by frog
Looking at the Climate Change Select Committee Terms of Reference agreed by the Act and National parties it seems like we are going to need to go through a significant re-litigation process that will be costly in terms of time and missed opportunities.
Among other things Act proposes that the Select Committee will:
• hear competing views on the scientific aspects of climate change from internationally respected sources and assess the quality and impartiality of official advice
It’s a pity for Act that National managed to get the words ‘internationally respected’ in the proposed terms of reference.
• hear views from trade and diplomatic experts on the international relations aspects of this issue
That’s fine – I’ve noted before that we need a serious climate change strategy to support our two biggest exporters; tourism and primary produce. But let’s also remember that this is first and foremost a environmental future of the planet issue, not a trade opportunity issue.
• require a high quality, quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action, including international relations and commercial benefits and costs.
I’ve got a serious concern that the new government wants to look at the issue of climate change as one where New Zealand’s actions are occurring in isolation to the rest of the world. The reality is that our efforts are and should be part of a global response to climate change. While our contributions to both the problem and the solution are small (except on a per capita basis) they are just as important as every other group of 4 million people. Imagine what would happen if little cities and states of 4 million people within the United States, or any other country, started opting out of climate change action because they were too small to make a difference.
• examine the relative merits of a mitigation or adaptation approach to climate change for New Zealand.
It’s not an either-or choice. We need both urgently.
• consider the case for increasing resources devoted to New Zealand-specific climate change research.
Yup, we desperately need to do something to clarify the misinformation and lies that climate change deniers are spreading in the media.
• examine the relative merits of an emissions trading scheme or a tax on carbon or energy as a New Zealand response to climate change.
Oh look, deja vu, we’re back at square one again. This is a slap in the face to all those hard working public servants under both the previous National government and the last Labour government who have been working on this issue, in good faith, for more than a decade. Act wants us to forget that it was National who signed us up to Kyoto and Labour who ratified it. Under both governments, those who wanted delay won the day despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Now Act has secured yet another round of delay.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Mon, November 17th, 2008
Tags: act party, carbon emissions, cliamte change, global warming, national party
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
>While our contributions to both the problem and the solution are small
>(except on a per capita basis) they are just as important as every other
>group of 4 million people.
If we were proposing to do just the same as most other groups of 4 million people are proposing to do, it would not be such an issue. The problem is that Labour and the Greens want to do much more than that, while everyone else sits on their arse laughing at us for effectively imposing tariffs on our own exports.
If everyone else does nothing, we are definitely better off doing nothing unless you buy into the fanciful theory that other countries will be so impressed by our leadership and will want to do the same.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog: those are ACT’s draft of the terms of reference. See here for more. If the final terms include that first “science” bullet point, then I would expect NZ’s science community to be rather upset. But given National’s attitude to R&D, perhaps they don’t care…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Bucolic Old Sir Henry. I had missed that the terms of reference were still draft. Not reading closely enough. I’m fascinated to know where Act intends to get internationally respected climate scientists to put the alternative view point to their committee. Maybe this delaying tactic /farce will be over faster than we think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Labour worked on the issue for many years, but took their bloody time in actually getting legislation to parliament. They considered, and considered, and considered, for many long years. And with weeks left to go, they finally put something in place.
It was obvious that their last minute unentrenched legislation would be rolled back. I blame Labour for this one too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s a pity for Act that National managed to get the words ‘internationally respected’ in the proposed terms of reference.
iI won’t help — David Bellamy is internationally respected, but unqualified to speak about climate science. They could have said “scientists actively publishing in peer-reviewed climate journals” but it looks like they want to let the deniers in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey select committees means that you can go along and make a 5-minute submission or something. Let’s do find out when that is, and how to make a submission. Maybe get a group together armed with information from skepticalscience.com and Spencer & Weart, then after the “expert” has their say, go through and present the relevant scientific rebuttals of their position.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
XYY’s correct: “internationally respected climate scientists” is code for the cranks. Crops up all the time in NZ CSC and Heartland releases.
Which suggests a line of attack…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We may be regressing to where the US was half a decade ago, when Inhofe was holding farcical hearings pitting a legitimate climate researcher against a couple of fossil fuel industry funded lackeys.
Hide: Do you agree that rising CO2 levels would have very few drawbacks, and great benefits like more barbecues and higher libidos?
witness #1: No, most likely it would have disastrous consequences.
witness #2: Yes, it’s definitely a great thing.
witness #3: Yes. Can I have my money now?
Manufacturing uncertainty in a way that would make the tobacco industry proud.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why do you need to manufacture uncertainty? What I see is enough to make me uncertain about global warming; what I see is that there has been plenty of unusual cold weather events over the last decade; snow in places that hadn’t seen it in over half a century; snow in places such as Los Angeles that had never seen it in record history. Snow coming early, snow staying late.
I would love to see the Green Party reaction the day that Auckland gets snowed in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
john-ston, you are confusing “climate” with “weather”.
And science is about probability, not about certainty. It was failure to accept this that led a scientist as brilliant as Albert Einstein to waste the last decades of his life. He could not accept quantum physics, which, incidentally, is the science underpinning global warming, because it is based on probability. His ideological (in his case religious) position required certainty (an omnipotent God would have created an ordered universe), therefore there had to be a unified field theory that would supersede probability-based quantum physics.
The likes of Rodney Hide think similarly, except their God is the free market. Where they come from is that if global warming were happening, the free market would be able to address it. But because they cannot see a way the free market can address it, they conclude it therefore cannot be happening. It does not fit their ideology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)