What should NZ prioritise in international climate change negotiations later this year?

Written By: - Date published: 6:05 am, March 15th, 2018 - 48 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment - Tags: , ,

Details at mfat.govt.nz:

_____________________________________________________________________

Submissions on New Zealand’s priorities in the international climate change negotiations

New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

We’re seeking submissions on New Zealand’s priorities in the international climate change negotiations

The Paris Agreement on climate change was agreed in 2015. Countries that signed up to the Agreement are now negotiating the guidelines for how to put it into practice.

The guidelines are due to be agreed at an important meeting in December 2018 in Poland – the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24). Although the COP24 is not until December, negotiations on the guidelines are already under way.

We would like to hear your views on the outcomes New Zealand should seek in these negotiations to help reach an outcome on the Paris Agreement guidelines that will balance all countries’ needs and priorities.

Below is some background information on some of the negotiating issues that have in the past been of interest to New Zealanders, together with some guiding questions. This does not represent the full range of negotiating issues, which can be viewed on the United Nations Climate Change website here (external link). Submitters are welcome to put forward ideas on all parts of the negotiations.

Public submissions are due by 3 April 2018.

This process is separate to consultation on the Zero Carbon Bill, which the Ministry for the Environment will begin in mid-2018.

Nationally Determined Contributions

Each country that signed up to the Paris Agreement has set a nationally determined contribution (NDC). New Zealand communicated its NDC in 2016. All countries will be required to revisit their NDCs by 2020. NDCs include targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Each country can choose how to reduce its own emissions. NDCs are not legally binding. Countries are currently negotiating over guidance on how they can define and show they are achieving their targets. Clear explanations of targets and clear reporting are essential to hold countries accountable and achieve the long-term temperature goals laid out in the Paris Agreement.

Transparency

The Paris Agreement establishes a comprehensive transparency framework that applies to all countries. The details of how the framework will operate are currently being negotiated. The framework will require countries to report on actions taken to reduce emissions, as well as support for climate action (including financial, technology and capacity building – see below for more on this). Under the framework, countries’ reports will be reviewed by independent teams of experts, and then go through a process to monitor their individual progress.

The transparency framework is an essential part of the Paris Agreement. It will help hold countries accountable to each other for their actions and build confidence that all Parties are implementing their commitments.

Agriculture

Around half of New Zealand’s emissions come from agriculture, which contributes significantly to our economy. New Zealand has an opportunity in the international climate negotiations to encourage emission reductions from agriculture while supporting food security. Through the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (adopted in 2017) and other parts of the negotiations, we can encourage countries to take climate action on agriculture, including by improving the emissions efficiency of agricultural production.

Gender Action Plan

The Paris Agreement calls for countries, when taking climate action, to consider human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations, as well as gender equality and the empowerment of women. To implement this, in 2017 countries agreed on a Gender Action Plan. New Zealand has an opportunity to promote outcomes in the international climate negotiations that encourage and facilitate the participation of women in the process, including in leadership roles.

Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform

A Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform has been established as part of the international negotiations. New Zealand has an opportunity to advocate for how the Platform is structured and what it should focus on to enable indigenous peoples and local communities to exchange knowledge, and encourage countries to respect indigenous rights when they take climate action.

Climate finance

The Paris Agreement anticipates that financial resources will be provided for developing country climate action. New Zealand’s climate-related support is provided via Overseas Development Assistance. New Zealand committed in 2015 to providing NZ$200 million over four years, most of which is benefiting the Pacific.

The Paris Agreement’s transparency framework includes reporting on climate finance that countries provide or receive. The Agreement also anticipates developed country countries providing information on projected future support. The details of this are now being negotiated. New Zealand has an opportunity to help improve predictability and transparency of climate finance flows, consistent with countries’ national systems for tracking and reporting this information.

The Adaptation Fund was established under the Kyoto Protocol. It is important to Pacific Island and other developing countries as it is more easily accessed and better able to finance small projects compared to other climate funds. A decision will be reached this year on how the Fund will work under the Paris Agreement.

