Something for the weekend…

Greenpeace have mastered the art of cool marketing, or marketing the need for cooling, or for loosening up a little, as Rhys Darby demonstrates… Sign on? You know it makes sense… 😉

9 thoughts on “Something for the weekend…”

  1. R2D2:

    Can’t help myself. Greenpeace does occasionally do a bit of serious policy work … perhaps in light of the “something for the weekend” topic here, you have a read of this . Just a touch of policy thinking 😉

    Oh, and if that’s still a bit light on policy, you could take a look at the accompanying legal text.

    1. The text has a similar flow to what a Copenhagen deal will likely have. Some comments are alarming. It doesn’t offer a target for NZ in the Annex (or any other country)

      Lets break the response into instalments.

      Instalment 1: Greenpeace’s proposals for funding

      – All developed countries should contribute a combined US$160 Billion to the fund
      – 10% of assigned units should also be given to fund and auctioned to raise finance (NZ’s contribution with 10% target and $70 AAU: $378 million a year
      – A tax on aviation and maritime transport may also be used to raise funds

      The Climate Facility shall administer the funds.

      However, there is a catch. A BIG catch. Contributions to the fund will not count until they are over 0.7% of GDP, and cover the millennium goal. Otherwise countries are double dipping. So signing up to this bill, that has more teeth than the millennium goal, will mean nations sign up to 0.7% of GDP donated as foreign aid, plus all the other measure.

      I ask you Cindy, would the US ever sign a deal like this? Keep in mind that US law states treaties have to go through the President, the House and a 67% majority in the Senate. Is it worth having an agreement without the US?

      The Senate is going to commit to giving $970 Billion in aid, plus the UNFCCC slush fund money, plus 10% of AAU’s?

      Also: Does Greenpeace see any conditionality (apart from the mentioned nuclear) attached to this money? Industrialised nations will give money not knowing that it could be giving to a despot? Wouldn’t be better for NZ to just handle its own ‘climate aid’?

  2. glad i gave you a bit of interesting reading.

    You can’t change the science on climate change. But you can change the politics. Should an international agreement to stop climate change be piss-weak because a bunch of politicians lobbied by the fossil fuel industry don’t like it? Or should it be an agreement that actually does what is supposed to do – ie stop climate change.

    NZ handling its own climate aid? yeah right – just like it uses its aid in the pacific to try to stop AOSIS from speaking out on climate.

    Paying for developing countries to adapt to climate change? Depends on whether one actually wants to stop climate change. The mechanisms are difficult and need to be worked out, but if we want to stop climate change, we have a historical responsibility to help the poorest nations.

  3. R2D2
    “I ask you Cindy, would the US ever sign a deal like this?”

    It would if the reality of the science struck enough of its legislators. In fact it would think it was getting off lightly. You’re coming at the question from the wrong direction. The reality of climate change is the place to start, not the political possibilities. It is certainly possible that humanity will fail the political test and let loose the fearful consequences, but we should surely not accept that as a given. We must keep insisting that climate change presents an overwhelming threat and must be addressed, which is what Greenpeace and others are doing so admirably – and offering useful policy suggestions along the way.

    1. But isn’t that a bit of an ‘ear mark’ by GreenPeace? Attaching a clause that requires nations to fulfill their Millennium Goal commitment (nothing to do with climate change) to a climate change treaty? That was my point there, would that irresponsible clause in any such Copenhagen agreement cause the whole thing to fall over?

      “A Party included in Annex B may only use overseas development aid to fulfill its financial obligations under the following circumstances. After 2015, new and additional financing is defined as any resources above 0.7 % of a Party’s GDP, pursuant to industrialized country Parties’ obligations under the Millennium Development Goals. Prior to 2015, new and additional financing is defined as any resources above the linear growth path between a Party’s present ODA contribution and the 0.7 % goal to be achieved in 2015.”

  4. I fail to see what’s irresponsible in such a clause. Climate change is not a separate issue from poverty. In my review of Nicholas Stern’s book A Global Deal I commented “He makes it clear from the start that combating climate change is inextricably linked with poverty reduction as the two greatest challenges of the century and that we shall succeed or fail on them together – to tackle only one is to undermine the other.” Leaving morality aside, it would be self-defeating for the developed countries to try to fight climate change by diverting money already committed for poverty reduction. In his chapter on funding for developing countries Stern insists that rich countries deliver on their existing commitments to overseas development assistance, and that the extra costs of development arising from climate change be treated as additional to that commitment.

  5. Well I saw on the news tonight that a 15% target has been put forward as NZ’s offering to the world negotiations. Cited as “the average reduction”. They also put forward some figures saying that with a “do nothing”, the average income would be $49,000. 40% reduction would be an average of $46,000. That’s $3,000 from every New Zealander! (Er, that’s not how averages work but ok). So instead they reckon 15% is only $1,400.

    So, looks like the consultation rounds were a complete diversion and nothing was learned. Instead a pure view of this as a cost has been used, with no allowance for any change in behaviour.

    Well actually in the face of the fact we’re headed for +41%, -15% is much closer to -40% than, say, 0%. I think Smith has done well to get the Tories to agree to any reduction really. It’s a start. I just hope that the ETS rules make it clear to shareholders when companies are relying on a carbon allowance to be profitable, and that there are enough avenues for businesses producing carbon credits to flourish between now and then. That leaves the door open for entrepreneurs.

    What happened to them arguing to count COâ‚‚ sequestered in wood products as deferred? That would help massively. Well, guess we’ll have to wait for the answers..

Leave a Reply