The parties on climate change
Home » Blog » Lynda Brendish » The parties on climate changePolitical parties weighed in on their views on climate change, and what to do about, at an Oxfam-hosted election debate in Auckland this week.
Despite the fun and frolic brought on by the Rugby World Cup, Kiwis still have the environment on their mind. Perhaps the grounding of the Rena has something to do with it, but a recent TV3 poll found the environment at the top of voters minds in the lead-up to the election.
Image by Angusgr via Flickr
This week, Aucklanders had their chance to hear Nick Smith (National), David Parker (Labour) and Kennedy Graham (Green) out on their party's responses to climate change at an Oxfam-hosted debate at the Auckland University School of Business.
This is part one of two summarising the candidates' responses.
1. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change recommends that developed country greenhouse gas emissions need to peak by 2015, and reduce by 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 in order to have a 50 percent chance of limiting temperature rise by 2 degrees.
Q. Does your Party believe this is a safe level of temperature rise for those at risk from the impacts? What level of climate finance will you provide to support the most vulnerable countries and communities to protect themselves and adapt?
Nick Smith went first, stating that despite a "high level of uncertainty" around the term "safe" in regards to the levels of termperature increase, the government has signed on to and agreed to the two degree limit.
Smith went on to talk about the practical successes of the government: the price on carbon emissions, the five-fold increase in the amount of renewable energy used, the stop in deforestation and insulation of 120,000 homes during this parliamentary term, as well as solar water heating schemes. Smith said it's a "practical record of achievement" for his party.
About funding, Smith said the government is committing additional funding to projects in the Pacific, and that "it is broadly accepted that New Zealand does have a special responsibility to the climate change impacts on our Pacific friends".
Labour's David Parker said New Zealand wasn't meeting it's agreement on reductions because half our emissions come from agriculture. "What the Labour party says is we need to go better than that in respect of our energy emissions but not make the same promise in respect of our agricultural emissions." Parker said Labour proposed a target of 90 percent of power from renewable resources by 2025, concurrently with emissions pricing and halving per capita transport emissions by 2040 (based on 2007 levels). He said if we can achieve these targets, New Zealand can be carbon neutral in the total energy sector by 2040. "And if the rest of the world does that as well, well then we’re well on the way to having this problem beaten."
Kennedy Graham took a much more stern approach. "Is two degrees a safe level of temperature rise? The answer is no." Graham cited World Bank figures that suggest the possibility of a six degree increase by 2050, calling it "beyond dangerous; it would be catastrophic".
On the matter of climate finance, Graham said Green Party policy is to reach 0.7 percent GNI for ODA by 2015. He said this target could only be reached by increasing contributions to "responsible multilaterals such as UNDP" and working on programmes in the Pacific and developing world. He said the contributions would put New Zealand in line with Norway, "which is where we should be," and that half of the expected additional $500m in funding would go towards climate finance.
2. Currently New Zealand's gross emissions are 18% above 1990 levels and increasing.
Q. Does your Party accept that New Zealand should make emissions cuts to the level the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is calling for? Will your party develop a Low Carbon Development Plan to move New Zealand onto a low carbon development path? And what would be in your Party’s plan?
David Parker: "Labour's always believed the most responsible way to address climate change is through emissions reductions." He restated the 90 percent of electricity via renewable resources by 2025 target, carving out per capita transport emissions and achieving carbon neutrality by 2040. The most important thing, he said, was the plan to fold agriculture into the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The party would cap the level of free allocation rights at 90 percent of 2005 emissions, and the agriculture industry would have to pay the rest. "We would create the incentive that the ETS is meant to create."
Nick Smith: ."You need to be honest that there is a cost to consumers and to business." He said the government is trying to find a "balanced path" between the "desire" to reduce emissions and and the impact on the price of electricity and transport, and on jobs. ETS needs to be backed up with complementary measures like solar power, insulation and Auckland rail.
Kennedy Graham: Alluding to Smith's comment about the government's desire to reduce emissions, Graham begun his speech:"With respect Nick, it's not a 'desire', it's an 'imperative.'" He went on to say the Greens accept the IPCC-suggested cuts "and more". He references the Green Party report Getting There as a "practical plan" for reaching the target reductions. It involves domestic reductions of 36m tonnes, plus international offsets of 12m tonnes. Domestic reductions would be achieved through:
- 11m t in new forests
- 10m t in pest control
- 5m t in renewables replacing Huntly Power
- 5m t in transport efficiencies
- 3m t in agriculture
- 2m t in industry.
"Not only is this possible, but it stimulates green investment, green jobs and green export opportunities," said Graham.
Regarding the development of a low carbon plan, Graham said the Greens have already declared it as policy. He said the party seeks to emulate Denmark's adoption of a plan for a fossil fuel-free economy by 2050. A draft of the plan is hopefully due within 6-12 months.
Climate change scientist Jim Salinger was in the audience and asked the question whether New Zealand could become carbon free, much as it became nuclear free in the 1980s.
Nick Smith saw there being a big difference between the two. The decision to go nuclear-free was "relatively easy" compared to the difficulty becoming carbon free. Need to be careful we don't export emissions to other countries. "The issue around climate change is a whole lot more challenging in getting our carbon emissions down than the declaration of being nuclear-free."
David Parker said his answer depends on whether you include methane and nitrous oxide in the definition of 'carbon free'. "Because if it does, then with respect that's unrealistic because I can't see how we can eliminate those from animal production."
Kennedy Graham responded he could speak "with some feeling", having been on the delegation that made the nuclear-free decision, and "it was not easy". Graham said it's not a matter of being a global leader, it's simply responding to a global threat that is "on our doorstep". As far as the realism of being carbon free; "Identify what the national cuts are and we don't say 'is it realistic', we do it. End of story."
Part two of the climate change debate is here.
Lynda Brendish is the communications and media co-ordinator at Oxfam New Zealand. She also freelances for Good magazine.
