8. Question No. 8—Climate ChangeHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Climate ChangeQuestion No. 8—Climate Change8. Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Climate Change: Does he stand by his statement in regard to reducing the methane cap I'm open to a solution to that conundrum … but it's got to meet the science"?Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Yes I do in the context in which it was given. I was asked about how to achieve bipartisan support for the zero carbon bill and I said that I was open to solutions to that conundrum as long as they meet the scientific criteria of living within 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels. On that I will not compromise. The bill is before the Environment Committee and so I'm open to whatever the committee may recommend to improve the bill but of course any significant changes to the bill will need to go through the normal Cabinet process. I note that in today's Mood of the Boardroom survey this morning a chief executive said of the Opposition "Walking away from supporting the climate change legislation is wrong. We need to"—SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I don't think that—well I think the member's already answered the question.Hon Scott Simpson: In what ways does he believe that a target for methane of 24 to 47 percent reduction meets the science?Hon JAMES SHAW: Because it came from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is the world's leading authority on the science of climate change.Hon Scott Simpson: In that case is he concerned that the range of 24 to 47 percent reduction for methane is heavily influenced by scenarios that assume global population will be lower in the future than it is today something that is beyond the control of New Zealand farmers?Hon JAMES SHAW: The IPCC ranges were actually based on dozens and dozens of different scenarios including scientific factors technological factors economic factors and so on.Hon Scott Simpson: Has the Minister seen the recent IPCC report entitled Climate Change and Land which separates out scenarios by background assumptions and shows for a forecast where population doesn't fall agricultural methane is only forecast to decline 12 percent globally by 2050?Hon JAMES SHAW: I'm aware of the report. I haven't read it yet.Hon Scott Simpson: Does he agree with the report then—I guess not because he hasn't read it—SPEAKER: Right well start the question again.Hon Scott Simpson: Yes. Would the Minister agree with a report from the IPCC that a 12 percent reduction in agricultural methane is consistent with a 1.5 degree temperature limit in a scenario where global population is 9.2 billion by 2050?Hon JAMES SHAW: Well it's hard for me to comment on an IPCC scenario. What I'm aware of—I mean I'm happy to take a look at it obviously but I would like to say that that member is actually a member of the select committee that's examining the bill and if he has proposals then he should take them to his select committee and put them to the select committee. I have to say that that report of course was tabled after we tabled the bill in the House. I would like to say that there was a range of conflicting advice from both Government agencies and scientists last year when we were drafting the bill. That's how we ended up referring to the IPCC range originally. I am aware and said when we launched the bill that having a 20-point range is suboptimal which is why we've written into the legislation that the new Climate Change Commission has to review the range and come up with something more definitive in time for the next emissions budgeting period. The whole idea is to kick that to the commission so that we can have something that says that it is grounded in the science so that we can put all those disputes that the various scientists and agencies had last year to bed and in the meantime our agricultural sector has got the assurance of knowing that they can crack on with a 10 percent reduction by 2030."