DAY 10: New Zealand Wins an Award… Again

Julie Recives fossil of the day award on behalf on NZIt’s not every COP that we’re lucky enough to be awarded Fossil of the Day twice, but here we are. This time, we came in second place (along with the US and Canada) for something as simple as language – but at a conference where words and brackets are everything, this isn’t too surprising.

The issue is over the word ‘compensation’ for loss and damage, which refers to how much aid poorer countries receive in the wake of extreme climate disasters. New Zealand wanted to take it out. By refusing to acknowledge that the money given would be ‘compensating’ for the damage that developed countries have caused, rather than simply helping them out, New Zealand has shunned one of the most significant issues for our Pacific neighbours.

Once again, the Government has embarrassed New Zealanders.

Julie Anne Genter was there to receive the award on New Zealand’s behalf.

Meanwhile, a new draft text has been released, this time considerably shorter than the last. If you’re interested in reading it, you can find it here.

Julie Kennedy and James outside the venue
Julie, Kennedy and James outside UN Climate Change Conference

If you’re not one for reading through so much jargon, then you might be more at home reading a Google doc running commentary from two Kiwis, Ryan Mearns and Hamish Laing. They’re making international headlines – including Buzzfeed – for providing the only true source of information about what is actually happening at the negotiations. Ryan and Hamish are at COP21 with the Aotearoa Youth Leadership Institute.

3 Comments Posted

  1. Credit trading is a solid economic tool, but they will only agree to it, if they can print too many credits 😉 Is this not the point that the Green’s are trying to make? A carbon tax is the place to start, till the trust is built up. Then one would bring in the credit-trading, once everybody is playing nicely. Playing nicely, yeah right. Don’t get caught chasing ya own tail db. The term “climate crazies” wasn’t coined without solid grounding.

    How many layers of smoke and mirrors have we actually have here? You bloggers are such a genuine bunch of nice guys, I’m a bit worried about ya all, ah. Don’t let it get ya down. Jokes about fart taxes will soon be cheering us up.

    Trade sanctions? Sounds like CIA geo-politics to me. The “free market” knows no boundaries. Except for about 5 countries, most of which are currently being bombed by NATO and friends. As Christmas spending stumbles, it seems that the classic trio of; false flags, infrastructure bombing, and “aid packages” is the main economic force balancing the accounts in the wild West. Without a perpetual wwIII, it’s not a long-term strategy. So I’m wishing the East well, with their rising economic power. Please be nice to us.

    Is the game rigged? Are we even playing the right game? Countries boycotting themselves, now that’s a starting point.

  2. Julie-Anne says, at about 2:06 in, “The Greens believe we don’t need carbon trading, and carbon credits; we need policies that are actually going to lead to a reduction in pollution”. This is directly contrary to the Green party’s actions, and a direction I have been arguing for on this very blog for over a decade. Current Green Party support is for actions that legitimize emissions, by means of trading or taxing.

    The Greens nearly got it right when the nearly didn’t support the ETs the first time round. But they failed in a most spectacular and disappointing way, and look where we are now. Julie-Anne saying one thing, a thing that is correct, and the party are still wrong.

  3. Trade sanctions against those who do not accept a binding agreement and a 1.5 Deg C limit.
    Failing Govt action implementing sanctions, then a boycott on goods from or supplies to those vandals and terrorists who have been radicalised by free market greed.

Comments are closed.