1. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
How will the Government ensure that New Zealand meets its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, noting the statement by Victoria University economics senior lecturer Dr Geoff Bertram: “we’re miles in breach of our Kyoto undertakings”?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) Link to this
By doing our utmost to ensure the re-election of a Labour-led Government. Until only weeks ago, the National Party had opposed every meaningful move to address climate change over the last 7 years, and, indeed, kept congratulating itself on doing so, frequently in somewhat scatological terms.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question I asked was how the Government will ensure that New Zealand meets its commitments. I think the House would have expected to hear from the Government some of the policy around climate change to achieve that, rather than some gratuitous argument about who might win the next election, which I think is a decision for the people of New Zealand to make. Before the people of New Zealand make that decision, I think they would like to know what the Government’s policy is to meet those commitments.
Madam SPEAKERI thank the member. From what I could hear of the answer, I thought the Minister did address the question. I ask all members on all sides of the House to please keep their interventions at a level at which other members can hear both questions and answers.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
What did the Minister mean yesterday when he said that New Zealand would meet its Kyoto commitments by investing in Kyoto flexibility mechanisms, and is the flexibility he was referring to that of taxpayers’ pockets, which will have to flex a great deal to fund the hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The liabilities, of course, fall upon the Government. Meeting those liabilities will require a very, very large range of policies that address such issues as afforestation, removing deforestation incentives, energy efficiency, and many, many other matters. The problem the member has is that he believes that it can all be solved, with nobody suffering any consequences at all. That is pure “Pollyanna-ism”.
Sue BradfordWill the Government follow the example of the Green MPs, who have today announced that we will offset our parliamentary air travel out of our own pockets from January next year and start offsetting carbon emissions from Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services air travel by paying for the establishment of a permanent forest?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
I welcome the Green initiative. Of course, it is a matter for individual MPs of political parties as to what they do in that respect. Certainly, the Government is committed to achieving carbon neutrality. One of the key issues around that is, of course, how the offsetting of air travel may occur over time.
Moana MackeyHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
We are in compliance with the reporting commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. New Zealand was one of the first parties to submit its initial report on the calculation of its assigned amount under article 7.4, which is the basis for determining compliance with targets.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Is the Minister aware that Treasury currently estimates that it will cost $650 million to meet the quite modest Kyoto greenhouse gas goals for New Zealand, and, assuming a similar price per tonne for carbon, that carbon neutrality, as promised by the Prime Minister, would cost well in excess of $5 billion; if so, does he still think carbon neutrality is a realistic goal?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
It is absolutely clear that in the long term carbon neutrality has to be a realistic goal. I note, for example, the British Government has just announced some ambitions, in some respects, in relation to carbon neutrality by 2015. What the member again seems to ignore is that major policies will be required to address this area. The party that opposed any form of carbon charge, and whose members ran around giggling like schoolboys and using the words “fart tax” day after day, has clearly not got to grips with the issues surrounding climate change.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Has the Government, in fact, got to grips with the issue of climate change, when after 7 years in Government, we have New Zealand’s greenhouse gases growing at four times the rate of those of the US and three times the rate of Australia’s, when for the first year since 1953, we have net deforestation rather than the planting of forests, and when we have the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment saying we have a complete vacuum in climate change policy in New Zealand under a Government that is 7 years old?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Firstly, deforestation has been increasing for the last 10 years or more. Secondly, much of that deforestation—[ Interruption] The National Party members really cannot stand facts, Madam Speaker. Much of that deforestation is for the conversion of land to dairy farming, and the members of the party opposite are completely opposed to any kind of internalisation of the cost of that conversion. All they do is stand by the wayside, lamenting. Mr Key, of course, described climate change as a form of a hoax only a matter of months ago, then read the views of the focus groups and changed his mind.
Peter BrownNoting those answers, does the Minister support the research that is going into carbon capture and storage technology in regard to coal; if he does, what will the Government do to encourage the adoption of such technology when it becomes economically viable?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
Solid Energy is a partner in that kind of research. Clearly it holds realistic prospects. The Government has never ruled out the use of coal-fired power stations in the longer term. In the meantime, there are still significant difficulties around effective sequestration and capture of carbon from coal production, and that is why the national energy strategy will make it quite clear that we expect to see, once E3P is in place, the vast bulk of new generation come from renewable resources. But, of course, the members of the party opposite only a short time ago were bemoaning the fact that we might run out of electricity in a dry winter, then said we should not have thermal power.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does the Minister agree with the statement by the Government’s chair of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, Mr Mark Ford, who said this morning at a select committee that the 2001 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy of this Government had failed, noting that since then we have gone backwards on both efficiency and renewables; and, with that strategy being a failure, why should we have any confidence that Monday’s strategy will be any better?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
There are so many strategy and discussion documents coming out in the next period of time that the only danger is that the logging of the forests used to produce those documents may contribute to global warming.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister quite specifically whether he agreed with the chair of the Energy and Conservation Authority, Mr Mark Ford, who said that the Government’s energy strategy from 2001 had failed. I did not hear anything in the Minister’s answer that addressed that question.
As the member knows, members cannot require a specific answer to a specific question. The question was addressed, in so far as there was reference to reports on the matters that the member raised.
Hon Trevor MallardHon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Actually, the Government’s policy on climate change is bloody useless. Will the energy strategy provide the substance of how Helen Clark’s promise of carbon neutrality is to be achieved—or was the Prime Minister’s statement just a bold exercise in spin doctoring, to take public attention off the pledge card and Taito Phillip Field’s shenanigans?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
It will point to the way forward in a number of key areas, but there are many other policies apart from energy policies that will contribute to carbon neutrality over the long term. If we are to talk of spin doctoring, I say a party whose members changed their minds on the basis of survey groups and public opinion polling is in no position to comment. Nobody believes Mr Key actually believes in addressing climate change issues.