by frog
So, National is pretty hot under the collar about the Kyoto Protocol and is now suggesting that, if elected, it will consider pulling out of it.
The trigger for the outrage is new government estimates suggesting that New Zealand will have to pay $500 million to meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments over the first, five-year commitment period of 2008 till 2012. Earlier government estimates had stated that New Zealand would actually make around $500 million in this period, because we would be well below the allowable carbon emission limits, and other countries would thus have to buy carbon credits off us.
Neither Labour nor National emerge well from this kafuffle. First of all, it was rather foolish for Labour to try and sell Kyoto as a money-maker. The reason to be part of Kyoto is that it is the right thing to do, environmentally and for humanity, and as a good international citizen. To offer up a subsidiary argument, that we’ll also make money off of the thing, and that National would be “burning a cheque” by opposing Kyoto, was unwise, especially as the figures involves are so hard to pin-down.
But National’s response – to throw its hands in the air and run away dramatically from Kyoto – is a deeply concerning knee-jerk response to a serious environmental issue unbecoming of a party that seeks to lead New Zealand. Nick Smith was on Morning Report this morning, offering three major arguments for pulling out of Kyoto:
1. It’ll cost too much.
2. We’re a small country, so what we do will make no difference anyway.
3. Important countries – like Australia, the US, China, and India – aren’t part of Kyoto, so why the Hell should we be? Signing up, when they haven’t, puts us at a comparative disadvantage.
Well, on point one, Kyoto doesn’t have to cost $500 million if we change our ways. As Jeanette has pointed out, these estimates are not set in stone – if we change our ways (by cleaning up our car fleet, investing more in public transport, improving the energy efficiency of our homes and our buildings), then we will climb out of the red and into the black. These estimates assume our carbon-producing habits won’t improve. Well, they can improve, if only we implement the right policies. Rather than looking at these figures and saying, “Oh my God! It’s just too hard!”, we should see them as a wake-up call to clean up our ways.
Smith’s second point just betrays a complete misunderstanding of New Zealand’s foreign policy, which is predicated on the benefits to our country of pursuing a multilateral, rules-based international system. Sure, our little bit might not be much in global terms, but it’s about doing our bit, making our contribution, pulling our weight as part of a broad group of countries in the hope that more and more will sign up. You could make the “what the hell can a little country like New Zealand do?” argument for not spending any money on foreign aid, for not opposing nuclear weapons, for pulling out of the United Nations. The point is that it’s very important to do our bit, lest our reputation as a good international citizen be tarnished.
As for the “other countries aren’t doing it, so why should we?” argument – well, because it’s the right thing to do, environmentally and for humanity. Humanity’s survival depends on our pulling together and mitigating the effects of climate change. Kyoto has its flaws, to be sure, but it’s the best we’ve got, and it’s a million times better than saying “we’re going to do nothing because the US and Australia don’t want to”. The US and India oppose nuclear disarmament. Does that mean we should join them? There’s one word for the argument that our foreign policy should be determined by blindly following “important countries”. That word is unprincipled. And to that word, we could add opportunistic and ultimately self-defeating.
All of which convinces me, adding “gone by lunchtime” to “pull out of Kyoto”, that National will pursue a radically different foreign policy if elected. And that foreign policy will be determined not by what is the right thing for New Zealand to do, but by what the United States wants us to do.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Fri, June 17th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
You are misrepresenting Nationals position. They are saying that major polluting countries such as India, China and the US are not part of Kyoto. That greenhouse gases emitted by China and India will continue to grow. It makes sense to ask if Kyoto will only penalise the willing and make no overall difference. Your accusation that the US will control NZ under National is simply petty. On the level of saying Cuba will control NZ under the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes but by standing alongside the rest of the international community, it makes it easier for those countries to be persuaded to join Kyoto. By standing alongside the countries that refuse to ratify, we would make it less likely that they would change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry to disagree, sock, but as I said just a couple of days ago, in this very blog, its about doing the right thing. To see improving one’s pollution perspective as “penalisation” which makes perfect economic sense, but in the bigger picture its wrong. I’m already fairly cynical about the NZ “clean and green” image (OK, I think its utter bollux), and at least we can be seen to be trying to live up to that ideal.
It
speaksshouts volumes aboout the integrity of the USA that they are not willing to stand up and be counted. China are at least trying to do some of the right things, but they are startuing from a bad position.Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I got so angry watching that on TV!!! National were making it seem like it was Kyoto that was the problem not the pollution, emissions etc.
We do need to keep to Kyoto, we will make a difference even if *some* people don’t think so. You would think that all those economists who studied neoclassical economics would realise that those models don’t exist in the real world. For example, the ENVIRONMENT MATTERS! This is why I’m studying economics. *frowns*
And anyway just because we might not make money from Kyoto, it will preserve our economy in other ways such as tourism, saving on later pollution clean-up costs, solar/wind power instead of fossil fuels would radically cut emissions and save money, our exports may grow due to advancement (or backup) of our pure image, healthcare, particularly related to respiratory conditions will improve with cleaner air, reduced skin cancer rates due to reduced ozone hole…
Yes we’re a little country but we have ideals and plenty of and certainly can be stubborn. We’ve been an example to others before (eg the nuclear issue) and this should be another arena for us to be world leaders again – if our politicians can summon the courage! “Be brave and mighty forces will come to your aid” (or something like that) Goethe
Politicians only seem to care about staying in office and sweet piss all about who they are supposed to be representing. We already know they don’t care about health & education because they can afford private, pulic transport because they get flash cars and/or drivers, and so on and so on but surely we all live in this environment? They aren’t exempt from that.
Climate change exists. Whether you believe the sensationalist advertising or not, the world is warming up. Between 1969 and 1980 there were about 5 floods in the Tauranga region. 1981 – today there have been 60something. I don’t know if that proves anything, and whose fault if anyone’s that we’re getting warmer but we all have to do something. It’s not that hard, it just takes someone to start
*sigh* back to my level 2 politics assignment…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I actually disagree with National’s policy, I just happen to believe in dealing with what they are saying rather than frogs version.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I got on the bus around lunchtime on the way to work today, and a lady and the bus driver were having a chat about changing weather patterns, possible global warming, and then one of them said – “Oh well, its our kids problem now”, and the other agreed. I smartly spoke up and stated – “If you don’t start now, no-one will!”
Kyoto is nice from an international perspective, but will it really have an impact on the individual? The only way we are actually going to start making changes here is by individuals and organisations taking responsibility – as highlighted by the conversation I had in the bus today. Kyoto may raise the cost of living, but will it actually make a noticeable change in outputs to the environment?
I find it particularly ironic that recently LandCorp was caught out for cutting down trees on its land and reverting to dairy farming. Hypocritical bloody government…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The argument that says “we are at a disatvantage if we comply, while others don’t” is interesting to me. I think the same can be said for things like buying free range eggs (which I do) at first I was resentful, only buying them on moral grounds and having to pay the extra cash for my choice. While others could go around buying the battery eggs and be at a fiscal advantage to me in this dog eat dog capitalist society. Now I still think that battery farming should be outlawed, but I enjoy the supperior flavour I get from the free range as well as the feeling that there are some happy chooks running round in a feild somewhere, and so i no longer resent the extra that I pay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)