by frog
Last night I went to the climate change target ‘consultation’ meeting, held in Wellington by Climate Change Minister Nick Smith. Today, I’m still feeling more than a little outrage.
It was heartening to find a room full to overflowing with 400+ citizens who were there to speak up for the need for a target that reflects the magnitude and the urgency of the challenge – or as one speaker so eloquently put it – a responsible target.
On the other hand, it was extremely frustrating to witness Nick Smith’s increasingly squirmy, gutless response.
His response was, roughly speaking, that if the people in the room wanted a strong target, then we had to show him exactly where all the cuts should come from. Putting aside the fact that this particular room may well have contained the expertise to do just that, it made me wonder what Nick Smith thinks it means to be a leader.
His follow up argument was that those of us who push for strong targets also have to convince our fellow citizens that this is really necessary. Again, pushing the leadership responsibility away from himself and his government.
Fighting to save our planet’s climate is a battle perhaps more grave and noble than any we have ever faced. It calls for leadership that inspires people to rise to the challenge – to take the steps we need to take to survive.
It’s so serious it makes me feel melodramatic to even state it. But this isn’t melodrama, this is real life, and it is real people, today and in the future whose lives are at stake.
It’s not okay to talk blandly about balance and make petty accusations such as that the Green Party only cares about the environment and has no regard for the impact on the economy, as the Minister did last night.
It’s not okay to abdicate all leadership responsibility at a time when the world’s crying out for leadership. Our Pacific neighbours’ very homelands are at risk.
It’s not okay to sell out New Zealanders – to decide on our behalf that we don’t want to do our fair share of the work to fight a global crisis.
New Zealanders deserve better than that. We are better than that. We’ve proudly punched above our weight and bravely made sacrifices for the greater good. If you call on us in this hour of need to play our part, if you’re honest about the challenge and you ask for our help, we’ll give it our all.
You ran for leadership, Nick, you won, you are Minister for Climate Change Issues at a time when our climate is in perilous danger. Now it’s time for a few more Weetbix in the morning and a whole lot more leadership.
Screw your courage to the sticking-place, Dr Smith.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Tue, July 7th, 2009
Tags: climate change, Macbeth, Nick Smith
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Yeah, I was there too and was really disappointed at Dr Smith’s attitude. He obviously understood the environmental imperative well, but completely failed to recognise the basic economics involved in climate change targets. Climate change, a balance between environment and economy? It IS the economy, stupid. Is this just a lack of leadership or fundamental economic illiteracy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was there too and I agree it was totally inspiring to see so many passionate articulate people stand up and make the case for a responsible, science-based target – most of them calling for 40%. But the Minister is way behind the 8 ball…the way he repeatedly called for balance between the environment and the economy reminded me of the classic scene in An Inconvenient Truth – on a set of scales sits a few gold bars on one side and on the other….the whole planet! Nick Smith accuses the Greens of not caring about anything but the environment but I think he’s the one that needs to do his economics homework!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nick Smith sounds like he was the only one talking any sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If Nick Smith wants the community to do his job for him then fine, I’m all for that. If he wants us to demonstrate where the cuts can come from, fine too. But he’ll have to either (a) hand over control or (b) resource the process.
He can’t call one series of meetings and expect to be handed all the answers on a plate, or weep crocodile tears down the track about how much he’d like to support calls for strong cuts but couldn’t because the people making those calls didn’t do all his work for him for nothing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dr Smith also dishonestly claimed, repeatedly, that a 40% cut meant leaving agriculture as it is and closing down everything else the contributes to emissions. The truth is of course that agriculture can, and must, achieve reductions too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Guys
We have his address. We can send him written submissions. We can explain where cuts CAN come from… including some from agriculture.
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1530
Whether agriculture likes it or not.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see he repeated the agriculture – is – sacred meme. I noticed it but not in time for me to address it. I have trouble with extemporaneous expression when I’m not on my own turf (science and engineering).