Carbon markets

The Paris Agreement recognises that some countries will cooperate to help achieve their NDCs and enable more global action on climate change. This cooperation is likely to occur through linking carbon markets (such as emission trading schemes) and other government-to-government arrangements, or through a new central system. New Zealand has an opportunity to help ensure that units traded in this way have environmental integrity and that cooperation between countries supports global efforts to reduce emissions.

Questions for submitters

  • What outcomes should NZ prioritise in 2018’s international negotiations on the Paris Agreement guidelines?
  • Are there issues we should consider less important than others in this year’s negotiations?
  • What other information or ideas would you like New Zealand officials to consider before this year’s negotiations?

Your feedback will be considered by our negotiators and summarised for Minister for Climate Change, Hon James Shaw. New Zealand’s negotiating mandate will be considered by Cabinet in mid-April ahead of the first negotiating session of 2018 in late April.

How to get in touch

  • Email: feedback@mfat.govt.nz
  • Mail: Coordinator, Climate Change Unit, Environment Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Private Bag 18-901, Wellington

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

48 comments on “What should NZ prioritise in international climate change negotiations later this year? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    15 March 2018 at 6:51 am

    Anyone else going to the James Shaw gig on business and climate change in Auckland tonight?

    • Cinny 1.1
      15 March 2018 at 10:34 am

      Would love to… need to get that teleporter happening 🙂

      Do you know if it’s being streamed please?

  2. bwaghorn 2
    15 March 2018 at 6:58 am

    you had me till the gender, indigenous rights bit , wtf has that to do with climate change.

    • weka 2.1
      15 March 2018 at 3:09 pm

      Would you like climate mitigation to be driven by white men? Oh wait…

      (don’t take it personally b, it’s not a comment on you).

    • Baba Yaga 2.2
      15 March 2018 at 5:51 pm

      Nothing. It’s virtue signalling. A bit like this moronic individual (https://twitter.com/cathmckenna/status/971914130436382721) who tweeted this:

      “We need to consider the gendered impacts of climate change on women, girls and children.”

      What a load of sexist bollocks.

      • bwaghorn 2.2.1
        15 March 2018 at 5:59 pm

        for me it’s just the greens being their usual over the top lets please all our supporters at the risk of turning of joe public with side shows , there really is lots being done in nz around gender and indigenous rights without it having to invade ever corner.

        • weka 2.2.1.1
          15 March 2018 at 7:41 pm

          you do realise that the NZ Green Party doesn’t control the Paris Agreement nor what is on the agenda for negotiations. Did you read the post?

          Also, while I think having the Greens in government, and Shaw as Climate minister, means the Greens will have influence on this (thank-fully), this actually came from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Ministers for that are Winston Peters and David Parker. Hard to see Labour having a problem with the gender and indigenous people’s aspects. Maybe NZF doesn’t support the indigenous people’s bit.

          • bwaghorn 2.2.1.1.1
            16 March 2018 at 8:24 am

            sorry i saw Shaws name and assumed he was running it , it doesn’t change the fact that the gender etc stuff is a side show that will no doubt suck up meeting time that could be better spent .

            • weka 2.2.1.1.1.1
              16 March 2018 at 10:01 am

              Women and children will be disproportionately affected by CC. Likewise indigenous peoples.

              Just as important, women (and children) and indigenous people’s bring perspectives that are sorely needed in addressing the problems of climate change. White men in power have utterly failed to make this a priority so bringing in other perspectives may be the only things that saves us at this point.

      • weka 2.2.2
        15 March 2018 at 7:43 pm

        Nothing. It’s virtue signalling. A bit like this moronic individual (https://twitter.com/cathmckenna/status/971914130436382721) who tweeted this:

        “We need to consider the gendered impacts of climate change on women, girls and children.”

        What a load of sexist bollocks.

        yes, I’m sure you would prefer the white dudes to stay in power and continue to destroy the planet. Throw all the virtue signally pejoratives around that you like (although I think you don’t understand what that actually is), but the only way this would be sexist was if women held the institutional power and were stopping men from accessing it.

