Graham Kennedy: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Graham Kennedy: Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:921] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise following the intervention of my co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons to oppose the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Repeal Bill. I do so in the knowledge that the reasons that have been advanced by this Government have not been found to be convincing. The Minister has indicated his view that the legislation that banned thermal generation amounted to pure symbolism that it put the electricity supply at risk and that it therefore was required to be repealed. The Minister Gerry Brownlee and others among his National colleagues took it upon themselves to criticise Jeanette Fitzsimons’ intervention on the grounds that if the original bill was toothless then it should never have been put in place and that it should be immediately repealed. That is a rather thin point of logic and when I weigh it up in the context of the broader issue of the contribution of this current bill and others to the daunting challenge of combating climate change I find that it is found wanting. 
What I would like to do to try to place a constructive interpretation on both the Government’s position and that of the Opposition is to ask the Minister some questions and to put those questions in the broader context of the wider issue of climate change itself. If we look at the basic facts of climate change—an anthropogenically induced phenomenon that is recognised as a fact through scientific consensus by it seems everybody in this House except for possibly five members—we find that the prognostication is that sea-level rise will occur to the extent of at least 0.5 metres over the next 50 years and that in the event of a more drastic phenomenon of ice-melt in the Arctic in Greenland and in the West Antarctic sea-level rise could possibly occur to the level of anything between 6 metres and 15 metres without any of us knowing the precise probability of that. 
 That possibility is not discounted and it is not discounted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognition—it has not been included in the fourth assessment report simply because it was not yet reflected in the peer-reviewed literature. So we have to recognise that that possibility cannot be discounted. In that event the implications for the physical integrity of the planet and certainly for the integrity of human society as we know it are extraordinarily grave. 
That is all based on an expected global warming of somewhere between 2 and 3 degrees. From that basic point we proceed to the Kyoto Protocol whose binding legal obligations we have assumed. Let nobody in this House be in any way over-impressed by the limited effect the Kyoto Protocol will have on combating climate change. I am happy to be corrected on my facts by experts—other than perhaps those sitting in this House—but my understanding is that of the anticipated 2 to 3 degree increase in temperature the Kyoto Protocol if fully implemented would result in a diminution of somewhere around 0.2 degrees. It follows that the Kyoto Protocol if fully implemented would have a very very modest effect on global warming. 
Because of that every Government and State that is party to the Kyoto Protocol has not only a binding legal obligation but an overwhelming moral obligation to do everything in its power to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Is New Zealand doing that? Let us look at the previous Government’s track record. In the last recorded year there was an increase in greenhouse gas emissions over and above the 1990 level of somewhere around 24 percent. It is projected that that increase will double to somewhere around 47 percent by 2012. So the previous Government has a rather uninspiring record. 
Now we turn to the present Government with its aspirations to meet its recognised Kyoto obligations. Will it meet its aspirations? The Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee tells us that the Government is committed in principle to 90 percent renewable electricity generation by 2025. Do the Minister and his Government have a well-thought-through strategy articulated clearly before us to attain 90 percent by 2025? Personally I am less interested in the niceties of precisely what will happen to power generation whether or not this bill is repealed than I am to hear from the Minister on whether he has a credible strategy to attain the goal of 90 percent renewable energy generation by 2025. Are we about to see a strategy that perhaps puts in benchmarks or milestones every 5 years: in 2010 2015 and 2020? I propose to the Minister in a constructive spirit that he take it upon himself to table in the House a proposal by which we can monitor the progress towards 90 percent renewable energy generation by 2025 using 5-year benchmarks. If that were forthcoming then we would be able to take the Government at its word and put faith in the credibility of its stated intent to switch to 90 percent renewable energy generation. I hope that such a proposal is forthcoming; I will genuinely in good faith look to see whether it comes. Thank you.