Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:656;Page:5531] 
2.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Will New Zealand’s climate change target take into account the call from Pacific Island leaders for a 45 percent cut by 2020? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. The Government recognises that climate change poses a particular threat to our Pacific Island neighbours. It is one of many factors that we will take into account in considering our 2020 commitment. I also note though that it is a lot easier for those countries to call for very large reductions when they are not proposing any binding commitments for reductions themselves. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How will the Minister explain to Pacific Island people that we cannot help them to avoid a climate change catastrophe because we are not willing to save 4.25 million tonnes of emissions in 2020 by replacing two old coal and gas power plants with renewables that are cost-effective according to the Electricity Commission’s statement of opportunities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am advised that for New Zealand to move to 100 percent renewables those who are promoting minus 40 percent— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Ninety percent. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No the members interject but if they read the pamphlet that has been put out by the Sign On campaign they will see that it very specifically states that it is about a move to 100 percent renewables. My advice is that that move would cost $17.5 billion. It would require the building of the equivalent of seven Clyde Dams in just 10 years. I do not think that is achievable. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was about two power stations. The Greens have no responsibility whatever for the Sign On campaign; we did not initiate it. I asked the Minister a question about two power stations for which substituting renewables is cost-effective and he has chosen not to answer that question in any way at all but to talk about a mythical 100 percent target which is nothing to do with us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My dilemma is that the Minister clearly interpreted the member’s question to mean what he included in his answer. The member has several more supplementary questions with which to chase up that matter with the Minister. I will listen very carefully to his answers to them. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How will the Minister explain to Scotland which has offered a target of a 42 percent reduction that we cannot join it because we are not willing to save 3 million tonnes of emissions a year in 2020 by improving the fuel economy of our vehicles to something a bit more like Scotland’s? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member needs to take care in mentioning countries like Scotland because the significance is that the Scottish Parliament itself has responsibility for only 30 percent of Scotland’s emissions. The bulk of Scotland’s emissions are actually reported as part of the overall United Kingdom’s. So when the Scots talk about a 42 percent reduction in emissions from Scotland that number is not for all of the emissions from Scotland but just a portion of them. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Is the Minister aware of the 2020 target announced this week by South Korea and what implications does it have for international negotiations? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is a positive development that South Korea has announced a 2020 emissions reduction target ranging from minus 4 percent to plus 8 percent relative to 2005 levels. The significance is that South Korea is one of the first non - annex 1 countries to indicate a willingness to take on commitments which is good news. I note however that the equivalent to those targets for New Zealand on a business-as-usual basis the same reduction would be plus 7 to plus 19 percent relative to 1990 levels for New Zealand. The New Zealand Government is not contemplating a target above the 1990 levels despite our GDP per capita being comparable to that of South Korea. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How will the Minister explain to the UK which incorporates Scotland and has set a target of 34 percent that we cannot join it because the Government has created a policy framework so uncertain for forestry that it has stopped foresters from planting trees? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: A significant difference between New Zealand and the United Kingdom is that it currently has emissions that are 21 percent below its 1990 levels; New Zealand is starting from 24 percent above its 1990 levels. The question I have for the member who asked the question and who used to be the previous Government’s spokesperson on energy efficiency is why emissions went up so much when she held that spokespersonship. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Government have an estimate of by how much the emissions trading scheme as legislated will reduce emissions by 2020 or does the Minister not know that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not have that information available to me in the House because it was not part of the base question. But I would be happy to check whether it was in the regulatory impact statement and to provide the member with an accurate figure. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister think that a timid emissions target of between 5 to 15 percent would demonstrate to Pacific Islanders that New Zealand recognises the serious effects that climate change would have in the Pacific; and does he endorse John Key’s suggestion that if the worst comes to the worst we will just offer to resettle Pacific peoples? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first thing we need to recognise is that with New Zealand’s emissions being just 0.2 percent of global emissions in terms of the future of the Pacific what the globe does will be critical. There is already an amount of climate change in the world’s climate systems so I think the Prime Minister is absolutely right in his remark. In respect of the size of New Zealand’s emissions target I remind the member opposite that when people say a 10 percent reduction below 1990 levels is easy we must remember that we are 24 percent behind to begin with which means it is really a 34 percent reduction in emissions. Compared with the previous decade in which emissions went up 14 percent that is a very tough and ambitious target for New Zealand to achieve. 
Charles Chauvel 
: To which parts of New Zealand does the Government plan to offer resettlement to Pacific peoples who are displaced by the adverse effects of climate change; if no thought has yet been given to this question is it not high time that thought is given to it since the present Government’s policies on climate change will not do anything else to help them to deal with those effects? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The current Government has given no more consideration to the issue of the resettlement of Pacific peoples in New Zealand and the long-term impacts of climate change than the previous Government did. In respect of sea-level rises we are talking about rates of 3 or 4 mm per year. 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s your policy to bring them to New Zealand. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The deputy leader of the Labour Party interjects. I remind her that during her period in Government emissions in New Zealand grew faster than those of any other country. She is the last person from whom I will take advice in terms of sensible climate change policy.