NZ doing more harm than good on climate change

Written By: - Date published: 8:42 am, September 26th, 2015 - 47 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, International - Tags: , , , ,

How crap is it that we have come to this:

Key told not to attend Paris and to pull NZ delegation
Friday, 25 September 2015, 10:01 am
Press Release: Greenpeace

A coalition of environmental organisations (1), is calling for John Key not to attend the upcoming Paris climate summit, and to pull Tim Groser and the entire New Zealand delegation from the two weeks of talks.

“New Zealand is proving one of the biggest blocks to a meaningful global deal in December. In the interests of a successful outcome and for the good of the climate, we’re asking that our delegation not go,” said Greenpeace climate campaigner Steve Abel.

A letter from the group has gone to the Prime Minister today. (2)

As well as having one of the weakest climate action plans and one of the poorest emission reduction records of the developed nations who’ll be in Paris (3), the New Zealand delegation also wants countries’ emission targets to be non-binding under any agreement, meaning governments could walk away from their targets at any time.

“The world’s ability to manage climate change rests on these targets; they must legally oblige governments to reduce emissions. To call for them to be non-binding is to admit defeat from the outset,” said Niamh O’Flynn from 350 Aotearoa.

“Tim Groser and our delegation’s remit will be to prevent a Paris agreement that commits New Zealand to more climate action,” said Cindy Baxter of Coal Action Network Aotearoa. “They’ll be doing everything they can to bring everyone down to New Zealand’s level, in which case the world will be heading for at least 3-4 degrees of warming.”

International analysis has found New Zealand’s pledge to reduce emissions by 11% by 2030 on 1990 levels to be “inadequate” and key elements of the policy little more than “creative accounting”. (4) The analysis says in reality, New Zealand’s emissions are set to be 11% above 1990 levels by 2030.

“Every head of state, delegate, civic leader, civil servant, NGO representative, man and woman at the December summit should have only one objective in mind – to reach a meaningful global deal that keeps our children and grandchildren safe,” said Steve Abel of Greenpeace.

“New Zealand’s position won’t get us where we need to go; in fact it will drag us in the wrong direction. Our Government has shown neither the courage or fortitude required in Paris. It is not up to the task.

“It would be better for humanity if John Key were to stay home, and instruct Minister Groser and the delegation to do likewise.”

ENDS

1. 350 Aotearoa, Coal Action Network Aotearoa and Greenpeace

2. http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/Global/new-zealand/P3/publications/PrimeMinisterParisSept2015pdf.pdf

3. http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/briefing_papers/NZ_INDC_Assessment_July_2015.pdf

4. http://climateactiontracker.org/news/215/New-Zealand-deploys-creative-accounting-to-allow-emissions-to-rise-.html

47 comments on “NZ doing more harm than good on climate change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Paul 1
    26 September 2015 at 8:49 am

    I am disgusted by this wretched government. They shame this country.

    And I am even more disgusted by the million people who voted for their selfish and greedy desires rather than putting other people and the planet first.

    Manny New Zealanders have the government they deserve.

    • Smilin 1.1
      26 September 2015 at 9:40 pm

      So true but short of a nation wide all out effort to support Greenpeace in the same vein as the Springbok tour protests we are doomed until 2017

  2. savenz 2
    26 September 2015 at 8:57 am

    +100

    I don’t blame voters though, I first blame the government for their disgusting evil behaviour and treason to Kiwis in their sell off to consumerism and the oil and transport industry etc, and then I blame the opposition who are not doing enough effectively to stop this government, by repeatedly falling into traps to endorse this governments disgusting behaviour and NOT engaging with real public in protest marches and feet on the street to stop them and trying to actually work in opposition in a meaningful way.

    (ok Northland showed the opposition can do it, not only that, be successful, but they need to have a real strategy and look at what works not keep repeating what does not work).

    • savenz 2.1
      26 September 2015 at 8:59 am

      And thirdly I blame MSM for their blatant electioneering and continual negative reporting of opposition and constant reporting of trivia and non reporting of real facts .

    • Paul 2.2
      26 September 2015 at 9:05 am

      There are too many New Zealanders who put their greed above the needs of others.

      Anyone who voted for this government has no excuse. They would prefer to vote for a government because it ensures their house prices go up rather than care about the poor and vulnerable in their own country.

      They are wilfully uninformed. They would prefer to distract themselves with rugby, celebrities and forms of entertainment rather than be informed about the state of the planet.

      They have a responsibility to their grandchildren and beyond to pass on a planet fit to live on.

      I do not feel the same charity to them.

      They are grown adults.

      • Macro 2.2.1
        26 September 2015 at 11:52 am

        Well said Paul – I have no empathy for those who continue to support the parties of Greed over poverty.