        • bwaghorn 2.2.2.1
          16 March 2018 at 8:26 am

          you do understand that us white guys have only fucked about a third of the planet , there’s asian guys , africain guys and an arab chap or two that have burnt oil and made plastic stuff

          • weka 2.2.2.1.1
            16 March 2018 at 9:59 am

            Yes, but that’s not what I am talking about. When I talk about white guys fucking up the planet I am really talking about the power imbalances. So the West has led the way, and we live in a country where the white dudes hold the power and too many of them don’t want to share it.

            But sure, if you want to also look at the power imbalances in nob-western countries that are also fucking up the planet, that would be a great conversation assuming we could do it from an informed place.

        • Baba Yaga 2.2.2.2
          16 March 2018 at 9:33 am

          “yes, I’m sure you would prefer the white dudes to stay in power and continue to destroy the planet.”
          White dudes? Like Angela Merkel? Theresa May? Jacinda Ardern? Li Keqiang? Narendra Modi? Simonetta Sommaruga? Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic? How many more examples of non ‘white dudes’ who are current heads of state would you like me to quote?

          “…but the only way this would be sexist was if women held the institutional power and were stopping men from accessing it.”
          Sexism is defined as “prejudice or discrimination based on sex”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism.

          Considering the “gendered impacts of climate change on women, girls and children” is classic sexism. As well as being mindless drivel.

          • weka 2.2.2.2.1
            16 March 2018 at 10:04 am

            ” How many more examples of non ‘white dudes’ who are current heads of state would you like me to quote?”

            None, because I am fairly sure you are intelligent to understand how women get privileged in the patriarchy but are choosing to misrepresent that for your own political agenda.

            Lol that you need to use a dictionary to understand sexism. Try googling sexism 101 and pay attention to things like institutional racism and sexism, and the basic proposition that sexism is about power.

            You can assert mindless drivel all you like, but you plainly can’t handle a rational or meaningful conversation about sexism and just want to make it all about your view of the world. This is why we need more women and indigenous people involved, because they bring in more useful solutions. I can totally see why you wouldn’t want that.

  3. Ed 3
    15 March 2018 at 7:19 am

    Abandoning capitalism would be a good start.

    • Tuppence Shrewsbury 3.1
      15 March 2018 at 8:10 am

      Open your eyes, get woke.

      Capitalism is the only system that distribute the cures to the small amount of ills it has caused. Everything else will fail.

      • Robert Guyton 3.1.1
        15 March 2018 at 8:23 am

        Tuppence – I see you’ve already said it (or something like it) – I support your “get woke”.

      • DoublePlusGood 3.1.2
        15 March 2018 at 11:50 am

        I think you need to get woke to the vast number of ills capitalism has caused throughout its history.

        Also, have you considered anarcho-syndicalism?

        • Tuppence Shrewsbury 3.1.2.1
          15 March 2018 at 12:41 pm

          Lol that’ll catch on in time to save the planet.

          Capitalism can be a force of good if used correctly. It’s wfficient distribution systems will enable the planet to be saved far sooner by enabling them not opposing.

    • solkta 3.2
      15 March 2018 at 8:18 am

      We could just have a revolution.

  4. cleangreen 4
    15 March 2018 at 7:43 am

    `Today we must restore rail as prime mover of freight again as we had before the rapid expansion of truck freight as we now have oil being squandered by using trucks that use 5 to eight times the oil to move each one tonne of freight every km compared to rai.

    So go back to rail NZ as many other countries are doing !!!!!

  5. Robert Guyton 5
    15 March 2018 at 8:03 am

    Apologising for the past 9 years of denial and double-speak from the past Government?
    An assurance that Paula Bennett will never again again wear/flaunt the title, “Climate Change Minister”?
    Celebrating James’ securing of the role?

    • Tuppence Shrewsbury 5.1
      15 March 2018 at 8:09 am

      Booking all that carbon to fly around the world to try and blame everything on the previous government? It’s attitudes like that that show you are the problem, not part of the solution.

