Hague Kevin: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee 
[Sitting date: 24 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7963. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take my first call on Part 1 of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill. I begin by noting that the Leader of the House when he sought leave relating to the rules of this debate earlier today sought leave for members to be able to make an unlimited number of contributions. I give notice of my intention to take advantage of that and certainly to take a subsequent call to discuss specifically the Supplementary Order Papers that are before the Committee. 
I begin this first contribution however by quoting from this issue I am holding of the  
New Scientist 
 of 28 February which talks about the fact that the world is clearly failing to reduce emissions. It says in its editorial: “Despite the numerous warnings about extreme weather rising sea levels and mass extinctions one message seems to have got lost in the debate about the impact of climate change. A warmer world won’t just be inconvenient. Huge swathes of it including most of Europe the US and Australia as well as all of Africa and China will actually be uninhabitable—too hot dry or stormy to sustain a human population. This is no mirage. It could materialise if the world warms by an average of just 4°C which some scientists fear could happen as soon as 2050. This is the world our children and grandchildren are going to have to live in. So what are we going to do about it?”. This issue of  
New Scientist 
 goes on to describe a world in which glaciers have dried up a world that is desertified and a world with its human population of just 1 billion—because that is all that that kind of world would be able to support—concentrated in high-rise cities close to the North and South Poles and in countries like New Zealand. 
Since February there have been two main shifts in the evidence before us. One is that it is extremely apparent that change is happening faster than had been predicted. It is now very clear that the world is tracking close to the worst scenario contemplated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Antarctic ice shelves are melting at faster rates the world’s glaciers are in rapid retreat we have the hottest November on record in Australia and the list goes on. It is also clearer and clearer that the Copenhagen conference which has been described by one of my colleagues as possibly the most important gathering in human history seems less and less likely to achieve the necessary step change in carbon emissions that we need given the timidity of countries like New Zealand. In other words the 4 degrees Celsius of warming that the  
New Scientist 
 warns of is progressively becoming more and more likely. 
On Friday night of last week I attended the annual Cawthron Institute address by Dr David Wratt who is the principal climate scientist of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research along with the Minister for Climate Change Issues Dr Smith. It was a masterful contribution from Dr Wratt. It was a great summary of science possibly the best I have ever heard and it was delivered in terms that any normal person would be able to understand. He stressed the importance of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius if it was at all possible. It is not a precise science to know exactly what concentration of carbon the atmosphere can tolerate in order to achieve that goal but he presented evidence to suggest that we are already at the lower end of the band of concentrations that are required to keep warming to 2 degrees Celsius. In other words 2 degrees Celsius of warming may already be locked in. It is clear that we cannot just turn off the tap. The advice is to stop emissions as quickly as possible and certainly no later than 2015. 
Throughout all the cautious scientific language of Dr Wratt there rang a clarion call. This is a massive and unprecedented challenge in human history but we can prevent or limit the worst effects if we act strongly and urgently enough and we need to do this. As all of the world’s developed economies involve high carbon use and emissions and are dependent on continued growth reducing emissions at all requires a fundamental change to the way that we do business. Sadly the years since 1990 have been characterised by dithering and wasted opportunities. While northern European countries for example simply got on with the job after 1990 and transformed their economies our Governments played pass the parcel. Our Governments have been desperate to find a formula to give the appearance of doing something about the problem without actually requiring businesses to change anything that they do. Ironic congratulations are due to this Government on finding its Holy Grail. This scandalous bill before us represents the zenith of this ambition. This bill not only will fail to reduce emissions but will actually increase them. 
The bill’s failings are many and manifest. The point of an emissions trading scheme is to have a cap and preferably one that sinks over time. There is none here. It is inevitable that the carbon price signal made by this bill will be incredibly weak and when that is coupled with the intensity-based targets in the bill the most likely result will be increased emissions. The time that this bill takes to phase out subsidies to the big polluters will take most of this century. We will still be subsidising the big polluters when the Ganges has run dry when our Pacific neighbours are inundated with sea-level rise and when the world’s population has collapsed. When Greenland and Antarctica are performing the role of the world’s breadbasket New Zealand will still be subsidising big polluters. 
There is also the sleight of hand which has been referred to by a number of others in this debate that sees the Government cynically pretending it has saved consumers money on their petrol and power bills. New Zealanders will pay for emissions one way or another: either through taxes and reduced Government services or through prices. One of these methods creates a disincentive for emissions and will force emitters to reduce them. Unfortunately the Government has chosen the other path. 
I refer to the fact that a number of Government speakers in this debate including the Minister have once again raised the false dichotomy of the economy and the environment. They say we cannot have both and must have one or the other. The Green Party has on numerous occasions in this House pointed to the fact that it is possible to achieve both. It is possible to achieve positive outcomes for our economy while also protecting the environment and reducing emissions. It is sad that this Government has chosen not to do so. 
There are some good parts in the bill. It is a good thing to be planting more indigenous forestry on conservation land. It is just a shame that it is so limited. The Green Party will be announcing our next package of Green New Deal measures next week including an extensive proposed forestry programme. 
I want to talk about the fact that both of the parties that will be voting for this bill—the National Party and the Maori Party— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: United Future. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: I am sorry; I forgot United Future. Those parties have effectively become hostage to the interests of big business hostage to the interests of those whose planning horizon is no further than the immediate future. It is a planning horizon that sells our children and our grandchildren down the river. I will refer to the speech of Tariana Turia from 28 August 2008 on the emissions trading scheme bill of that year. She said: “how this nation curbs greenhouse gas emissions will define this moment in our history. Meeting our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases is vitally important but this issue is much more than one of compliance with the United Nations goals to cut emissions and to stabilise the climate system. It is far more simple than that. Reducing our emissions is about honouring our commitment to those who have passed on that we will leave this planet in a better state … for those who come after us.” In addition she said: “We are of the view that what is needed is a radical rethink of the whole approach. We are opposed to the concept of paying the polluters of rewarding the corporate lobbyists with huge exemptions and of the very nature of trading rather than reducing emissions.” She also said: “The last thing we want to suggest is that we are the authority on the emissions trading scheme”—I guess we would agree with that—“because clearly we are not. But we do care passionately about leaving this world in a better state”.