  3. BM 3
    26 September 2015 at 9:12 am

    You won’t see any politician apart from the greens standing up and saying anything.

    Why do you think that is.

    • Paul 3.1
      26 September 2015 at 9:15 am

      Because the zeitgeist in our society is driven by short term consumerism.
      Most people ( you included?) have been trained to think in a certain way that makes them put consumerism as a good thing.
      Politicians also operate on this short term cycle.
      The financial markets work on this cycle.

      We need to change our zeitgeist.
      Or we are stuffed.

      • BM 3.1.1
        26 September 2015 at 9:27 am

        Nothing is going to change, until water starts lapping at the door then people will see the problem and steps will be taken to sort the problem.
        Sure, it might be too late or we’ll just adapt to our changing world, like humans always have.

        This is the way it will be, there’s nothing anyone person,organization or political party can do about it.

        • marty mars 3.1.1.1
          26 September 2015 at 9:36 am

          why do you keep commenting on the various posts around this issue then – why not just keep your mouth shut and let others talk/discuss the issues as they wish to – I think you are just a dim blowhard with limited cognitive capacity and even less understanding – a typical rightie in other words – your thoughts are worth less than nothing as you’ve shown with your comments above.

        • Paul 3.1.1.2
          26 September 2015 at 9:42 am

          Your comment ‘we’ll just adapt to our changing world, like humans always have’ shows how woefully uninformed you are about the scale of the problem.

          And it would appear you have clearly set out opinions, despite a lack of background reading on the subject.

          This is the greatest problem humanity has ever faced. And you are part of the problem with your ‘there’s nothing we can do about it’ approach. Like John Key and Tim Groser, you are an obstacle to solving the problem. They should refrain from going to Paris. You could refrain from debating the issue.

    • Heather Grimwood 3.2
      26 September 2015 at 1:10 pm

      Sorry BM. (3)…you need to become more informed before you spread noxious catchphrases

  4. savenz 4
    26 September 2015 at 9:34 am

    I agree more and more people are getting greedy but by blaming the voters it is self defeating as it is letting off the enablers who did a bad job, like the opposition and the MSM who are controlling this message. Not every voter has a massive IQ and can see past the Pandas, all blacks and how incompetent the MSM says the opposition are and this rock star economy we are having. Can you blame people for being stupid and therefore able to be manipulated or should you blame the manipulators?

    I particularly hated what the opposition did to the Internet Mana party last election. Instead of concentrating on winning against National they instead wasted energy by picking off fledglings who believe in social equality and helping the most needy. Against took away more important message of what a terrible job the Natz were doing!

    The real worry for many is if we replace National are we going to get National Lite? Red Peak instead of Silver Fern?

    While it might seem selfish for people to worry about their property, clearly having a roof over your head is pretty important to many and going back to the 1980’s high interest rates, negative equity etc is a scary thought for many. The left wing rants against property owners is counter productive.

    In NZ both Maori and Pakeha have an affinity for property and land – it is part of the culture here, and telling Maori are greedy for having land etc – I just think the opposition and others need to understand that blaming property and land owners for being greedy is just another way for National to get more votes. Owning land and property does not mean you agree with the Natz far from it, many want everything the Greens stand for, clean environment, climate change controls etc and Labour more jobs etc – but the opposition need to get over pet peeves about property owners and concentrate on less negative messages. It is not the Kiwis buying up the property – we have a massive influx of immigration that need to be housed and have a lot of money from real wages overseas!

    Corbyn is popular because he is the real deal. But do we have the equivalent?

    • Paul 4.1
      26 September 2015 at 9:45 am

      A lot of people choose to ignore the issues.
      You are far too generous to those property owners who buy rentals.
      Politicians reflect the selfishness of society.

      • savenz 4.1.1
        26 September 2015 at 10:03 am

        My personal view is that the 1970’s when both parents started to go our to work and therefore put their kids into daycare has contributed to the idea that ‘money’ from ‘wages’ is more important than social and family relations to the subsequent generations.

        Studies have shown that Romanian orphans kept in institutions can never develop love and empathy after 2 years if they have proper love and care withheld.

        While I don’t wan’t to imply that is what can happen in daycare (but the Natz have reduced the quality of daycare providers – to meet the market) – I would love to see parents being supported to look after their own kids for at least 3 years – that is when kids develop empathy and so forth.

        Kids need to be more valued in this country and teaching them about ‘real’ things not ‘consumer’ things is very important. Remember the child benefit for all parents etc.

        Now, kids are considered to be expensive burdens on the country that immigration can fulfil. A bit like the environment. Just something meaningless to be exploited.

        Greed can be a way for people who have had real values like love and affection withheld, to be coping.

        But I think in NZ, property and land comes from the Maori and has a special place in Kiwi’s hearts. It is not a voter winner to meddle with and not a good message to equate property with greed.

