Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11319] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The first point I want to make is that this is not the Kyoto Protocol bill despite the constant calls from others who have spoken in the debate before me. In fact if members look through the legislation they will find that the word “Kyoto” does not even appear. It appears once in the Local Government and Environment Committee’s commentary on the bill but it does not appear in the legislation. That is why United Future is able to support Part 1 and in fact the bill. We have made it clear that we are opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. I do not know why we any longer waste our breath on it because it is pretty well dead and buried. It is very unlikely that Russia will ratify it. Most people around the world are beginning to look at what they will do after the death of the Kyoto Protocol. 
Part 1 makes it very clear that local authorities are required to plan for the effects of climate change. As I said earlier it caused me some concern when I first saw that in the bill because of the huge range of effects people estimate that climate change may have on our landscape. It is clear that the Resource Management Act already requires local councils to take note of the effects and potential effects of future activity upon our landscape so this bill really only makes clear what the Resource Management Act requires councils to do. The New Zealand Climate Change Office and officials have assured us that they will give local authorities some good guidelines on what the band of climate change may be and what the effects could be. If that does not work in terms of giving clarity to local councils some national policy statements will follow. But these take time to produce and we have accepted a reasonable explanation that it is time to move forward in that regard. 
Secondly clause 3(b)(ii) requires councils “not to consider the effects on climate change of discharges into air of greenhouse gases”. I would have thought that Mr Shirley and others who have spoken in the debate before me would fully support that because that will remove any impediment to local councils being able to give consents to coal-fired plants. We in United Future rejoice in that. All we have to do right now is to change the ideology of the current Government with regard to its opposition to coal-fired generation. If that does not occur in this term perhaps the next Government to be sworn into the House will have a different opinion and will be able to move very speedily into releasing coal-fired generation across the country—because councils as a result of this legislation will not take into account the effects of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. We consider that to be a good step in the right direction. As Mr Shirley said earlier this legislation does not condemn coal. In fact it may well make it easier— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s not listed in the renewables. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: We will discuss the renewables in just a moment. However we believe it is sensible to ask councils to take care of those things in clause 3(b)(i) and (ii) and that will result in good law for the Resource Management Act. It is crazy for us to put our heads in the sand and say that nothing is going on in respect of the climate around the world. There is some debate about whether the cause is greenhouse gas emissions and also about whether it is a cyclical thing as a result of increased heat coming from the sun. However it is caused it would be wise for councils to take into account the effects of climate change in their planning. United Future has no problem with supporting that. 
When we move to the definition of “renewable energy” we come across different terms like “solar” “wind” “hydro” “geothermal” “biomass” “tidal” “wave” and “ocean current sources”. All of those should be promoted within New Zealand to enable us to generate energy on a more sustainable and renewable basis. I agree with Mr Shirley that it is not possible for wind on its own to solve all our energy requirements. As we calculated when we were in Waitaki the other week it would take something like 5000 windmills to generate the power that Project Aqua will generate. So it is not a question of one of those things meeting all the requirements; it is a combination of all of them. In particular we hope for advancing technology in respect of tidal and wave technology that may enable us to generate electricity in a very very sustainable way. As I mentioned in my second-reading speech this is not so much about giving a leg up or giving an unfair advantage—