      An immediate ban on all non-essential consumer plastics. Not only do they not bio degrade the energy they consume to produce is staggering. A two fold solution.

      • Robert Guyton 5.1.1
        15 March 2018 at 8:20 am

        (this)
        Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation
        From the Center for Action and Contemplation

        Week Eleven

        The Natural World

        The Great Turning
        Wednesday, March 14, 2018

        When we look down on the Earth from space, we see this amazing, indescribably
        beautiful planet. It looks like a living, breathing organism. But it also at the
        same time, looks extremely fragile. —Ron Garan, NASA Astronaut [1]
        I have set before you life and death, therefore choose life. —Deuteronomy 30:19
        Eco-philosopher, Earth elder, spiritual activist, and friend Joanna Macy (b. 1929)
        promotes a transition from the Industrial Growth Society to a Life-Sustaining
        Society. She calls it the Great Turning, a revolution of great urgency: “While the
        agricultural revolution took centuries, and the industrial revolution took
        generations, this ecological revolution has to happen within a matter of a few
        years.” [2] She is hopeful as she sees many participating in: “1) Actions to slow
        the damage to Earth and its beings [holding actions]; 2) Analysis and transformation
        of the foundations of our common life; and 3) A fundamental shift in worldview and
        values.” [3]
        The Center for Action and Contemplation has focused primarily on the last dimension,
        fostering a change in consciousness. Here’s how Joanna Macy and Molly Brown describe
        this crucial shift in perception and values:
        It is hard to undertake the holding actions or initiatives . . . unless we are
        nurtured by deeply held values and ways of seeing ourselves and the world. The
        actions we take—and structures we build—mirror how we relate to Earth and each
        other. They require a shift in our perception of reality—and that shift is happening
        now, both as cognitive revolution and spiritual awakening. . . .
        The insights and experiences that enable us to make this shift may arise from grief
        for our world that contradicts illusions of the separate and isolated self. Or they
        may arise from breakthroughs in science, such as quantum physics and systems theory.
        Or we may find ourselves inspired by the wisdom traditions of native peoples and
        mystical voices in the major religions . . . that reminds us again that our world is
        a sacred whole in which we have a sacred mission.
        Now, in our time, these three rivers—anguish for our world, scientific
        breakthroughs, and ancestral teachings—flow together. From the confluence of these
        rivers we drink. We awaken to what we once knew: we are alive in a living Earth, the
        source of all we are and can achieve. Despite our conditioning by the industrial
        society of the last two centuries, we want to name, once again, this world as holy.
        These insights and experiences are necessary to free us from the grip of the
        Industrial Growth Society. They offer us nobler goals and deeper pleasures. They
        help us redefine our wealth and our worth. The reorganization of our perceptions
        liberates us from illusions about what we need to own and what our place is in the
        order of things. [Moved] beyond tired old notions of competitive individualism, we
        come home to each other and our mutual belonging in the living body of Earth. [4]

  6. Ad 6
    15 March 2018 at 8:37 am

    I would like to see this government commit to eradicating the combustion engine.

    It’s certainly not world-leading as a proposition.

    China hasn’t set a deadline to do it, but they will.
    India has a target date of 2030, but not a hard deadline.
    Britain is aiming for 2040.
    France has a deadline of 2040.
    Norway has the most ambitious target: 2025.

    Other countries can commit to it; so should we.

    • Pat 6.1
      15 March 2018 at 9:23 am

      would that include heavy machinery?….i dont think the european targets do

      https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo

      • Ad 6.1.1
        15 March 2018 at 10:59 am

        No.
        Fair while before the big diggers are battery powered.

        If you know of any developments in that area do let me know.

        • Pat 6.1.1.1
          15 March 2018 at 11:04 am

          k…there is some I have read of but pretty limited…so essentially a private motor vehicle target….think that essential and a bare minimum….and difficult enough both politically and in terms of supply.

