1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
Does he accept the assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that “If warming is not kept below two degrees centigrade … substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding.”; if so, will he be advocating at Bali for a global agreement that this 2-degree limit should not be exceeded?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
The New Zealand Government relies heavily upon the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific advice. Its advice is that if temperature increases of 2 degrees Celsius are to be avoided, that would require greenhouse gas concentrations to be limited to between 450 and 550 parts per million in the atmosphere, and we will be advocating for the targets for the post-2012 agreement to be based upon scientific advice.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Does the Minister agree that developing countries like China and India are more likely to come on board if a nation’s allocation is based on its population rather than on its wealth, and will New Zealand support per capita entitlements for nations rather than targets that entrench current inequalities?
Per capita emissions are one of the very relevant things that should have primacy in the negotiations. I would not agree that they are the only matter that needs to be taken into account, but I do agree with the general proposition that developed countries have to drop their emissions by more than developing countries can be expected to act on.
Hon Marian HobbsWhatever the post-2012 agreement is, yes, New Zealand will be well placed to meet it. The New Zealand emissions trading scheme introduced to the House yesterday, together with the previously announced New Zealand Energy Strategy and the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, as well as the sustainable land management plan and other measures, mean we are very well placed to implement a post-2012 agreement.
Gordon CopelandCan the Minister be confident, I guess even with the best will in the world, that a global agreement could ensure that the 2-degree limit would not be exceeded; if not, would it not be prudent for the global community to plan to mitigate the consequences of drought, hunger, and flooding through desalination, through the building of levies, etc., and through the movement and resettlement of people for their safety?
In respect of the first part of the question, it is rather a depressing spectre at the moment. The scientists themselves, in the quote that was in the primary question, state—and I will read the full sentence: “If warming is to be kept below two degrees this will require the strongest mitigation efforts and currently this looks very unlikely to be achieved.” That is rather depressing news, and really it just makes it all the more pressing that the countries of the world get together to make sure that the situation does not get as bad as it could. In terms of the second part of the question, yes, adaptation is also an important issue, and countries do need to take prudent measures to adapt to the levels of climate change that may be unavoidable.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
If the emissions trading system relies, after 2012, on us purchasing quite a lot of credits from overseas countries, and if his objective of all countries coming into a climate change treaty is met, where will New Zealand be able to purchase all those emissions from by 2025, when future targets are likely to be very tight?
The first point I would make is that the Government would expect that substantial emissions reductions will occur in New Zealand. The second point really relates to the member’s first supplementary question, which is that if the expectation is that developed countries have to do more than developing countries, the reality is that Kyoto mechanisms allow some of that effort and expense on the part of developed countries to be most cost-effectively spent in developing countries, so they may be funding some of the emissions reductions in developing countries.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
Will the New Zealand Government be supporting, at least in principle, the Tropical Deforestation Emissions Reduction Mechanism, or TDERM, proposed by Greenpeace in Bali yesterday, which would allow developed countries to meet some of their target by paying to protect tropical forests in developing countries?
New Zealand has been supportive of the principle of avoided deforestation being included in an international agreement since that idea was first mooted by Papua New Guinea some 2 or 3 years ago. New Zealand supported that at the first opportunity. So we remain supportive of the principle that avoided deforestation needs to be included in international efforts. I have not read the proposal that Greenpeace put yesterday, but I would expect that it would be a thoughtful contribution on the issue.