I reckoned others would who weren’t standing at the front of the line.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
His response was, roughly speaking, that if the people in the room wanted a strong target, then we had to show him exactly where all the cuts should come from.
Nick Smith is the one who believes in the market. All he has to do is lower the ETS cap gradually to an appropriate level, and let the market sort it out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It sounds like Mr Smith has already made up his mind, and that the consultation is a sham.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
nice sharing
,,, kabin
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just got back from the auckland one a few hours ago… He must have got quite a backlash from last nights one because he was very polite and subdued… A couple of highlights:
- Some grizzly adams type asked Dr Smith, if he supported Gerry Brownlee opening a new coal mine on the West Coast to sell to India, to which he said of course he did as if we didn’t sell it to India they would get it from someone else, so there would be no point in us not selling it, as not selling it wouldn’t reduce emissions globally anyway… Love that logic, like a wife giving her 250 kg husband a pie…
- An American guy got up and gave a fantastic speech summing up the problem neatly and eloquently with humour and calling for a 40% reduction by 2020..
There was probably about 300 – 400 people there too…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If we do what you guys want we will colapse our economy. And then environmentalism will be last of anybodies concerns.
We need to do something and start heading in a new direction for sure, but if you fellas had your way you would destroy our societey in 5 mins flat.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Its possible to go too far too fast, particularly when waiting until the last minute as we always do. But as someone pointed out, humankind has not a good track record of averting disasters even though the warning signs have usually been present for years. The biggest risks for collapse will continue to come from doing nothing, or not enough by far, driven by the greed of the now. Your gently, gently approach only makes it easy and inevitable that we’ll do the same until its too late.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yep – we are going to take a box of Steinies down to the beach to see the World’s End – or maybe have a Silly Hat Party and watch it on Sky.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was also at the Wellington meeting, and I didn’t think Nick Smith’s response was as bad as you’re making out. Jezza says that he was rather subdued in the Auckland meeting – I thought he was rather subdued in the Wellington one, too. There was no attempt to minimize or equivocate on or weasel out of the science or the expected impacts, it was implicit that we would be doing something, and something beyond kyoto. Beyond that, he didn’t commit to what actually would be the targets, but it’s a public consultation meeting! The whole point was to hear what we had to say! It wouldn’t be a public consultation meeting if he came out there and said ‘We’re committing to 40% reductions, get used to it” and nor would it be one if he came out there and said “we’re going to try to take as little responsibility for the problem as possible – our negotiators are working now on redefining us as a third-world country”. Those would be public information meetings, where they unveil their policy that they’re already committed to.
The initial presentation was fairly neutral, and for the most part he just sat there and listened attentively. The couple of antics that have got your knickers in a twist I think are subject to different interpretations than the cowardly acts of a bastard.
Firstly, the example he mentioned a couple of times where he indicated that we’d have to reduce everything except agriculture to 0% emissions doesn’t need to be read as a statement of intent. I think he was mostly just trying to remind everyone that reducing emissions comes at a cost (you can argue about how ongoing the cost will be, but it’s still a cost) – it seemed that everyone in the meeting was pro-strong action, there are certainly people in the country who disagree, and I think this example was mostly just trying to present something of the other side of the story. Giving a simplistic way of cutting the pie is more illustrative of that. Admittedly it was a bit odd that he was treating agriculture as untouchable, and that does make me a bit suspicious – if I was going for a simplistic example, it would be to cut agriculture entirely and leave everything else where it is!
The cheap shot about the Greens not caring or having to care about the economy was just that, a cheap shot. It was said off the cuff as a kind of an aside, not part of his main presentation, and the main point was that he’s answerable to the electorate. Politicians engage in these all the time in Parliament. It was certainly a bit of a slip to be saying this in front of an audience which obviously has a lot of sympathy for the Greens – my guess is that he forgot himself and started acting like he was back in the debating chamber. For sure he deserves criticism about this, but let’s keep it in perspective.
