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:
â€œThe science is pretty clearly established,â€ Dunne said. â€œItâ€™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 â€” which has been dropped â€” and the terms set no time limit for the committee’s deliberations â€” 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 emissionsâ€¦ 😉 ]