Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11050] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Anybody who is unsure about whether climate change is occurring around the Earth should just look at our statistics for February. We have already had more rainfall than since I think 1934 or 1936 and we are only halfway through the month. What is unclear is what the cause of climate change is and that is something that is still debated widely by the scientific community. 
I begin my address on this bill by first of all replying to some of the criticism about our support for this legislation on the basis that we have consistently opposed the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol yet we are supporting the second reading of this legislation. That is true. We have opposed and still do oppose the Kyoto Protocol and we take considerable heart from the signals from Russia at the moment that it might not ratify which would spell the end of the bureaucratic nightmare called the Kyoto Protocol. We take heart as do many business people in this country and as do many sensible New Zealanders who thought that the “fart tax” was the sort of nonsense that the Kyoto Protocol would generate. We also opposed that tax. New Zealanders will be glad that we will not be tied in with such obligations which our major trading partners have had the good sense to avoid. 
Our opposition to the Kyoto Protocol however does not mean that we are opposed to supporting measures that are sensible that still retain our sovereignty as a nation and that make reasonable requirements for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the encouragement of renewable energy. If we look at Australia and the US—our major trading partners and friends—we find that even though they had the good sense to reject the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol they have not buried their heads in the sand and ignored the possible implications of climate change and the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on climate. No they have also adopted legislative measures such as this to prepare for some of the potential changes and to mitigate effects. 
The bill before us does three things. It removes the requirement for regional councils to consider the effect of greenhouse gas emissions and places that responsibility where it should rest—with central government. Almost all parties have supported this part of the bill. With a country our size it does not make sense to have so many regulatory bodies deciding on environmental issues along boundaries that create confusion and uncertainty. For example the Environmental Protection Agency in the US manages to function as a regulator for that entire nation. It is possible here I believe for us to limit the amount of regulation required in individual cases. It makes perfect sense for the Government to assume the responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Allowing local authorities to take greenhouse gas emissions into account would only serve to add a whole new layer of complexity cost delay and uncertainty to the Resource Management Act. 
What has given me the most concern about this bill is the requirement for all persons exercising functions and powers under the Resource Management Act to have particular regard to the effects of climate change. As I mentioned earlier the science of climate change and global warming is in no way an exact science. There are still many qualified competent and sincere scientists who differ widely on what the causes and potential effects of global warming might be. Some of my concerns have been reduced though by the discovery that the Resource Management Act already requires this. As most Resource Management Act practitioners would agree the Act is effects-based legislation and itself defines the meaning of “effect’. In this Act the term “effect” includes: “Any past present or future effect and any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects.” 
Local councils are already considering the impacts and effects of climate change and this bill gives them some direction. At least in part this bill really only seeks to emphasise the need to consider one particular set of future effects called “climate change effects” that it already—in broad general terms—required. My concerns were that since there were no guidelines on how councils might interpret the scientific predictions on climate-change effects we might end up with some very large variations on how councils carried out their responsibilities. That is why United Future inserted a minority view in the select committee’s report urging the Government not only to do what it is promising to do now—to have the Climate Change Office issue some non-statutory guidelines—but if that leads to confusion to also follow up with national policy statements that will give even greater clarity to local councils. 
The third issue in the bill which I will address now is that it seeks to require consideration of resource consents for energy generation on the basis of whether they are renewable sources of energy. Renewable energy means solar wind hydro geothermal biomass tidal wave and ocean current sources. We had a number of discussions in the select committee about whether geothermal belonged in this list as a renewable source. I think it was splitting hairs to suggest that the heat from the Earth’s core will expire in the next few generations and therefore should be excluded from the list. If that were the case we would also need to exclude solar because perhaps the Sun will expire one day and probably then we would have no wind no moon and no tides either. But I might be in danger of sounding too gloomy and Armageddon-ish—“woe woe the end is nigh!” To the contrary I believe as do my United Future colleagues that this Earth has been designed to provide considerable sources of renewable energy that will be sufficient to meet all of our needs for a long time to come. Clearly geothermal energy is one of them. 
We support encouraging the uptake of renewable energy sources. We believe it is a sensible thing to do. The reason for that is ostensibly to level the playing field between renewable and traditional sources of energy. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that renewable sources of energy are at a disadvantage in the current resource consent process because of their diffuse nature which greatly increases the number of affected persons and therefore potential objectors. For example gas-powered generation facilities tend to get resource consent far more easily than wind farms because as far as local residents are concerned wind farms are big noisy and unsightly whereas gas-powered generation plants are relatively small and quiet. They can be hidden away and do not really come to people’s attention on a day-to-day basis. The relative merit of renewables versus more traditional energy sources is a highly contentious issue which I will not get into in great detail here. 
The real issue for United Future when deciding whether to support this bill is whether it will skew the electricity market by picking winners or whether—as the Government argues—it really does level the playing field. We certainly do not want to end up with New Zealand having to import huge amounts of fuel such as liquefied natural gas or utilise some other expensive energy source when we have hundreds of years’ worth of economically accessible coal reserves just sitting here unused. On the face of it however this bill does not require local authorities to develop renewables to the complete exclusion of other fuel sources such as coal. It merely allows them to consider renewables and make them a priority if they so choose. Given this relatively moderate approach the “picking winners” issue may not become a problem. 
We do however support the comments that have been made earlier by Jim Peters and others that coal is an excellent source of energy for this country and we believe its use should be promoted. It makes no sense for us to be importing other forms of fossil fuel to the detriment of our balance-of-trade deficit and other economic issues when we are sitting on such large reserves of coal. Jeanette Fitzsimons earlier said that it is something of a myth that we will have technology that can burn coal without any effect upon greenhouse gas emissions. I wish to remind her that one day not so long ago space travel was considered to be a myth and it now is an almost everyday occurrence. Technology is being investigated. Major breakthroughs occur almost every day and we believe it is important that the Government pursues the possibility of using our coal reserves for energy generation. 
We are confident that this bill in its current form will add to the sensible use of our resources in this country and United Future will be supporting it. We look forward tocontinued debate in the Committee stage.