Basically, your description reads like the meeting was staged to renounce responsibility and denounce the Greens, but that’s hardly what it was like. 90% of the meeting was a sober presentation of the problem followed by an open mic session. Perhaps they do mean to take no responsibility but we can’t tell that by their behaviour in a public submissions meeting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with Prim the whole consultation seems to be a sham.
That is the way Nat/ACT operate they have an agenda they will let you speak but they will follow the agenda anyway,
I have seen it so many times from their buddies on local bodies.
Shunda the economy is very much dependent on the ecology but the way it has been structured it rapes the envirenment to satisfy humankinds greedy ends.
Eg One bank in Texas had to kick out 18 of it’s clients because they could;t afford the prime mortgage (why did they grant them the mortgage in the first place? GREED?) then this same bank couldn’t rent out those dwellings at a price they wanted (as empty dwellings were gluting the market), so 18 houses were destroyed.
Conclusion GREED!!!
Think of the amount of timber that went into those houses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Arc, the formal part of Nick Smiths presentation was written by people who actually know something…his replies were genuine Nick Smith.
I was there in Wellington and you could see the facade cracking as the night wore on. Nick Smith has this thing going where when you first see him, he looks like a nice guy but as you watch and listen to him his features morph like bad plastic surgery and he starts to resemble a zombie from Meet The Feebles.
I especially like his Happy Valley reasoning, paraphrased as, “if we don’t then somebody else will!!”. Hardly the genius we need from an environmental minister at the moment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What everybody seems to forget is that this is actually about renewable energy and phasing this in without disrupting the economy. The amount of renewables in our energy mix equates to the investment in them and this is determined by reduction targets….and a committed government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While this is mostly about renewable energy, a significant contribution can be made by improved efficiency including better insulation. There can also be a contribution from increased forestry, and changes to agricultural practices.
No one policy is going to allow us to achieve a big target. We have to make progress in a number of areas.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Efficiency involves a politically benign change in behaviour, similar to recycling- the ethic doesn’t involve significant change to lifestyle, just a simple behaviour change without consequences. The problem as Nick Smith would see it is that significant behaviour change is involved with reduction in fossil energy use. Voters will not support such drastic changes to transport and industry which impact on their lifestyles. The question I raise is “how significant will a transformation to a renewable energy economy be for New Zealanders.” I don’t think this has even been addressed or considered by ministers of Parliament, the assumnption is that its too dramatic for voters to face at this point in time. I beleive that full substitution of imported oil with wood-based biofuels produced locally may actually impact postively on our economy while also meeting our kyoto obligations. This ahead of emissions trading.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I see hope in the possibility of using some of our agricultural waste (e.g. wheat stalks) to produce some form of transport fuel, such as ethanol or methane (CNG a.k.a. natural gas). Forestry waste could also add to this. It would be a better use of this resource than burning it for electricity generation.
Meanwhile I support more CNG conversions, and using our remaining gas for transport. Therefore we need to move away from using natural gas for electricity generation. Unfortunately it will be a while before we can avoid using natural gas for peaking or dry year supply, but at least we can plan on not using it for base load generation on a regular basis.
We also need to move away from using natural gas for heating. Unfortunately this is quite an efficient use, but what we can do is switch to electricity for heating when renewable supplies exceed demand and therefore electricity prices are low. This would ensure that there is a market for surplus power from new renewable generation. A similar comment applies to hydrogen production from natural gas (currently performed at Petrochem’s ammonia-urea plant and the oil refinery) which could also use off-peak electricity.
Any applications which can use renewably generated electricity instead of natural gas (or coal or oil) leads to reduced CO2 emissions, and improves our energy situation in the long run.
Fueling more of our transport fleet from CNG has the advantage of lower CO2 emissions, but it also reduces our imported oil bill.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)