5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this
to the Minister for Climate Change Issues
Will the Cancun agreements achieve the agreed goal of confining global warming to 2 degrees Celsius; if so, how?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) Link to this
The Cancun agreements set a goal for long-term temperature stabilisation, confining global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. As a result of the Cancun agreements, for the first time we now have actions to reduce emissions by all major emitters brought under the UN system. Without that breakthrough any climate deal would be ineffective. So the Cancun agreements have the UN’s climate negotiations back on track.
Dr Kennedy Graham Link to this
Accepting that the Cancun agreements are, obviously, long term in nature, does he none the less agree with the independent analysis done by scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that the emission reductions agreed to at Cancun will probably result in global warming of 3.2 degrees Celsius?
I have not actually seen that analysis, which the member may be surprised to know. But there are all sorts of estimates by scientists of large increases in sea levels, large increases in temperatures, and small drops in temperature. We know that the agreements made at Cancun do involve all major emitters, and that is a necessary pre-condition for any progress at all.
Dr Kennedy Graham Link to this
In the knowledge that there is a range of scientific opinion but that, none the less, there is a balance of opinion that warming will go beyond 2 degrees and maybe to 3.2 degrees, is he aware and is he concerned that warming of 3.2 degrees will result in a high probability of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting, and, therefore, at least a 7-metre rise in sea levels as the centuries go by?
I agree there are all sorts of doomsday scenarios around climate change. Some of them are credible; some are not so credible. The Cancun process represents a credible attempt by countries that are, by and large, badly affected by the global financial crisis, and therefore pretty aware of the costs of any policy to their populations, to do their best to get some common agreement that may allow for reduction in pollution, with some effect on global warming.
Dr Kennedy Graham Link to this
Given that the majority of people around the world do not regard the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as a group of doomsday-sayers, and given that the Cancun agreement as it stands will not avert such warming, will the Government push for a binding commitment to greater emission reductions than is currently the case?
Well, the Government has its own targets that it has set. It has taken part in a very complex multilateral process, and I know that the member is well aware of that. I think that everyone has learnt from the excessive optimism of the Copenhagen conference that progress by this means is bound to be slow and, I would have to say, much less spectacular than the member’s party would wish for.
Dr Kennedy Graham Link to this
Indeed, I thank the Minister for reminding us about the national targets, but is it responsible for his Government in terms of his national targets to offer only a 10 to 20 percent reduction in national emissions by 2020, when the evidence shows that the developed nations need to make 25 to 40 percent cuts in emissions to achieve the agreed 2-degree warming target that he acknowledges?
It is possible, depending on how we measure the target of one country against that of another, that on equivalence of effort the New Zealand target is a bigger ask than the targets of a number of other developed countries. As the member knows, unless everyone heads in the same direction together, the policies that will fulfil those targets will simply shift carbon emissions to countries that are making less of an effort. If going forward together means going more slowly, it still will probably make more progress than New Zealand striking out boldly on its own, only to see carbon emissions increase in other countries and with no effect on improving global climate.
Dr Kennedy Graham Link to this
Does he think it is going ahead boldly together for New Zealand to propose at Cancun a reference level of emissions from forestry that would result, possibly, in an increase in our total national emissions by 45 percent during the second commitment period; if not, why not?
New Zealand has taken a responsible negotiating position, including on forestry. It reflects what we believe is the right balance of our own economic interests and the global interest in managing climate change. This process has a long way to go, but we make no apology for taking a balanced position reflecting our economic interests.
Dr Kennedy Graham Link to this
Given that the UN General Assembly agreed 22 years ago in Resolution 43/53 that “climate change affects humanity as a whole and should be confronted within a global framework so as to take into account the vital interests of all mankind.”, is it not time that we actually did something?
Well, I think it might reflect the limits of United Nations - driven idealism, which I know is at the heart of the Green Party’s view of the world. But we have often found that United Nations statements do not translate into reality very well.
Dr Kennedy Graham Link to this
I seek leave to table two documents. The first is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 1988.
Mr SPEAKERDr Kennedy Graham Link to this
The second document is a briefing paper dated 11 December and published jointly by Climate Analytics, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and Ecofys, which points out the likely probability of the degrees of global warming, and which the Minister said he had not seen.
Hon John Boscawen Link to this
Given the slow progress internationally shown at Cancun, and given the global financial crisis, will the Government agree to the ACT Party’s request to put on hold the doubling of fuel and electricity price increases and the inclusion of agriculture in the emissions trading scheme?