One of Donald Trump’s first acts as president was withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, leaving the United States alongside Iran, Libya, and Yemen as the only non-members.
For the past decade, there has been a global consensus that climate change is occurring and must be mitigated where possible. But some activists are pushing for countries to give up and focus solely on surviving in the hotter climate.
David Seymour, leader of the Act Party and soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister, told Newstalk ZB the New Zealand Government should consider withdrawing from the Paris Accord.
And when asked about the newly announced 2035 emission reduction target, Seymour said he supported it, but only because it was a Cabinet obligation.
“There's a wider question of whether the Government of New Zealand should be committed to the Paris Accord when half the world appears to be pulling out of it anyway,” he said.
The Act Party opposed the Accord in 2016, when it was still a one-MP party, and intended to vote against the Zero Carbon Act but missed the final vote.
What was once a fringe view, supported by just one MP, may be gaining traction. The Act Party secured 8.6% of all votes in 2023 and NZ First, which also campaigned against some climate policies, won 6%.
Polls show the public is concerned about climate change and believes the Government is not doing enough to mitigate risks. But these concerns have fallen behind more immediate economic problems, at least in the regular IPSOS issues monitor.
The Act Party and two close allies, the Taxpayers’ Union and Federated Farmers, have all voiced opposition to the Government’s new target and the Paris Climate Accord itself.
Jordan Williams, a political campaigner and executive director of the Taxpayers’ Union, said in a press release that the announcement had “harpooned” the Government’s growth plans.
“[Climate Minister Simon] Watts and his Cabinet colleagues are not going to be around in a decade to have to pay the bill, but are doubling down on Paris at the very time our trading partners are pulling back,” he wrote.
It is not particularly true that New Zealand’s trading partners are pulling back on their Paris commitments, nor that the Government is “doubling down” in any meaningful way.
China has been building renewable energy and aims to begin reducing emissions before 2030. Australia, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have all maintained or strengthened their targets in recent years.
New Zealand’s new target has been described as “shockingly unambitious” as it does not even maintain the current rate of emissions reductions. The Climate Change Commission recommended a 66% cut but the Government opted for 51%.
Even that goal was too much for Federated Farmers, which argued in a press release that it was 'completely beyond reach' and would force the conversion of hundreds of thousands of hectares of land into forestry for carbon offsets.
"There is a very real risk that we could become the great pine plantation of the South Pacific — hardly something to be proud of,” a spokesperson said.
78 Comments
"David Seymour, leader of the Act Party and soon-to-be Deputy Prime Minister, told Newstalk ZB the New Zealand Government should consider withdrawing from the Paris accord."
Considering both our UK and EU trade deals have us sticking to the Paris Agreement as part of them, it's probably not a great idea David
David Seymour is just a puppy barking the same bright ideas he hears from the likes of Trump and other idiotic politicians that rose to fame by being openly stupid. Unfortunately, that sort of behavior seems to be drawing attention of more and more people in NZ, as it was pointed in the article. The future does not look very bright here and in most parts of the world when it comes to the sort of folk that will run countries.
Climate accords = additional legislative bars & taxes
Additional legislative bars & taxes = constraints on growth
Join the dots.
Considering NZs 0.17% share of global climate emissions, our climate program is an irrelevant virtue signalling nonsense whose primary purpose appears to enable James Shaw + 100 acolytes to jet away to COP on taxpayer funded jaunts.
https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/environment/climate-change/working-with-the….
All conveniently ignoring the fact that NZ is a net CO2 emission sink because they won't / can't count properly.
"Within Australasia, Australia was a net source of 38.2 ± 75.8 TgC yr−1, and New Zealand was a net CO2 sink of −38.6 ± 13.4 TgC yr−1."
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007845
A UK study showed 57 companies were responsible for 80% of global climate emissions – which had increased since the Paris agreement.
Our company taxes are already kinda low.
And you have to earn a profit, to pay tax.
How much lower do we think company taxes need to be before someone chooses to invest or start a business instead of another house? And how do we make up for that shortfall in revenue?
Not sure why this is brought up as difficult to achieve via policy, given policy has already swung around to distorting investment to the degree it has now. What's difficult about conceiving that lower company taxes and higher / more honest taxation of speculation on existing houses (and/or LVT on unimproved value) would change incentives and behaviour? Status quo bias going on here? It was not ever thus and ever will be etc.
People have parked money in property because it's been an easy and taxpayer subsidised/protected investment. That can be changed.
Everyone's trying to protect their money or make more of it at lowest cost, by any means possible. Can policy really change this? It's the Kiwi dream, who's going to vote for it?
Why limit it only to house speculation and not all speculation?
Will companies lower prices and/or pay higher wages? They already receive an effective wage subsidy with WFF. Why have National never rescinded this welfare?
If tax is the overriding deal-breaker, there's a real issue with our incentives and values.
Considering NZs 0.17% share of global climate emissions, our climate program is an irrelevant virtue signalling nonsense
This has got to be the most inane take on climate change short of full denial. Please sit down for one second and think through what you're saying.
Mmmm, I dunno, the agreed global response is pretty up there
- the wasteful way we exist is ruining the planet
- don't radically adjust our behaviour, just adopt a tax and spend system that slightly alters the configuration, over a long period of time
We need to be living like Indians, instead of the same as previous, but with marginally less impactful baubles.
Usual nonsense about NZ being so small and matters little.
Just like going fishing and chucking all your rubbish over the side - its such a little amount compared to what goes in daily in don't really matter eh!
Or being one of a pack rapists ....but my little invasion didn't really make much difference to her.
Take some ownership of what you do.
It doesn't fit the policy narrative.
IIRC early climate accord decisions were agreed (for no obvious / well published reason) to exclude eg certain vegetation, pastures, native forest cover from the emission calculations. I don't know the details & welcome any clarification / correction.
