Written By: - Date published: 11:43 am, August 20th, 2008 - 50 comments
Categories: climate change, flip-flop, national -
Tags: Kyoto, trust
John Key called us to task in his interview with Wammo today:
“every leftwing blogger out there has a field-day going on and on about the fact that Labour say I said climate change is a hoax…they should just get their facts right down at The Standard because the facts are I said ‘Kyoto is a hoax’”.*
OK, fair enough. The full quote in question is:
“This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem”
(Hansard 10 May 2005, the online database isn’t working today)
So, Kyoto (the product of a decade of negotiations by tens of thousands of diplomats representing nearly 200 countries backed by the largest independent scientific body ever, the IPCC, and signed by nearly 200 governments) is a hoax and climate change may be some kind of a con, something that one needs to be ‘somewhat suspicious of’ and ‘we are not even sure is a problem’. Key was not the only senior Nat who thought this way (English, L Smith, Williamson, Carter, Hayes, Connell). They’ve publicly flip-flopped on climate change now, but who knows what they really believe?
Sorry, John. In future, we’ll endeavour to quote you in full.
[*Key then goes on to confirm that he believes Kyoto is a hoax, raising obvious questions about his party's commitment to meeting our Kyoto obligations.]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Funny eh.. I think that JK has forgotten how immediate this medium is.
Bit of a pain about Hansard being off line. I’d better keep an eye on my loading for the next couple of days.
Must admit to being a bit out of touch on this but my impression is that our obligations under the Kyoto protocol will cost the country around $500 million a year.
Where does this money go ?
I’m not sure that the Nat’s have flip flopped on this one.
At first they were suspicious about the reality of the problem and suggested a prudent course of action.
Political and scientific concensus then built around the facts of the issue and they moved their policy to reflect this.
This is fine example of good Governence in my opinion.
What you dont want is those in charge of the country flying head first into potentially disasterous policy armed with only a sketchy understanding of the facts and a few heart warming platitudes.
no, it’ $500 mil all up over 5 years on projections.
Kyoto works like this:
we pledged that our greenhouse annual emissions averaged over 2008-2012 would be equal to our emissions in 1990. Most countries pledged a reduction on 1990 levels.
Now, we are legally bound to meet that obligation, if a country doesn’t reduce meet its pledge it must reduce emissions even more in the next five years. But if another country has reduced its emissions more than it pledged it would the country that has ailed to meet its target can buy some of the excess savings of the other country off them to make up the difference.
Partly because Unitedfuture and nzf reused to support the carbon tax way back in 2005, we are not going to meet our emissions target, so we will buy ‘carbon credits’ from other countries that have done better than they need to have done… the EU and the former communist bloc will probably be the ones we buy from because they’re had the biggest reductions in emissions (the EU thanks to strong climate change poliocies including an emissions trading system that have been in place for several years aleady, the former communist bloc thanks to the collapse its of dirty heavy industry post 1991). Our bill will depend on how much we exceed our pledge by and the international carbon credit market.
If you think we should withdraw from Kyoto you should vote ACT or challenge National to change its policy bak to its former climate change denier stance.
Crank. problem with that theory is there has been no tipping point on the science in recent years – the evidence has been solid for decades.. it was solid enough in 1991 that nearly 200 countries signed the framework convention in climate change… the Nats just had their heads in the sand and now that has become politically unviable.
Also, they have never suggested any course of action apart from doing nothing.
Crank: Except the scientific consensus of it all has been settled (at least, as settled as it is now) for years – the 2007 IPCC report essentially just confirmed the findings of earlier reports.
There were and still are a vocal minority of climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC, and they’re entitled to have their views heard. But the major change since 2005, when Key made this statement, isn’t in science – it’s in public perception. 2006, the year of An Inconvenient Truth, was the year Climate Change became mainstream common-sense truth. I agree it’s good that Key and National appear to have changed their tune on this one, but I don’t think they’ve done it because of science – they’ve done it because of the weight of public opinion.
Edit: SP – what you said.
L
Slight detour – if someone in my office uses polystyrene disposable cups instead of a mug, or glass…what should I do? I find it appalling.
close your eyes and think of mother england
Vaguely tangential, but I notice the latest Lonely Planet guide gives eco ratings for attractions. I also saw in a paper article that NZ is encountering increasing difficulties due to carbon miles and needs to be able to counter with total carbon cost figures.
