Shaw James: General DebateText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeShaw James: General Debate[Sitting date: 23 September 2015. Volume:709;Page:6935. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Today marks the day that Ioane Teitiota is being deported to Kiribati. He is a man who sought to be classed as the world’s first climate change refugee. I understand that the merits of this particular case are debatable and that we do not have a sufficient classification for persons who are displaced by the consequences of climate change. He has a wife and three children who as I understand it will be joining him in a week in Kiribati.For those people who have been to Kiribati they will have seen that on a fairly regular basis that island is uninhabitable because the sea levels rise and groundwater rises to the point where it is coming up through their plantations and through the bases of their houses. This is a sign of things to come. New Zealand has no plan for this. There are 179000 people in Kiribati the Marshall Islands Nauru and Tuvalu who will be the first people in the world to lose their countries and who will be displaced as a result of the consequences of climate change. Those countries are arguing that we need to limit global warning to 1.5 degrees. They are asking countries like New Zealand and Australia and others around the world to cut our emissions to a level that would limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.But in the last few decades temperatures have already risen by 1 degree and the sea is already rising. We often think about climate change as something that is happening in the future to other people or to polar bears somewhere on the other side of the world. In fact it is happening now it is happening to us and it is happening to our Pacific neighbours. We do not have a plan to deal with it.In New Zealand we have adopted a reduction target for our emissions of 11 percent below our 1990 levels by the year 2030. This is being classed as an inadequate response by those organisations that are scientifically tracking what it is—all the commitments that countries are making; how they would add up. Currently if every country in the world was to behave the way that New Zealand is planning to behave we would be on track for a 3 to 4 degree increase in temperature over the next 100 years or so and that would lead to what is referred to as catastrophic climate change. It would see huge sea level rise and it would see not just those four countries of Kiribati the Marshall Islands Nauru and Tuvalu losing all of their territory but significant reductions in the territory of other Island States including New Zealand. So many of our people live within sight of the shore and so much of our infrastructure is located at sea level or very close to sea level.When the Government says that we are doing our fair share this is actually an inaccurate statement. It would require New Zealand to look at cuts of around 40 percent below 1990 levels or more for us to have anything close to an adequate response to limiting emissions and to limiting global warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees or in that sort of zone. So when the Government says that the Government is committed to limiting emissions to ensure that global warming only increases by 2 degrees our own behaviour is completely inconsistent with that. Our own behaviour would actually lead to a 3 to 4 degree temperature rise.So when we say that we are committed to a 2 degree temperature rise and then our own actions are to increase temperatures by 3 to 4 degrees what that means is that we are relying on other countries to do the work for us. We are actually freeloading on other countries. And the problemthat we have got of course is that there are many other countries in the world that are also planning on freeloading on the works of other people. So we cannot say on the one hand that our actions will be consistent with a 3 to 4 degree temperature rise and at the same time say that we are committed to a 2 degree temperature rise and at the same time say that we are committed to the people of the Pacific and to those small Island States. We need to commit to a 40 percent reduction target below 1990 levels by the year 2030. We need to give those islands some chance but we also need to plan for populations in our neighbouring countries that are displaced.What is our plan for the 179000 people who currently live on those islands? Are we planning on making territory in New Zealand well above water level available to them? The Government has no plan. It has been completely inconsistent in its position and we would argue that it needs to come straight with New Zealand and with the Pacific.