New Govt Down On Climate Change

John Key’s new National govt hasn’t even been sworn in and already the signs are bad for one of the most crucial policy areas. In the agreement with pseudo-Libertarians ACT Key and co. have agreed to put climate change responses on the table. For over a decade climate change legislation has been painfully ground out in the face of massive opposition from the Nats and ACT, and now that the Emissions Trading Scheme is finally in place they have committed to stalling it and reviewing it.
The ETS isn’t perfect, of course, but we can’t afford to start the process of building new climate change regulation from scratch. We need to get moving on this – not just for the sake of the environment, but as the world readies itself for post-Kyoto economics we’ll get seriously stung if we’re left behind. It’s the ideology tail wagging the pragmatic dog, here.
Most frustrating thing: ACT has put forward in its proposed select committee terms of reference that the scientific basis of climate change will itself be reviewed. Unsurprising from a party in the thrall of crank science and climate change denial, but it appeals to the same tendencies lurking beneath the surface throughout the National party. The idea of a select committee in the halls of government giving a platform for the shouting madmen of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition fills me with dismay.
This could all go very badly for New Zealand.

10 thoughts on “New Govt Down On Climate Change”

  2. No way. Seriously….no.
    After so many people assured me that a Nat/Act govt wouldn’t be that bad…if this goes through I am throwing my toys. Right out of the country. I’ll move to Raro to be with my sister…while it’s still above sea level anyway.

  3. Note the “internationally respected science” qualifiers though, that might easily send the wackos back into their holes. Or more likely howling outside the door and complaining that they are respected… they have written a paper to prove it.

  4. Oh my god, that’s even worse than I expected.
    I love this part:
    “If a rigorous select committee inquiry establishes a credible case that New Zealanders would benefit from action by New Zealand, in conjunction with other countries that are important to us, ACT would be prepared to support legislation giving effect to such action.”
    So if they decide, for example, that action by New Zealand would not be significant in itself because we are a small country, they would not support it. Such an argument would be easy to mount, and would not have to be proven but just spun in a way that made it sound “reasonable”.
    Never mind that almost twice as many people voted Green as Act, and that it’d pretty safe to say that EVERYONE who voted Green thinks climate change is an issue.
    Quite frankly the simple fact that so many people were willing to vote for what’s basically a one-issue party, should send a powerful message. But because it’s really just about who gets to be King on the day, National/Act can happily ignore those people because they’ll probably never get their votes anyway.

  5. Does New Zealand only have itself to blame for this?
    Aside from the fact that the majority of the 79% of kiwis who voted supported the NAT-ACT monster, and the Greens only managed 6.4% (6.4? 6.7?), the much derided Matthew Hooting pointed out on Radio NZ today that the Greens have been in parliament in one form or another for almost 20 years. But New Zealanders seem to fail to vote for them.
    We had a chance to make this right. The Stern report stated that if nothing was done by 2012, it would be too late. How much more incentive did the public need to back policy that is aimed at saving the planet?
    Yes, I despair.
    Right now, I have nothing more constructive to say. Let’s just hope that the Maori party can flex a bit of their newfound muscle to rein this beast in before it kills us all.

  6. “the majority of the 79% of kiwis who voted supported the NAT-ACT monster”
    Plurality. 45.45% + 3.72% < 50%. But the threshold’s disenfranchisement of ~7% of the population has distorted the result to give them a comfortable majority of seats.

  7. Hopefully the commitee will point out that if NZ businesses intend to keep trading on our clean green image, they actually have to pretend they care about the environment? We need to convince them that our overseas markets will be heavily influenced by this kind of bullshit…

  8. Of course there are many better reasons for protecting the environment, but hey, maybe we need to talk their language!! Can we submit something? Start a petition? Idiot/ Morgue?

  9. I think the brand value of our Anti-Nuclear ban is more crucial to keeping that policy than any anti-nuclear argument is likely to, so yeah I agree that pushing the “clean green” brand (which we’re never really lived up to but never mind) might be a good way of sneaking some sane environmental policies in.

Comments are closed.