          • AB 6.1.1.1.1
            15 March 2018 at 12:57 pm

            “difficult enough both politically and in terms of supply.”
            Yes – and if the target is no sales of new petrol and diesel passenger vehicles by 2025, expect quite a few of these vehicles to still be on the road in 2040. Average age of the NZ private vehicle fleet is over 12 years I believe. We are mostly poor, have too much of our income locked into paying for houses/accommodation and we buy old cars.
            Not sure that we will all seamlessly and happily transition into EVs and continue to live as we do now, driving personal automobiles everywhere. I fear it could get ugly if the wealthy retain their mobility and the rest of us are restricted.

            • Pat 6.1.1.1.1.1
              15 March 2018 at 1:03 pm

              indeed…and an expected battery life of around 10 years

            • Graeme 6.1.1.1.1.2
              15 March 2018 at 3:52 pm

              Our forbears transitioned from the horse to car / tractor pretty easily and quickly. If we were to drop ourselves back into the 1900 to 1910 period we’d see a profound change in mobility, and in cities an equally profound improvement in the environment. Horses were bloody messy and dangerous things.

              I think the coming mobility revolution will be just as profound as electric mobility becomes cheaper and better. We’re not at the Model T equivalent yet, but it’s close.

              • weka …
                15 March 2018 at 4:33 pm

                Show me a decent GHG emissions audit of converting combustion engines to electric, and then of running the electrics cradle to grave (including manufacture and maintenance of power generators and car factories etc).

                That we can invent new tech doesn’t mean it’s inherently good thing.

              • Pat …
                15 March 2018 at 5:43 pm

                not as quickly as you think…..NZ pop 1950 of around 2 million.. registered private cars around 250.000…thats quite sometime after the model T was released.

  7. Matthew Whitehead 7
    15 March 2018 at 8:59 am

    Let’s see, off the top of my head:
    * An immediate end to fossil fuel exploration in all signatory countries.
    * Phase out plans for fossil fuel burning that include leaving more than enough of the existing reserves in the ground. (these two go together as the fossil fuel industry has basically gone rogue and clearly intends to keep burning more fuels than we can afford to. Also ties into Ad’s ambitions nicely)
    * NDCs should have a feasible path forward using existing technology only. (this doesn’t mean they can’t use new technology later, just that they need to be reachable with current tech and a feasible fallback plan should be in place for that)
    * Plans to reach NDCs should be fully implemented by 2040. (this might be charitable, but I also think it would be difficult to get agreement on)
    * Moves on agricultural emissions that assume some degree of phase-down of current amounts of animal agriculture, given its emissions and efficiency problems. (relax, this shouldn’t mean you all need to be vegetarian, but it might mean you can’t have meat at every meal)
    * Ensure climate financing is in line with the likely scenarios from adding together the likely outcomes of NDCs.
    * Sell other countries on the idea of climate refugees as a category, and of implementation in advance of the problem.

  8. Bill 8
    15 March 2018 at 10:56 am

    Negotiations? Physics going to be sitting at the table and looking to strike a deal is it? ffs!

    Those NDCs shoot the world beyond 2 degrees.

    Country based emissions are highly misleading (outsourced production anyone?)

    Developing nations require trillions of dollars from developed nations tout suite if they are to leapfrog “our” carbon intensive development path.

    Aviation and shipping are still getting a free pass (largely as a result of emissions being assigned on a national basis) and both sectors have increasing emissions.

    And NZs climate minister (probably in line with similarly positioned people in other countries) does not know what an integrated assessment model is, or the assumptions embedded in the ones utilised by the IPCC or that they underpin the various IPCC “pathways” (RCP 2.6 etc), or that they are not predictive and so ought not ever be used as a basis for policy.

    So on the basis that we’ve had 30 years of bullshit and inaction, I’d submit that all ministers and policy wonks wishing to go to COP24 go, and never leave the conference rooms unless or until such times they face reality and commit unreservedly to ending fossil use without delay and no matter the economic consequences.

