Copeland Gordon: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:635;Page:6405] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on behalf of United Future in this third reading of the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill. United Future does not pretend to be able to predict all of the consequences and outcomes of climate change but through the growing scientific and economic evidence we understand the risks of climate change and the need for a timely response to it. Climate change is in truth a global challenge and through international and domestic cooperation it can be managed so as to mitigate its risks while providing at least in the New Zealand context a range of opportunities for environmental sustainability and social and economic development. The environment is our basic life-support system and must remain in good health. If people want to use the environment for outdoor recreation or economic development or if they want simply to admire and appreciate it then it must be used in ways that do not cause permanent widespread damage or compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs—that is in ways that are sustainable long term. 
We are very very delighted indeed to see the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative contained in this bill. While creating an opportunity for further carbon sinks the trees will also work to prevent soil erosion the leeching of nitrates and the excursion of stock into rural waterways. We want to see this legislation promote the planting of native trees and bush alongside or close to all inland waterways where practical in order to act as carbon sinks limit soil erosion and reduce agricultural runoffs. We encourage landowners to return non-viable farming land—and we have huge tracts of it in this country—to native regenerative forest in order to create carbon sinks. We also want to ensure that New Zealand producers of sustainably harvested timber products are not undercut by the dumping of imported timber and products that have been harvested without regard to sustainability criteria. I think it is really quite stupid that we continue to allow into this country large importations of timber that come from non-sustainable harvesting in overseas countries in competition with timber grown sustainably in New Zealand. I believe that unless we change our policy in that regard we are not part of the solution to climate change but are actually part of the problem. 
I want to make a couple of other brief points. Firstly when we talk about planting trees and the afforestation of the New Zealand land we are not talking about any particular type of tree. Native trees and exotic species should both be part of the mix. Indeed we need to spread our risk away from  
Pinus radiata 
 and look at other faster growing and therefore better carbon sequestering species—such as for example eucalypts. I would also like to say that there is some scientific linkage now between pine trees which we are good at growing and biomass fuels. If indeed that science can be progressed we could certainly have a win-win for New Zealand. Let us imagine that from our own pine trees we could actually produce quite a good proportion of our transport fuel needs. That really would be an ideal outcome and we should strive to work towards it. 
I also mention that just the other day I talked with Dr Malahoff who is the head of GNS Science—a Crown-owned institute—and one of New Zealand’s leading scientists. He told me that GNS Science is currently working on a system of possible sequestration of carbon from our thermal electricity generating plants. I understand the idea is that the carbon would be captured and pumped into the now empty Kapuni gas well. I thought that was a quite striking—and also scientific—response to the question of climate change. I think the Government should give full support to that idea because it could be a very important part of bringing New Zealand in the direction of the long-term goal of carbon neutrality. 
I agree too with the points that Jeanette Fitzsimons has made regarding transport. I think we need to spend more time identifying where the roadblocks are to shifting people out of cars and into buses and trains. We need to make sure that we have robust ways of doing that and come up with novel answers. For example I have suggested in this House earlier that we need more car parking buildings at the railway stations in Auckland and Wellington so that people can park-and-ride. We need to look at those practical realities as well if we are to see the carbon emission goals be accomplished. 
This bill is a step in the right direction and has the wholehearted support of United Future.