EU 20% by 2020. New Zealand?
European Union ministers backed ambitious targets on Tuesday to cut greenhouse gas emissions unilaterally by at least 20 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. While short of the massive cuts necessary to halt a catastrophic temperature rise it still is a significant move in the right direction. The bloc may also be willing to increase the reduction to 30 percent by 2020 if other industrialised nations made similar cuts and “economically more advanced” developing countries contributed too. While there has been some opposition, most notably by Hungary and Poland and some concerns raised by Finland it appears likely that this target will form the basis of the bloc’s negotiating position for a global agreement to cut emissions after 2012, when the first period covered by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change ends.
So what will be the New Zealand government’s position? We have failed to reach our emissions target reductions this first round, so will we advocate for smaller reductions in the next? Are we going to push for including the fuel used in international travel in Kyoto? The Government now has a goal of a carbon neutral New Zealand so surely they should be directing the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to take a strong stand and set emission reduction targets internationally as big or bigger than the EU’s proposal.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
New Zealand will be in the invidious position of having abandoned its “clean green” image and having visibly failed to even attempt to manage its emissions. For no gain at all. That’s where it will be. With any competence at all on the part of the opposition it will have a National led government as well.
Since I arrived the arrant stupidity, and abysmal performance of government here has been a big disappointment. Yes, better than the US Congress, but not by anywhere near as much as it could be.
respectfully
BJ
February 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
It will be very interesting to see what exactly the EU is planning to do to; there is a strong correlation between carbon and standard of living, not to mention economic growth.
As for taxing the fuel used in international travel- the effect of any tax will be to put travel out of the reach of the poor, both domestically and internationally. Is this an equitable outcome?
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
there is a strong correlation between carbon and standard of living
There’s a stronger correlation between the decline in the number of pirates since the 1800s and global warming.
But maybe correlation isn’t quite the same as causation. If it was, we could rip out our insulation and replace our compact flouro bulbs with incandescents as a means of getting richer. And we’d easily deal with global warming using a parrot-and-dubloon trading system.
February 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Is this an equitable outcome?
Obviously not. If you’re interested in equity, then you could ration air travel, but that would be at a cost of economic efficiency.
There are no easy answers, Ukk. (There are lots of facile questions though!)
The BBC game Russel linked a while back
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/climate_challenge/inde x_1.shtml
gives some interesting insights into the trade-offs. A lot of them do indeed impact economic growth, with respect to hypothetically cheaper options of “just burn more fossil fuels”. But lots of them pay off in the medium to long term, in terms of sustainability, balance of trade, local job creation…
February 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 am
Nice one Baz!