        • RedLogix 4.1.1.1
          26 September 2015 at 1:32 pm

          Studies have shown that Romanian orphans kept in institutions can never develop love and empathy after 2 years if they have proper love and care withheld.

          Yup. The first and critical step in growing decent, capable human beings. There is SO much more we could being doing.

          Our grossly materialistic society only measures education in purely vocational and peripheral terms, and for this reason misses the core and essential aspects.

  5. savenz 5
    26 September 2015 at 10:13 am

    Greed to me is intensive farming like pig farming, exploiting an animals suffering to save money or privatisation of water and power and state housing, with holding medicine or spending money on roads instead of public transport.

    Not doing our duty by reducing climate change.

    Taking away funding from climate change and giving scientist grants of nearly 10 million to oil companies.

    Someone, having a rental property so that someone can rent it, does not seem to be greedy and inducing suffering at all. It just seems like a normal service that people need. I think it is part of the Natz plan to blame landlords to deflect blame on where it should be going.

    Greed is selling off State houses for no reason or exploiting tenants in state houses by not maintaining them but giving the money out in dividends and all the other greedy things they are doing.

    • Paul 5.1
      26 September 2015 at 10:16 am

      And if you vote for a government that supports all this, then you are wilfully ignorant or as selfish as the government you voted for.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.2
      26 September 2015 at 12:43 pm

      Someone, having a rental property so that someone can rent it, does not seem to be greedy and inducing suffering at all.

      Except for the fact that it is greedy and does induce suffering.

      It just seems like a normal service that people need.

      Which is why all housing should be state owned with the tenants paying a small amount each week to cover maintenance. Everyone would have a home and everyone would be better off – except the bludgers presently known as landlords.

      • weka 5.2.1
        26 September 2015 at 1:46 pm

        Except I don’t want the National Party dictating the conditions under which I live. There is much that can be done to address inequity, but the state aren’t necessarily more trustworthy than private owners. It’s a nice idea in theory, but in reality I suspect we would swap one set of problems for another.

        Me and people I know have lived in some houses that would be considered by the state to be substandard and I doubt that were they nationalised that the state would improve them, they’d knock them down instead. Not only is that anti-sustainability, but it would remove many houses in areas where housing would never be replaced. Fine if you consider housing to be a utilitarian need, not fine if you consider homes and communities and relationship to the land to be important.

        The innovation that comes out of the owner/builder community in NZ would also be lost if the state were in control of that (although there’s probably no reason why people couldn’t build those houses and sell them to the state).

        • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1
          26 September 2015 at 2:12 pm

          Except I don’t want the National Party dictating the conditions under which I live.

          Which is why we would set it up so that they can’t. In fact, one of the things I’ve come to realise over the years is that we need to limit what our governments can do.

          There is much that can be done to address inequity

          And getting rid of private ownership of housing is actually one of those things that needs to be done. It is this private ownership that drives the rentier capitalism that we have today that is driving up inequality, increasing poverty and even driving the FTAs.

          Me and people I know have lived in some houses that would be considered by the state to be substandard and I doubt that were they nationalised that the state would improve them, they’d knock them down instead.

          If they’re as bad as you say then the only real option is to knock them down. Doesn’t matter who owns them.

          The innovation that comes out of the owner/builder community in NZ would also be lost

          Can’t say that I’ve ever seen any innovation by owner/builders and I’ve known a few. Seen them do some really silly things that required a builder to fix though.

          Owner/builder’s aren’t really the place to develop innovation. Much better to have a forum where ideas can be discussed, developed and finally prototyped and then made available to the community. Such a place would be the Learning Centres that I mentioned a couple of years ago.

    • Paul 5.3
      26 September 2015 at 1:29 pm

      People need housing.
      They do not need private housing.
      The result is clear.
      Overpriced, cold, mouldy accommodation for the poor and vulnerable.

      Sorry …you may want to deny it, but New Zealand contains a lot of selfish people who have bought the neoliberal mantra. And they know it a nightmare for others. And they don’t care. These are the people Key calls aspirational.
      Key and his cadre could not have been reelected otherwise.
      Selfish governments are elected by selfish people.

      • RedLogix 5.3.1
        26 September 2015 at 1:35 pm

        You both misidentify the problem.

        I (and many other landlords as well) take pride in providing safe, warm and well-maintained rentals.

        Some people do not.

        The difference is not the nature of the rental business, but the character of the people.

        • Paul 5.3.1.1
          26 September 2015 at 1:38 pm

          You may be a good landlord.
          However, the system rewards bad landlords.
          The government knows this.
          And bad landlords know this.
          So do the selfish voters who support this crony capitalist government.

