1. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) Link to this
to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues
How do the estimates tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, showing carbon footprints of the first six Government agencies to go carbon neutral, compare to the projected deficit New Zealand faces during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the carbon emissions from current deforestation?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) Link to this
The estimated cost for carbon neutrality in the first six Government departments to be committed to carbon neutrality is $5 million. Of course the emission reduction and offsets in these Government departments show that carbon neutrality is an achievable goal.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Is the reason the Minister did not give a straight answer to my original question the fact that official figures show that the six carbon-neutral public services would save just 13,000 tonnes, whereas New Zealand faces a 40 million tonne carbon deficit under the Kyoto Protocol, and we are losing 8 million tonnes a year in deforestation—that is, the numbers are so embarrassing they make the Government’s climate change policies a joke?
The proposals to advance towards carbon neutrality in the public sector are, of course, unrelated to rates of deforestation. I have no doubt that the Government’s preferred policy option in respect of controlling deforestation—through a deforestation “cap and trade” scheme—would be effective to limit and reduce deforestation.
Martin GallagherDo forest owners have a property right to carbon credits for carbon stored by previously planted trees, as asserted in deforestation proposals put forward by a Mr Matthew Hooton—whom I think was extensively mentioned in The Hollow Men—on behalf of lobbyist Roger Dickie?
Plainly, no. There is no property right for carbon credits, just as emitters have no property liability for their existing carbon emissions. If foresters had a property right, then farmers and other New Zealanders would already have a property liability for their car emissions or their cows. Plainly, they do not. This is actually one thing that Labour and National agree on.
R Doug WoolertonDoes the Minister agree that industry and society would be thrown into chaos if the Government were to take an extreme view on the time frame for achieving carbon-neutral targets, such as Nick Smith seems to be proposing?
Absolutely. I agree that to charge towards carbon neutrality in a short number of years would be an unattainable goal except—
Gerry BrownleeNo, the Prime Minister agrees with that and has never said anything different. The ambition of carbon neutrality is a realistic goal as shown by what can be achieved in these first six Government departments.
Jeanette Fitzsimons Link to this
How does the carbon saving from these six departments, which the Minister has just stated to be $5 million in 2012, compare in 2012 terms with the expected savings that would have occurred with the price on carbon if the Government’s carbon charge—decided in 2002—had not been abandoned in December 2005?
But a fraction of those savings, which from memory were calculated to total 41 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is just from memory and it is a while since I looked at those figures. The member could correct me if I am wrong.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Does it not illustrate that the Prime Minister’s opening statement to Parliament on sustainability was a load of hog, when she proudly boasts of a new policy of making Treasury carbon neutral, when figures show it will make a difference of 2 tonnes per day, but when she makes no mention of deforestation that is causing carbon loss of 22,000 tonnes per day; and, given these figures, does he not accept that halting the massive deforestation going on in New Zealand right now should be the No. 1 climate change priority?
I have long been clear that halting growing rates of deforestation is very important in terms of climate change policy. The “cap and trade” system that the Government has proposed is one of the options, and indeed some of the other options would also achieve that outcome.
Hon Phil GoffHas the Minister perceived any inconsistency between claims now being made that the Government is doing too little about climate change and the assertion that climate change is a “complete and utter hoax”; a statement made by John Key in this House just 18 months ago?
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thankfully Phil Goff is not responsible for the statements of National’s leader, John Key. Furthermore, the quote is completely incorrect and wrong.
Madam SPEAKERYes, I do, and I recall contrasting statements by other members in this House, including Mr Key who did, in fact, say to this House that he was personally unconvinced and thought the whole thing was a hoax. He subsequently went on to say that he believed in climate change. It is, of course, permissible for him to change his mind, but he went on to say he believed in climate change and always had. One of those two statements has to be incorrect.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Can he assure the House that having expensive Treasury bureaucrats running around ensuring they are carbon neutral is the best contribution they can make to climate change policy when their carbon footprint is so minuscule; would not their time be better spent on implementing a credible policy like National’s tradable emissions permit system that will actually address the major emissions that are causing New Zealand’s climate change issues?
The first point to be made there is that a number of steps—a large number of steps—need to be taken to advance towards carbon neutrality. Making light of the steps that are starting to be taken in the Government sector is, with respect to the member, heading in the wrong direction. The Government’s leadership in this area, in terms of our own purchasing patterns, has the ability to influence more than just the emissions in the Government sector but lead to more sustainable practices across the economy.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Will our carbon-neutral Prime Minister be opening the new E3P generator in the Waikato this month, given that today she has found time to open the new Awapuni generator in Palmerston North, noting that the E3P generator is 385 times bigger, that the emissions savings in a year from the environmentally friendly Awapuni generator will be gobbled up in a single day of E3P’s operation, and that the Government is the funder and guarantor of E3P, whereas Awapuni is being financed by the Austrian Government and the Palmerston North City Council, or is the Prime Minister so possessed by her spin machine’s cover-up of the Government’s appalling record on climate change that she will go wherever a photo opportunity will give her the excuse?
In fact, E3P is likely to back off Huntly and reduce and lower emissions. In respect of the Awapuni project, of course that project was caused by Government climate change policy and probably would not have happened without it. The generator was brought into being because of the Government’s project to reduce emissions and its allocating carbon credits to that environmentally friendly power project.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
Is the Minister aware that his Government’s policy proposals regarding forestry are causing a huge increase in deforestation, and that at Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry public meetings in Gisborne, Hamilton, Nelson, and, yesterday, Hawke’s Bay, his forestry policies were overwhelmingly rejected; and why does he not abandon the stupid policies now so that there might be some trees standing when National becomes the Government next year?
It is true that Roger Dickie and other people assert that deforestation is caused by our unwillingness to devolve carbon credits to other forests planted prior to 1990. It is hard to see the linkage; I cannot see the linkage. It is notable that both major parties in this Parliament, including Nick Smith’s own, do not favour the devolution of carbon credits to previously planted forestries. They reject the property rights - based argument. There is no theft of carbon credits, and if carbon credits were property rights for existing forests, then already others would have liabilities for their emissions in agriculture and transport—and, plainly, they do not.
Given the challenge to the accuracy of my quoting of John Key, I seek the leave of the House to table a quote from Hansard dated 10 May 2005, where John Key states: “This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so.”
I seek leave to table a document that is an extract from National’s 2005 climate change policy and states that National would use New Zealand’s forest credits to offset emissions in the first commitment period—in other words, it would not devolve them to foresters.
Hon Dr Nick Smith Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the excitement that Phil Goff showed, he asserted that John Key said that climate change was a hoax. He did not. If Mr Goff were to table the previous sentence, he would see that the reference was in respect of Kyoto. I seek leave to table the full Hansard and not just the sentence that suits the misleading Mr Goff.