Tag: ACT

What have I Dunne to deserve this?

dunne.jpgPeter 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.”

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 Māori 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… 😉 ]

[Title reference]

Don’t be a Rodney, John Key!

IanMcEwansmall.jpgDon’t be a Rodney, John, be a Barack on climate change. That’s the central message of the new Don’t be a Rodney, John Key! blog, created to promote a letter-writing campaign to our new leader, urging him to ignore ACT’s call for inaction and recognise that this is an issue that demands clear, consistent leadership. Blogger Morgan points out:

The world is watching. On Tuesday 18 November, Barack Obama made a powerful statement that was heard around the globe: “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences, too serious.”

Delay? Denial? He’s talking about Rodney!

I wholeheartedly endorse Morgan’s campaign. Write a letter or send an email to Key (details of how on the site), politely urging action. Join the Facebook group. I’m going to write to Key, Nick Smith and my constituency MP, Colin King. I hope they’ll listen.

But I’m not holding my breath.

PS: Russell Brown covers the ACT denial deal in detail here. Worth a read (h/t Carol).

PPS: Jeanette Fitzsimons has a punchy post on Key’s options over at Frogblog.

Two worlds collide

On the one hand, we have Brian Fallow in the Herald providing a cogent analysis of the new government’s decision to do a deal with ACT and put a carbon tax back on the table:

In any case it represents further delay and uncertainty to follow the three years wasted as the previous Government failed to muster the parliamentary numbers for a carbon tax, and the three more as it designed and finally passed an emissions trading scheme. Act’s proposed terms of reference, perhaps deliberately, are a recipe for interminable further delay and uncertainty.

On the other, we have former ACT MP Muriel Newman explaining her thinking in the NBR:

First, the move to pass legislation to delay the implementation of the emissions trading scheme and to repeal the ban on thermal electricity generation is sensible.

Second, while the plan to hold a select committee inquiry is a good step in the right direction, it is crucial that it allows the opportunity for a wider debate on the scientific evidence in support of, or against, the existence of anthropogenic global warming. The review must also, as a priority, hold a proper investigation in the way that the Kyoto Protocol deals with agriculture.

Continue reading “Two worlds collide”

Tide in, mind out

homer.jpg No surprise: the NZ climate crank coalition has rushed to support the ACT/National review of climate policy. Rear-admiral Jack Welch issued a press release on Sunday welcoming the coalition deal, and ACT’s demand that the science of climate be reviewed:

We are confident that once the Select Committee has an opportunity to hear all sides of the scientific debate on the man-made global warming hypothesis, it will conclude that climate variation is natural and cyclical and does not justify the costs and restrictions on human activity which have been proposed on the basis of computer projections rather than what meteorological observations and the earth’s history have demonstrated over the centuries.

So this committee of parliamentarians is going to judge the work of the entire climate science community and decide that it’s wrong? Wishful thinking (I hope). But it gets better:

Admiral Welch said qualified coalition members look forward to assisting the Select Committee and to serving on the proposed advisory group of government officials and private sector experts.

Allow me to point out the obvious. The NZ CSC has no members “qualified” to assist the select committee, and if any of them get anywhere near any “advisory group”, New Zealand will be going to hell in a handbasket.

Time for the NZ scientific community to make it clear to Nick Smith and National that the starting point for any review of climate policy has to be an acceptance of the IPCC’s Fourth Report, and the NZ Royal Society’s statement issued earlier this year. Anything else would be like appointing Ken Ring to run MetService.

[Title reference]

Stop! In the name of ACT

NZETS.jpg The uncertainty created by the shelving of the current emissions trading scheme legislation is already having a significant impact on the New Zealand economy. Carbon News reports that one of the world’s leading players in the carbon market had planned to announce today that it was to open an NZ operation, but that as a result of the National/ACT deal, those plans have been put on hold. NZ’s international reputation in carbon markets is “taking a battering” according to TZ1 boss Mark Franklin, and the market for NZ emissions units (NZUs) is now “effectively dead”, CN reports.

The forestry sector is also feeling the impact of Key’s decision to cave in to Hide, with Roger Dickie of the Kyoto Forestry Association telling Morning Report yesterday that a major forestry project worth hundreds of millions of dollars has been cancelled as a result of the ETS decision (stream, mp3). Also worth a listen: Rod Oram on Nine To Noon today, assessing the new cabinet (stream, mp3). Nick Smith, the incoming minister with responisbility the environment and climate change portfolios apparently still believes (according to Oram) that a modified ETS can be up and running by 2010, but the “special” select committee process is going to make that very hard to achieve – especially if consideration of a carbon tax is included in the final terms of reference. Brian Fallow in the Herald believes an ETS is “most likely“, but in the meantime the uncertainty created by the new government is doing no-one except the big “do nothing” emitters any favours.

To avoid further damage to our international credibility, National should immediately issue revised terms of reference and a tight timetable for their “special” select committee: taking out all references to considering the science of climate change and the possibility of a carbon tax, and explicitly limit the committee to considering amendments to the ETS framework. To do less (or nothing) will do further damage to business in NZ and our international reputation.

[Title reference]