Peter Dunne has been appointed chairman of the select committee being established to review climate policy, the Herald reports. Dunne, in an interview with Carbon News, indicated that he saw no reason to reconsider the science:
“The science is pretty clearly established,†Dunne said. “It’s somewhat ludicrous and arrogant to expect a New Zealand parliamentary committee to review the science which the IPCC, Stern (UK economist Lord Stern) and every notable committee in the world has adjudicated on.â€
Today’s Parliamentary order paper lists the membership of the committee and the terms of reference [PDF]. Apart from Dunne, the 11 member committee consists of Craig Foss, Nicky Wagner, Dr Paul Hutchison, Hekia Parata, Rodney Hide, David Parker, Moana Mackey, Charles Chauvel, Jeanette Fitzsimons, and one member of the MÄori Party. The full terms of reference are unchanged from ACT’s draft, with the exception of the science review — which has been dropped — and the terms set no time limit for the committee’s deliberations — though there have been indications that the report is expected by March.
Parker, Chauvel and Fitzsimons know this stuff inside out. It remains to be seen how the others perform. Nicky Wagner held an environment position under Don Brash, and flirted with scepticism at that time, but is now (she told me last year) happy to accept we need to act. It will be interesting to see how Rodney takes to being chaired by Dunne. Reaction from Don’t Be A Rodney here, while No Right Turn is resolutely sceptical, in the true sense of the word.
[Update 10/12: The order paper linked above omitted one particularly interesting new item in the terms of reference (see Government press release here):
– identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding those projections
Rodney Hide seems hell bent on interpreting this as meaning he can have his crank fest. One hopes the rest of the committee will disagree. Meanwhile, a more rational interpretation of this item could lead to a very interesting discussion about targets – because the way I read it, “uncertainties and risks” could suggest the need for more stringent limits on emissions… 😉 ]
A rather despairing title for an article which makes absolutely no attempt to slag off Dunne, don’t you think?
I was thinking that too. Peter Dunne was the obvious nonpartisan choice here, and it could have been worse.
I think the title is just recreational punning.
“recreational punning.”
That’s gold! And accurate, I think.
Never could resist a pun…
As for being scathing, I like Denis Welch’s satirical look at the year ahead in the new issue of Good. The entry for Jan 16 reads:
The illustration is priceless…
Heh. I see your hair joke, and raise you one hair joke.
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2008/10/23/campaign-08-daily-diary/
He could be the only minister in the Beehive with a beehive (a la Dusty).
Is Hide being naive?
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate-inquiry-will-look-science-theory-hide-38806
Pretty unequivocal statement from Dunne above, so perhaps Hide’s dreaming.
“The science is pretty clearly established,†Dunne said. “It’s somewhat ludicrous and arrogant to expect a New Zealand parliamentary committee to review the science which the IPCC, Stern (UK economist Lord Stern) and every notable committee in the world has adjudicated on.â€
I do not think IGNS, or anyone of significance in it, has come out in support of AGW, in contrast to the more politicised NIWA.
Did anyone else hear Rodney and Jeanette on National Radio this morning debating the select committee review? Seems Rodney may not turn up to these meetings either once he re-reads the Terms of Reference!!
Really Roger…
http://www.gns.cri.nz/research/sub_dir/and.html
It’s not how I read GNS’s take it.
“anyone of significance in it”
Really, now that’s a lie, plain and simple.
The scientist I know who conduct research at GNS accept the science.
Would that be Nine to Noon? They’ve not posted any audio yet…
Gareth – was on morning report:
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2008/12/10/emissions_trading_scheme_review2
Didn’t give them a lot of time on air but gets their points across!!
Jeanette did well, Rodney sounded loud and foolish when Jeanette said that he didn’t even turn up to select committee meetings.
Is it possible to complain to the BSA if Rodney keeps claiming he is an environmental scientist?
>Jeanette did well, Rodney sounded loud and foolish when Jeanette said that he didn’t even turn up to select committee meetings.
She said that the sceptics arguments were all about warming, or lack of it, over the last decade or so. That was not the case on the day that I presented my submission. She was there on that day.
Hide explained that as the committee was not interested in the science there was little point in him being there. He could, and did, spend his time politicking, more effectively.
>Is it possible to complain to the BSA if Rodney keeps claiming he is an environmental scientist?
He has qualified in that field and as there is no professional body for environmental scientists here you have no-one to complain to, even if you have a case, which you do not.