If those two factors aren’t a good enough reason to be Global Leaders instead of Fast Followers in the carbon/eco movement then nothing is. You’d hope even the Nats can bow to that type of pragmatism, but I doubt it – the measures required aren’t their style.
Unfortunately there’s little option. If an environmental standard (e.g. offsetting agricultural emissions, or ensuring a standard for tourist attractions) is regulated for, then all businesses wear the cost equally. If not, then a few might regulate, but our exporting and tourism industries are increasingly judged as a whole. Either NZ is all-green, or it’s going to suffer some nasty consequences.
National is too weak-willed and shortsighted to deal with this issue. Even Labour seem to need a few prods.
Cap ‘coolness location’ no use if no one wants to come here or buy our stuff!
NZ was told originally by the Government that our participation in Kyoto would net us a handy half bill.
It now turns out that we will have to cough up half a bill.
To me this indicates that we didn’t really have a full handle on what our commitments were (or it was a snow job on the public).
It is scarry that the same officials who messed up those numbers probably have had a huge hand in drafting the ETS.
So Lew, just to clarify…
Public perception manipulated by National with untruths, bland platitudes and lies – bad.
Public perception manipulated by Al Gore with untruths, bland platitudes and lies – ok.
Does that sum it up?
[don't be a dork, phil. lew passes no judgment on Gore, he just says his move changed public perceptions. SP]
“Public perception manipulated by Al Gore with untruths, bland platitudes and lies – ok.”
Recent Court decision in UK was critical of some parts of Inconvenient Truth. Still, the basic message about global warming being human influenced stands?
Phil: Nice try with the partisan smear. Where did I say An Inconvenient Truth was good, or that National was bad? All I said (and you’re welcome to debate this) is that it dispelled the public’s doubts about climate change, making it accepted orthodoxy for most people, rather than simply for most climate scientists.
I’m not a climate change expert, and as such I have to put some faith in the preponderance of expert opinion on this matter – the body representing that preponderance of opinion is the IPCC. As for AIT, it is indeed an excellent example of modern crisis propaganda – but for all its faults it does broadly accord with the IPCC’s findings.
I think it’s good that Key and National have changed their tune on climate change because their views and policy now appear to correspond more closely to those of the IPCC, and I don’t much care whether they changed those views because of science or because of public perception. However I think it’s disingenuous to suggest that they changed for the former reason, as Crank did, and furthermore I think that if they did change strictly as a response to public perception, it suggests they’re taking orthodox climate change policy on somewhat reluctantly, rather than wholeheartedly as they claim.
L
Not really – the concensus has been there for a long time. When I did an earth sciences degree in 1979-1981 the scientific basis of global warming was well understood then. It was what everyone in the field expected to be happening from the physical theory.
The problem was that we couldn’t see it easily because the measurement history wasn’t there. So concensus was limited by the measurements.
You (as a bare minimum) need at least 25 years of accurate data scattered across the globe to be able to iron out the localised effects (eg ocean current buffering), cyclic effects (sunspots etc), and local human effects (amazing how much air pollution is generated and how it spreads), etc etc.
Where temperatures were measured was spotty. Essentially until geophysical year in 1957, there was no systematic ground level air-temperature gathering on a world wide basis. Almost all of it was in the northern hemisphere where the human inhabitation effects were most pronounced.
That is why you had some populist idiots talking about measuring the coming ice age in the 70′s. They looked at their local temperature records in europe and north america, and discovered that pollution drops ground temperatures (duh!). I still hear that scientific idiocy trotted out whenever this topic arises.
Upper atmosphere temperatures were patchy at best prior to 1957. Water temperatures (ie liquid atmosphere) were only available from occasional scientific surveys.
Essentially, it was only after earth survey satellites went up from the late 70′s onwards that we’ve been able to get a broad look. Similarly computers going widespread means that everything collects data.
It proved that the effect was real at least by the late 80′s when used in conjunction with the spotty earlier data. Since then they have been refining the models against real data.
The only thing I’m sure of is that the IPCC is still way too conservative. The effects will be sooner and larger than expected. Why – because the IPCC keeps heading that way.