    • bwaghorn 8.1
      15 March 2018 at 11:23 am

      O come on Bill meetings and taxs will save the day especially if we have a gay indigenous woman as chair

    • Pat 8.2
      15 March 2018 at 11:38 am

      “So on the basis that we’ve had 30 years of bullshit and inaction, I’d submit that all ministers and policy wonks wishing to go to COP24 go, and never leave the conference rooms unless or until such times they face reality and commit unreservedly to ending fossil use without delay and no matter the economic consequences.”

      that is a relatively easy statement to agree with on the face of it……economic consequences yes, but what about societal consequences?

      • Bill 8.2.1
        15 March 2018 at 3:02 pm

        Economic consequences will have societal flow on effects. Our government and all others who signed various Accords have committed to taking action on AGW with an eye to equity. Take that with as much or little salt as you will.

  9. Kevin 9
    15 March 2018 at 12:13 pm

    Considering we have already had a 1 degree increase in temps since industrialisation, I suspect we will hit the 1.5 by the time any negotiations are finalised requiring new negotiations.

    Which is probably the intention anyway.

  10. Poission 10
    15 March 2018 at 12:42 pm

    And NZs climate minister (probably in line with similarly positioned people in other countries) does not know what an integrated assessment model is, or the assumptions embedded in the ones utilised by the IPCC or that they underpin the various IPCC “pathways” (RCP 2.6 etc), or that they are not predictive and so ought not ever be used as a basis for policy.

    Indeed the RCP scenarios are problematic at best and integrated IAM are based on equilibrium states with an absence of endogenous dynamics and accompanying predicative skill is troublesome eg Groth and Ghil 2017

    https://dept.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/news/synchronization-world-economic-activity

  11. savenz 11
    15 March 2018 at 1:01 pm

    Put in a submission against the TPPA that will allow polluters to sue our government and councils if law changes on climate change effect their profits!

    Send government a message how you feel about climate change being removed from the TPPA text and climate change provision not being in trade agreements! They are crazy for the omission!

    How crazy is agreeing the Paris summit goals and then signing other agreements that ignore it!

    https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/52SCFD_SCF_ITE_76583/international-treaty-examination-of-the-comprehensive-and

    • Carolyn_Nth 11.1
      15 March 2018 at 4:27 pm

      Thanks for the link. Submission done. It doesn’t need to be long, but it’s important that as many people as possible make their concerns known to the government.

      And I did mention the need for climate change provisions in the agreement.

  12. Drowsy M. Kram 12
    15 March 2018 at 3:02 pm

    High (behaviour-changing) carbon taxes on corporate profits, to be embedded in ‘FTAs’, ‘TPPAs’, ‘CPTPPAs’, etc., and ring-fenced for climate change research, impact mitigation and supporting ‘creative destruction’ initiatives.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change

    Or blend it with a ‘Comprehensive and progressive‘ carbon tax (CPCT) of the type proposed in this link.

    https://aneconomicsense.org/tag/taxes/

  13. eco maori 13
    15 March 2018 at 8:12 pm

    Electric cars is the best way to lower our carbon out put foot print we have the best country in the World to race towards a carbon neutral or close to a carbon neutral I say this is the easiest fruit to pick a little subsidy from the gas cars farward to the Elictric car owners .
    We have hydro geothermal as a base backup load for wind and solar power the rest of the World would fall over them selves to get these resorces in a rush to get to them.
    We would lower our trade deficit just by that move alone $5000.00 for second hand electric cars we could have had 5000 electric more cars on the road with the money shonky wasted on the flag debate .
    As for indigenous people and the connection to being environmentally friendly and the indigenous cultures well we learnt that if one keep ——-in one own backyard the—–hits the fan we have learnt to respect Papatuanuku mother earth we have a connection with Papatuanuku and all the beautiful things that are associated with her and all the creaters on her we wish to persevere them all. They should be use wisely and not abused .We will be a lot better Guardians of Mother earth and all that part of her than neo libreal mutuality national companys that are legislated in the companys act to deliver a profit over anything else. enough said. Ka kite ano P.S The mokos just turned up Kia kaha