          • RedLogix 5.3.1.1.1
            26 September 2015 at 1:46 pm

            And on that point I 100% agree.

            I’d be the first person to welcome greatly improved standards and a substantial reform of the legislation. The legal and cultural context of residential renting in this country is grossly substandard.

            Even the Australians generally are better at it than we are.

            • weka 5.3.1.1.1.1
              26 September 2015 at 1:47 pm

              +1

              We know that the state is currently a pretty crap landlord. Why would we want them to own all the houses in NZ?

              • Paul …
                26 September 2015 at 1:51 pm

                The state is a bad landlord because the governments of NZ have followed neoliberal ideology for 30 years.
                A socialist or social democratic government would provide safe warm affordable housing. Look at how Germany operates.

                • weka …
                  26 September 2015 at 1:56 pm

                  Nevertheless, unless you want to overthrow the government and force it to be socialist 😉 there is no way in NZ presently to prevent the state from being a crap landlord.

                  I don’t mind that I pay rent. I do mind that I pay rent to someone who is paying off a mortgage that is excessive and only exists because of greed. But the basic idea of me paying someone else to let me live in their home, I don’t have a problem with that.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    26 September 2015 at 2:19 pm

                    But the basic idea of me paying someone else to let me live in their home, I don’t have a problem with that.

                    I do as it means that they’re living on the work of someone else and getting more out of it than the someone else. Capitalists happen to be the biggest bludgers ever.

                    • weka …
                      26 September 2015 at 3:14 pm

                      Obviously that’s true in some situations, but not others. The people I rent off built this house themselves. They borrowed money to do that. I’m paying that back for them for a while in exchange for having a nice place to live. It’s fair in this situation (although as mentioned, the mortgage/rent/land value thing isn’t).

                      Possibly part of my view on this relates to the fact that while I do contribute to society, I’m not in paid employment. The government pays my income. It’s all just money going around. Which leaves unfairness in the landlords acruing wealth once the mortgate is paid off (and the problem of the banksters) and the subsequent inequtity that creates acros society, but I think there are other ways of resolving that other than making the government my landlord instead.

        • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.2
          26 September 2015 at 2:17 pm

          The difference is not the nature of the rental business, but the character of the people.

          Actually, it’s the basic nature of business and capitalism. You may be a good person but that doesn’t mean that the next person will be. Hell, even if a majority of landlords are good there’s still going to be the arseholes that take and don’t give a fuck.

          This is, of course, why we got rid of feudalism and why we now need to be getting rid of capitalism. Both sets of private ownership and dictatorship have more downsides than good.

          • weka 5.3.1.2.1
            26 September 2015 at 3:28 pm

            why stop at land ownership? Should everything belong to the state?

            • Draco T Bastard 5.3.1.2.1.1
              26 September 2015 at 7:01 pm

              Ah, the RWNJ argument by exclaiming about extremes.

              The two things that should not be privately owned are land and businesses and the businesses shouldn’t be owned by the government either. I’m starting to think that there’s a good argument for cars not to be privately owned as well.

  6. infused 6
    26 September 2015 at 10:29 am

    yawn Greenpeace.

    I’m sure JK will be right on it.

  7. maui 7
    26 September 2015 at 12:00 pm

    There isn’t much to be proud of as a New Zealander right now. Unless you’re a non flag waving rugby fanatic. It probably would be better if John Key decided not to go to work on monday and all the days thereafter, we might be able to get shit done. The suggestion to also replace our finance minister with a rubber chicken is particularly visionary. It would put us back in surplus faster and we would see an end to the destructive economics.

    • savenz 7.1
      26 September 2015 at 12:59 pm

      Replace our finance minister with a rubber chicken is particularly visionary.

      Love it! Someone do a graphic!

      • maui 7.1.1
        26 September 2015 at 1:03 pm

        Credit to Stuart Munro. He has full rights on said chicken.

      • Smilin 7.1.2
        26 September 2015 at 9:49 pm

        or toxic nano particles in our food causing our brains not to function properly when faced with the vision of the National party ,
        Granny’s day room everything is just lovely but we’ve got to sell it when she goes.
        NZ after all the pretty pictures are used up and Nationalcorp cant think up new bs to pull over our eyes

  8. Draco T Bastard 8
    26 September 2015 at 1:19 pm

    This explains Nationals actions perfectly.

  9. Poission 9
    26 September 2015 at 1:45 pm

    As well as having one of the weakest climate action plans and one of the poorest emission reduction records of the developed nations who’ll be in Paris

    Well we could emulate europes and the UK labour gvts disasters for a quick fix viz a viz Kyoto.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/22/the-rise-diesel-in-europe-impact-on-health-pollution

    http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article1511239.ece?shareToken=a0604f4f15724c64bf94ff6c3ad6d00f