Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2060] 
8.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What is the Government’s current best estimate of the amount by which New Zealand will fail to meet its climate change obligations by 2012 and what will the likely cost of this be to the taxpayer in 2012? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The member will recall that in May last year the official estimate of the net position changed from one of surplus which had been the consistent advice over many years to one of a deficit of 36 million tonnes. This was revised upwards last month to a deficit of 64 million tonnes and the cost has been revised upwards to $562 million spread over the 5-year period from 2008 to 2012. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that it makes more sense to spend money now to pay New Zealanders to reduce our carbon emissions than to pay Russia for carbon credits in 2012? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: To the extent that that is a possibility I think it does make sense. That is why 3 years ago or thereabouts we introduced the Projects to Reduce Emissions programme which enabled people who could access carbon-abating technologies to do so in response to receiving carbon credits if their plan or their activity was more expensive than business as usual. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How much carbon and how many dollars have been saved by the Government’s Projects to Reduce Emissions policy which has enabled most of our current wind power to get going; and will the Minister be able to assure the international climate change conference at Victoria University next week that this approach will be continued and expanded? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me answer from memory. The Government has put into the market something like 10.5 million tonnes worth of carbon credits and—because we run this thing at a profit—has probably secured about 12 million tonnes of abatements. That is a difference of about 1.5 million tonnes. The current Treasury price for carbon is about $8 or $9 per tonne. One can do the sums from that. It feels like a $12 million or $13 million profit or thereabouts. As to the continuation of the policy the member will be aware that the Government has climate change policies under review and the outcome of the answer to her last question will be part of that review. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister regret the fact that New Zealand signed the Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners given that all we have seen to date is increasing costs with no benefits whatsoever? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Leaving aside the fact that the projects to reduce emissions managed to kick-start wind energy in this country as Jeanette Fitzsimons implied in her question we need to be careful to address the fact of costs on both sides. There is a cost of doing nothing. I refer the member to some advice that I received from a member of this House that the cost of doing nothing is such that it will “eventually stuff life on Earth”. That seems to me to be quite a costly thing to have happen. That advice comes from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister concerned at the rate at which forests are being cleared for conversion to farming thus increasing our climate liabilities and will the climate change policy review he mentioned seriously consider making some payment to the owners of forests planted since 1990 for the carbon they have stored in order to discourage further deforestation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The policy suggestion the member has just come up with of course would increase the cost to the Government beyond the $500 million - plus that I announced in answer to the primary question so we would need to take cognisance of any fiscal effects thereof. What is my view about the shift from forestry into non-forestry activities? It seems to me that a country that bases its economy on land resources has to have some flexibility of land use and that is especially the case where forest was planted in areas where farming could not take place but now can because the cobalt deficiency in the soil that precluded farming from taking place has now been resolved. 
Hon David Carter 
: Will the Minister acknowledge to the House today that the entity responsible for the greatest amount of deforestation in New Zealand is the Government through its entity Landcorp? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It probably is—I am just not sure but it probably is—because Landcorp has just picked up a bunch of land on the Rotorua-Taupo road which is the area where the cobalt deficiency occurred. It is logical that that would be the first part of New Zealand to be converted back to farming. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister really believe Nick Smith’s statement given the fact that New Zealand’s total emissions are 0.001 percent of the world’s carbon emissions and is it really credible that that will ruin life on Earth as we know it—because New Zealand First members do not think it is? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is hard to know what the truth is. It is even harder to know what the truth is when one examines the various positions of the National Party. For example its leader Don Brash quotes himself as saying: “I am one who thinks the science is still debated.” Even his mate President Bush does not believe that any more. On the other hand Nick Smith says it will “stuff life on Earth”. So one says nothing is going to happen and the other one says everything is going to happen and it is all a little bewildering. 
Question time interrupted.