I thought the BSA thing was tongue-in-cheek-ish, but you never know. Hide’s just really being an idiot claiming he’s a scientist when he clearly isn’t practicing a lot of science, unless he’s writing papers under a pseudonym? I had a vague amount of respect for the guy before he started spouting a load of old bollocks on climate change…sigh.
Hide is not now, nor has he ever been, a working “environmental scientist”. People who were studying the same course at the same time have pointed that out here. He’s studied resource management and worked as an economist. He has no special wisdom on this subject – in fact, I would argue that he is wilfully ignorant.
“He has qualified in that field”
What field is that? Resource management is now science?
>Hide is not now, nor has he ever been, a working “environmental scientistâ€. People who were studying the same course at the same time have pointed that out here.
Has he not got a first degree in botany and/or zoology? That looks like a basic qualification.
>require a high quality, quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net
benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action, including international relations and
commercial benefits and costs.
That looks to me like a loophole for a damn good dig into the reasoning around ETS. You cannot do much reasoning without looking at the grounds for the whole idea.
And the terms of reference of the committee shall be to:
• hear views from trade and diplomatic experts on the international relations aspects of this issue
• consider the prospects for an international agreement on climate change post Kyoto 1, and the
form such an agreement might take
• require a high quality, quantified regulatory impact analysis to be produced to identify the net
benefits or costs to New Zealand of any policy action, including international relations and
commercial benefits and costs
• consider the impact on the New Zealand economy and New Zealand households of any climate
change policies, having regard to the weak state of the economy, the need to safeguard New
Zealand’s international competitiveness, the position of trade-exposed industries, and the actions
of competing countries
• examine the relative merits of a mitigation or adaptation approach to climate change for New
Zealand
• consider the case for increasing resources devoted to New Zealand-specific climate change
research
• examine the relative merits of an emissions trading scheme or a tax on carbon or energy as a
New Zealand response to climate change
• consider the need for any additional regulatory interventions to combat climate change if a price
mechanism (an ETS or a tax) is introduced
• consider the timing of introduction of any New Zealand measures, with particular reference to the outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting, the position of the United States, and
the timetable for decisions and their implementation of the Australian government
• and report to the House accordingly.
(Lodged 8 December 2008)
This looks to me as though there is plenty of room for the debate that you do not want.
Hide’s first degree is certainly a science degree (botany/zoology according to his Wikipedia entry), but those are not in any sense “environmental” subjects. He might have done a bit of ecology, I suppose, but that would be about the limit. It’s a pity he seems to forgotten to apply what he used to know.
Not my reading of it, nor Peter Dunne’s it would seem. Rodney might get a surprise when submissions from sceptics are ruled out of consideration.
The second point, concerning the “form” of future international agreements is interesting. It could allow the committee to consider targets and trajectories. That would involve science, but not in the way you might want, Roger.
Any natural science, engineering or chemistry can provide the basis for environmental work. There were no ‘environmental science’ degrees in my time. Perhaps there are now, I do not know. As VUW now teaches feminist geography I would not be surprised. There even seems to be ‘environmental social science’ whatever that may be. Perhaps that has something to do with the effects on cockroaches of the grass smoked by unmarried mothers on the dole.
>Not my reading of it, nor Peter Dunne’s it would seem. Rodney might get a surprise when submissions from sceptics are ruled out of consideration.
The sceptics will of course frame their submissions to suit the terms of reference. I did not get the impression that submissions get ruled out of consideration unless they are totally inappropriate. To do so would not be very smart politically and Dunne is a smart politician.
Gareth, can you keep us updated with when and how to make submissions, as that information becomes available? Thanks.
A press
release later in the day by Nick Smith re-issued the terms of
reference with the first bullet point included – in a form that differs less
in substance from the original then might at first appear. The revised
initial bullet point reads:
* identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as
the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding those projections
Oh dear oh dear. Not so rosy is it? I think we can drive a horse and cart through that one!
Please excuse the off-topic diversion, everyone ..
Environmental social science, Roger, is not a black art.
It is predicated on the notion that environmental management is more likely to be successful if it takes public knowledge of the problem in question into account, along with public preferences, attitudes and so on. An example is the Lake Taupo Action Plan, which was built on the relevant science (inputs and leaching rates of nitrogen from various land uses, residence times of nitrogen in the soils of the catchment, long-term trends in water clarity and much, much more) plus planning input from local and regional government. Some of the social science research methods in this case included two postal questionnaires delived to residents throughout the catchment; the first one in particular received well over 600 responses (a return rate of over 50% which is pretty damn good) – which is a lot of information. Postal questionnaires are particularly useful for presenting complex information that respondents can consider at their leisure. They do have disadvantages also – but that is another whole topic.