Isnt it funny how the Aussies are on to it quicker than a lot of Kiwis. They see Helen as a left wing control Freak. I wonder if Crosby Textor organised this press release very clever if they did
http://stuff.co.nz/4662937a6160.html
[lprent: Hey he can link... Now if he could just stay somewhere close to topic. ]
“A CONTROL FREAK” now Peter,very carefully think, how many times has she tried to have you arrested? Well SIR………..
i’ve written briefing papers like that and read many more – they are always out of date (and this one appears to have actually been written years ago) and they are always cartoonish in their understanding of the country’s politics… so, ‘it’s true because an old dfat breifing paper says so’ doesn’t impress me.
The good ol’ ocker put the boot into the CONTROL FREAK.
Made my bloody day.Cheers dingo.
SP: Rob’s nowhere near the actual topic, per usual.
L
Labelling a Prime Minister as a CONTROL FREAK is WORLD NEWS of the highest order Lew.Sorry I will say no more on the matter until the flame thrower brigade back off a bit.
dad, the breifing paper doen’t even say that, even if a dfat briefing paper mattered, which it doesn’t
Clinton, I will wait with much anticipation to see what the other media make of this story.Pigs can fly too.
D4J: it is? All top politicians are by their very nature control freaks, highly-strung egotistical attention-seeking megalomaniacs. Clark isn’t exceptional in this regard.
L
dad. i’m sure the media will be as excited as you because they know nothing about what a briefing paper is either.
What a surprise, Rob has come in with another one of his inane and pointless comments. He really is like an annoying little puppy – off he goes, and he always comes back, panting with exitement over the latest wee find he has. It would be kind of cute, in a pathetic way, if it wasn’t such a lame way of proving he has no ability to discuss what the adults are talking about on each thread…
P.S. you think you have to be onto it to see that Helen Clark is left-wing? You’re more of a muppet than I thought. Wait, I take that back, let’s just say that you continue to meet my expectations.
Steve agree and yes I can link but it seems the timing is exquisite so it must be Crosby Textor
Im sure Helen really doesnt want this in the Media at the moment
Yes Rob I’m sure she really cares. Just as we all do. Really. Please start a blog and put these same comments you bore us to tears with on it and you’ll get…well, who knows, but you won’t know till ya try right?
Steve re kyoto
Firstly it’s a political document. It;s not the only way to deal with emissions so opposing it is not of the heresy levels that being a ‘denier’ is.
How many of those 200 countries actually have obligations under teh first commitment period? Wouldn’t you sign up to something that made someone else pay the bill?
And that is the context of the ‘hoax’ comment. That Kyoto is regarded by some/many as an ineffectual policy tool to reduce emissions because it only targets some emissions – putting aside the reality that most countries don;t even appear to be getting close to their targets and are busy trying to shift the goal posts.
The thing we generally espouse as being a strength of
ClarkesClarks is her performance in global affairs.It is interesting to see that our closest ally thinks her foreign policy agenda was fixed during the Vietnam war.
maybe she is not the legend abroad we are told.
Edit: Why am I in moderation?
[lprent: Get the name right. I have a number of common misspellings in the moderation. I got sick of having my name misspelt. Then I realised that the trolls do it all of the time. If they want to avoid moderation, then they have to lift their Standard. ]
Kind of reminds me of when Jaqui Dean called me a “left wing blogger” on national radio..
Considering that the someone else incurred the bill in the first place then it seems reasonable to me.
Insider, saying Kyoto is a complete and utter hoax means that Key believes it will do nothing useful whatsoever and is taking everyone for a ride.
To say what Key said therefore inherently makes him a ‘denier’, there is no other way of looking at it. “Complete and utter” leaves no wiggle room whatsoever. Nothing about the effectiveness or limitations of its setup, it is saying reducing carbon emissions is a worthless activity.
My, how he’s changed his tune. Problem is, if he doesn’t really believe it (which , let’s be honest, he doesn’t) then he’s certainly going to go for a lame ‘fast follower’ at best.
Lift the standard and join the Kyoto gravy train.Do enjoy Al Bore stoking the boilers. What a croc of madness.Shall I plant a pine tree or pull it big Al?
Plant a pine tree Dad. We should all plant trees.
But they rip pine trees out so cows can shit. I need a mortgage to buy a block of fucking cheese and I am livid !!!