This obsession with growth is so backward. What has growth gotten us since the 70s? Much much worse inequality, crime and polarization. If I could chose between more money or a more beautiful and clean environment and happier healthier society, i chose the latter.
Crime is actually long term lows across most categories.
But yes, generally watching values go up is likely not the best way to gauge whether we're advancing, or in a good space. It's sort of like the diminishing returns of improving ones own income; once you have your needs met, the rest of the money isn't benefitting you as much.
There needs to be a post consumption economic and social model, but we are a ways off working that out nicely.
I quite liked the clean car incentives. Blunt tool, yes, but if the government is going to pour money into something I think we really could do well to incentivise the use of EVs.
I'm pretty sure it could be funded by re-writing our traffic management laws to reduce the bleed and forcing higher standards of quality on roading companies.
They did literally nothing due to being run in parallel with the ETS (see the “waterbed effect”). Even ignoring that, the cost-benefit was bad. Just the kind of do-nothing feel-good crap the last govt specialised in.
Definitely agree they should have policy pushing EV adoption though.
Meeting any kind of goal means you have to actually do something. That now seems to be politically and operationally impossible as change is hamstrung by too-influential special interest groups who will not give an inch on entrenched positions that are intrinsically inimical to innovation. When did we get so bad at doing practical things?
Making our energy use more efficient, changing the way we run our big emitters like construction, transport and dairying, expanding our energy generation in meaningful ways and making a just transition to better energy use all offer enormous opportunities, but we ignore the data while we get lost in identity politics.
NZ has one of the lowest per capita emissions stats in the OECD.
We already have 90% of our electricity generated via renewables.
It's absolute bullshit to suggest that we need to eviscerate our economy to lower emissions even further, particularly when other countries are tapping out. Let's be green but not at the expense of national prosperity.
List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita - Wikipedia - sort by the 2023 column and you'll find we are about the same as the US and 50% more per capita than China.
per capita comparisons are false equivalence & irrelevant. The global population as increased 3x since WW2 & 33% since 2000. Mostly in countries riven by religious fundamentalism & subjugation of women including education. No reason to give them any more excuses to avoid responsibility..
Wrong. Their consumption based emissions are declining also.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/production-vs-consumption-co2-emissi…
There is a link between growth and climate but not in the way most people think about it. Richer countries can afford to act on climate issues but only if they are growing. Once you lose growth then climate concerns go out the window. In a cost of living crisis, people only care only about fulfilling their immediate needs and will happily throw out climate rules if it helps them achieve this. They will vote in anyone who promises (or lies about) more growth.
We, as a race, are not good at prioritising long-term outcomes, even if it will lead to our own demise.
The climate consensus isn't breaking, it's already broken.
China is responsible for 90% of the rise in global emissions since the Paris accord was signed. Oh, 'maybe they'll start reducing emissions by 2030'. Sure. Meanwhile, they're responsible for 95% of global coal power plant construction, opening 2 every week.
The United States is out. It's emissions are currently about at 1990 levels.
Of the big three polluters that just leaves India, whose emissions are increasing at a compound annual growth rate of ~4.7% p.a since 2000, accelerating to 8.1% p.a since 2020.
Meanwhile, Europe has reduced emissions to almost half their 1990 levels.
Ok, so that's everyone important when it comes to global emissions. Who is the government virtue signalling to exactly? The developed world has cut emissions to 1990 levels or below. This is fast becoming a developing world only problem. You ask the developed world and they always say they value cheap energy more than climate change issues (of course, it's only logical). And the Paris agreement gives the developing world a free pass. Actually more than that, the developed world helps pay for their emissions reduction.
This was all fine and dandy of course, before developing world countries (specifically China) started to become serious geopolitical competitors with developed world nations. At that point the agreement becomes worth less than the paper it's written on.
New Zealand's emissions are entirely irrelevant. The only reason we should be playing this game is diplomatic lip service, and to capture associated benefits (i.e increase in resilience through hydro powered EVs rather than exposure to volatile oil prices). Sadly Simon Watts is not a pragmatist, and should consider joining the green party.
Simon Watts has intelligence , but is surrounded by morons . luckily the main one spells his name differently, so we can tell them apart .
China does the worlds dirty manufactering , they really should ship it off to a poorer country , like the west has. We consume it in boatloads.
China has also installed more renewable energy than anyone else , and has the highest % of EV sales.
The cynical story of Green climate change.
Europe had high wage costs and corporations outsourced all of their manufacturing jobs to China, India, Vietnam, Korea. Emissions were reduced and the corporations were rewarded with subsidies from the EU. Profits soared.
If China is responsible for 90%, then the corporations that offshored their manufacturing, and we the consumer who demand cheap goods, are also directly responsible.
The developed world offshores it's pollution and then blames the developing world. Classic gaslighting.
I bow to your knowledge that has been obvious in your comments on this site, but who is “we” in your comment ?
I would say there is no meaningful “we”over the hundreds of years since the benefits and detriments of the Industrial Revolution were made available to most countries. Thoughts?
Very much a believer in man made climate change here but you don’t have to be a non believer to doubt the ability of the World to accomplish its emissions targets.
Obvious in the article was a total glossing over of China’s role. They are still building many more coal fired power plants. Yes thankfully they are also embracing more hydro, wind and solar but there’s absolutely zero chance their emissions will improve by 2030.
Do hold countries to account but be fair and balanced about it. The World cannot simply be divided into adherents and heretics.
Australia will likely need nuclear. That’s when things will get interesting as renewables are unlikely to get them there. The same people plumping for renewables will oppose a low carbon alternative and likely become the “ non believers”. A position they won’t be accustomed to.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.