by frog
Parliament has now risen for the Christmas break, with some good-natured – if mildly homophobic – shenanigans from Gerry Brownlee to finish the year. But what of serious questions in the last two weeks of the sitting year?
The Greens have made a sustained push on the issue of Climate Change, questioning the Prime Minister (or whoever he has standing in for him) on New Zealand’s inadequate targets, negotiating position in Copenhagen, and self-centred expectation that other countries will pick up the slack for us.
Check out these videos
Jeanette questions the Prime Minister on New Zealand’s low emissions reduction targets (10 December 2009):
Russel questions the Prime Minister on why New Zealand is relying on the rest of the world to do our fair share (15 December 2009):
Russel questions Bill English (standing in for the PM) on why Tim Groser is attacking Tuvalu when NZ’s ranking by the Climate Action Tracker report, which the Government had relied on to justify its negotiating position, just got downgraded (16 December 2009):
Here are some of my favourite ridiculous answers
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Given his previous answer that targets of 25 percent to 40 percent on average are necessary, and given that we are prepared to commit to only between 10 percent and 20 percent conditionally, which countries does he think should do better than 40 percent in order to offset our failure to act?
Hon JOHN KEY: Countries that will find it easier than us to achieve that greater reduction.
The next day Jeanette asked the PM to specify which countries he was referring to in this answer. Nick Smith, on his behalf, couldn’t name a single one. And yet the next week, he tried the same trick again.
Dr Russel Norman: Is it not the case that every country on the planet has unique circumstances and a unique carbon profile that make it hard to reduce emissions, and that if every country asked for special treatment, as the current Government is asking for New Zealand, then no one globally would reduce their emissions?
Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, but some are more unique than others.
Oh, I see, New Zealand is so unique that we don’t have to do our bit to prevent runaway catastrophic climate change.
Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr Groser’s comment last week that New Zealand’s ranking as medium by the Climate Action Tracker put New Zealand in respectable territory at the Copenhagen talks; if so, will the Government now revise New Zealand’s negotiating position, given that New Zealand has just in the last few hours been downgraded by the same report-the report that the Prime Minister gives so much weight to-from medium to inadequate?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have a credible and respectable position. Those who are representing New Zealand there will negotiate fundamentally in our interests to get some kind of outcome from Copenhagen that is of benefit to the whole planet. New Zealand has a credible and respectable position, and we will be sticking to it.
“Some kind of outcome”? Truly inspirational stuff there.
Collectively these answers show how shambolic and lacking in leadership this Government’s response to climate change really is.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Parliament by frog on Thu, December 17th, 2009
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Shame.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/bullet-dodged/
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Um, frog, is there such a thing as “mildly” homophobic?
I’ve never heard comments described as “mildly” racist or “mildly” misogynist?
Brownlee’s comment was to me as offensive as Mallard’s “Tinkerbell”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
“Um, frog, is there such a thing as “mildly” homophobic?
Brownlee’s comment was to me as offensive as Mallard’s “Tinkerbell”.”
really? you’re not even gay.
I didn’t think it was homophobic at all – just sexual banter with a homosexual theme.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Really? I think your over sensitive and, perhaps, looking to be offended at every chance.
I am not offended in the slightest. I find it amusing in fact, whom would have thought Jabba could be funny.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
It was unexpectedly funny. I see Gerry in a new light, despite his being so shady.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Personally I thought Gerry Brownlee’s answer was very funny. The timing was immaculate and delivery great, with the humour directed at himself (and David Parker) – unlike the Tinkerbell taunts, for example. Mind you, maybe I’m experiencing the comments differently from the way others would. Gerry was obviously a bit nervous about how it would be perceived and made a point, when I saw him ten minutes later in the cafeteria, of telling me that no offence was intended. I assured him that none was taken.
Of course the shame of it was that he was completely successful in diverting attention away from Parker’s main point, which was to support the Greens’ position on mining in National Parks. Those of us who spend time in the outdoors, whether it’s camping, tramping, mountain biking, skiing,, paddling, or even huntin’ and fishin’ have a near universal and strongly held view that Gerry’s plans to mine National Parks and other high-value conservation land to close the economic gap with Australia is a monstrous travesty.
But I guess the main point of this thread is the consistently woeful answers the Government has on all questions about climate change. Inadequate and hapless.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Brownlee’s comment was to me as offensive as Mallard’s “Tinkerbell”.”
really? you’re not even gay.
I didn’t think it was homophobic at all – just sexual banter with a homosexual theme.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)