tomorrow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis, while I have posted some of my concerns about the ETS, I have always failed to understand the logic of the one about “damaging our economy” that you (and others) have been arguing.
Under Kyoto, New Zealand has to pay for its greenhouse emissions. Even if the Family Party wants to repudiate New Zealand’s ratification of Kyoto (does it?), the chances of National or Labour agreeing to it are about the same as the chances of them taking up the Green Party’s fair trade policies.
So Kyoto is a done deal. The question is who pays for NZ’s greenhouse emissions. If we do nothing, the cost of the emissions are paid for out of general taxation. If we have a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, the costs are paid for by the emitters.
Now, which of those will encourage people to reduce their emissions? And why is the cost being met by the emitters “damaging our economy”, but meeting the same costs from taxation revenue supposedly not? After all, the taxation revenue is part of the same economy.
I just don’t get that argument. Can you explain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, we would like to withdraw from Kyoto, as we don’t need to be in an agreement that forces us to pay money overseas in order to have policies that help the environment. In fact, paying that money overseas reduces our ability to reduce emissions here, if that is necessary, as we could be putting that money into efficient technology. If we cannot achieve that you are right, Kyoto will have to be paid for by someone.
Taking money from our economy, whether through taxes or emissions trading, and sending it off to Russia or somewhere, is counterproductive for many reasons:
- We could reduce emissions using that money.
- We are likely to force companies off-shore where they don’t have to pay for emissions, thus reducing incomes and tax take within NZ without reducing global emissions at all, and possibly increasing them.
- Depressing our economy in this way will hinder us being able to cope with the effects of climate change should they occur.
Kyoto is an ineffective way to tackle climate change, and has been widely criticised for this reason.
If climate change is real (we are calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to come up with a final answer on this), and we do need to reduce emissions, we don’t need to be in Kyoto to do so. If legislation was deemed necessary by the Commission, a carbon tax like the Greens support would be the best way of ensuring emissions reductions. Without being in Kyoto however, the profit from this tax could be put directly into emissions reductions here, rather than sending it to Russia to fund their military exploits. This would achieve emissions reductions far faster and more effectively than an ETS or a carbon tax under Kyoto, while retaining money in NZ and so protecting and promoting local business and our economy.
The best solution is not Kyoto and it is not an ETS, whether or not humans are causing climate change, and that is why we are opposing both of these.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>> The best solution is not Kyoto and it is not an ETS, whether or not humans are causing climate change, and that is why we are opposing both of these.
What is the best solution ? Or at least something better ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mr Dennis said: If climate change is real (we are calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to come up with a final answer on this)…
Oh dear, you and the Family Party seem to be in with Owen McShane, Brian Leyland and their lot – denying the science.
Whether climate change is real or not is a matter of science. Royal Commissions can’t change the science – unless you’re into doing it the way one chap named Joseph back in the 1930s was rather expert at.
Oops, best I not go down that path, lest I am accused of Godwinning the thread.
Where the Greens are coming from is acceptance of the science, and debate over whether an ETS, and in particular the Government’s version of the ETS, is an effective way of addressing what the science shows.
I know many people have little understanding of physics, and quantum mechanics in particular, in relation to the greenhouse effect – that is the branch of physics that is relevant here. From a lay perspective, you might want to read about it here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad, we are not denying the science. In fact, we are the only party willing to have all the science considered openly, and base policy on this, rather than rejecting any one view.
Assuming we are causing warming, as I did in my post, what do you think of my comments on Kyoto?
Lets not turn this into another believers vs deniers debate, we have those all the time. Can we just discuss the effectiveness of policy without someone changing the topic?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
PP: Read my fourth paragraph again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
WHO GETS THE MONEY FOR OUR GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Putin so he can run Russian Tanks all over the world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shunda B. No one, if we stop emmitting or sequester as much as we produce ourselves. lets work on that, eh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly,
What costed Green policies would support such a task?
Where are the Greens taxation neutral ( Russel’s claim) policies to get there?
And how will the Greens manage the transision froma billion dollars a year flowing to Russia to none?
Would that billion dollars a year be better spent on getting New Zealand carbon neutral rather then sending to Russia?
To keep the money here New Zealand would need to renegage on Kyoto.
Now that is a Green policy that you do not even have to cost anything, but would win many votes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Shunda B. No one, if we stop emmitting
And what is the cost to the economy of doing that, hmmmm?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – compared to the cost of not doing something? It seems a worthwhile direction to be moving in, economically. The mechanisms will be many and varied and there is no doubt, Gerrit, that the Greens have the best suggestions of all the parties, to make it happen successfully. That ‘billion dollars’ has been around for a while
and I fully agree, should have been used for ‘getting New Zealand carbon neutral’. The situation you describe Gerrit, is a great frustration to the Greens (MP’s and members) that have been calling for specific actions on the issues for soooo long.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly,
I dont know why the Green (including MP’s) are frustrated. They have had 9 years to formulate a costed transition policy.
Where the frustration?
The power to sway the New Zealand public with sound and costed policies has been in their hands all along.
The Greens need a marketing campaign (ah, wait the electioneering campaign is a good place to start) to persuade the New Zealand voter that the withdrawl from Kyoto and the implementation of Russel’s neutral taxation policies will be the way forward and worth voting for.
Are the Greens up to the challenge? Or be Labours poodle on the ETS?
Lets see the fervour of the Greens mettle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>It seems a worthwhile direction to be moving in, economically.
Does it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Or be Labours poodle on the ETS?
It’s not over ’til the fat poodle whimpers….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I dont know why the Green (including MP’s) are frustrated”
classic line Gerrit! Can’t see any reason at all why the stonewalling of Labour, the opposition-to-anything-green of National, the temper tantrums of Dunne and Peters, the chest beating of the coal/aluminium industry, toys-from-cot-throwing of the agricultural sector etc. etc. would frustrate a party that seeks reform in the fields that the others seek to protect/hide/exploit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly,
That is not frustration, that is incompetance hidden behind doing nothing.
Where are the Green costed policies for the MP’s and the party to campaign on?
Stop blaming other parties and people. Take responsibility and come up with workable, costed polices to sell to the electorate!!!!!!
Jeez, as bad as all the others – the others dont play fair mummy!!! sooks!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit: “Where are the Green costed policies”
Well said.
I note with great interest that so far no-one has even attempted to counter my comments on Kyoto logically, and can only resort to name-calling.
On the other hand Shunda, D4J, Gerrit and BP all seem to agree.
The only party talking serious on this issue is the Family Party. We would have it reviewed scientifically and have policies designed scientifically on the results of that review. This review would be completed before the proposed ETS was even underway, so we could have effective, sensible policies before anyone else’s ineffective policies would even start. And we would withdraw from Kyoto in the meantime so as not to waste money, leaving it in NZ to invest in this policy.
http://www.familyparty.org.nz/policy/environment
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# dad4justice Says:
August 25th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
> Putin so he can run Russian Tanks all over the world.
I presume the parties who negotiated the ETS will have at least not been silly enough to accept Russian carbon credits as convertible with New Zealand ones. The current EU ETS prohibits them so so can we.
So who gets all the money from New Zealand? I don’t know, but the amount of money New Zealands sends overseas will be less if emissions are paid for by consumers and businesses than if they are paid for out of general taxes, because the user-pays approach provides an incentive to reduce emissions and the taxpayer-pays approach doesn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Most Niueans already live in NZ. Check the census population figures…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)