Fitzsimons Jeanette: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Climate Change Response Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:634;Page:6126] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We have just heard the modern equivalent of the old colonial attitude that one Englishman is worth 20 Chinamen. We are told that a country that has a quarter of the world’s people is the problem when that country is producing far less than a quarter of the world’s emissions. We are told that somehow it is the Chinese who are at fault and that New Zealanders are OK even though one New Zealander produces about eight times the emissions of one Chinese. Well I do not subscribe to that old colonial mentality. I actually think that every human being on this earth has equal entitlement to the atmosphere and that is the basis on which we should set climate policy. 
It is true that New Zealand cannot solve this one on its own. Neither can the United States nor any one country. The United States produces about 25 percent of the world’s emissions. If that stopped and the rest of the world kept going we would still be in deep trouble. China produces less than that. If China stopped and the rest of the world kept going we would still be in deep trouble. We have to play our part or we will not have any credibility when we try to negotiate on the world scene for a collective agreement to improve the climate. 
The Greens strongly support the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. This second reading is hugely overdue. We were very hopeful that the bill would be passed before the election and be in force by now. I want to look at what has happened since this bill was reported back in I believe July last year. That is 15 months or so ago. The signs that climate change is accelerating have become incontrovertible. The climate-deniers no longer have a case. Whether we are talking about the ice-melt the slowing of the Gulf Stream Greenland and the glaciers the acidification of the oceans attacking the base of the marine food chain—creatures that need calcium to form their shells—or methane being released from the warming of the Tundra the signs of accelerating climate change are so worrying that many scientists say we are at a tipping point. If we do not do something very urgently it will be too late to prevent a runaway effect. That is one lot of things that has happened. 
Also in July last year both major parties had policies on climate change. Now neither does. Well that is progress is it not? Last July National had a policy of being opposed to the Kyoto Protocol and to doing anything about it and it used every opportunity in the House to question whether climate change was real and to deny that New Zealand should be taking action because of these so-called trading partners. Labour had a policy package that contained some flaws but nevertheless some strengths too. That was abandoned in December. 
National now has a consultation document out and I congratulate it on that. I also congratulate it on taking climate change seriously now and seeking a policy solution. That is good. It is also generally supporting a “cap and trade” system. OK that is something we can work with. Labour is developing a policy on climate change which we will see some time soon. But neither of those parties has policy in place unlike the Greens who have had policy for a very long time and developed it further in March this year. 
The other thing that has happened since July last year is that New Zealand’s forests have shrunk for the first time in many decades. We are now clearing more forests than we are planting and that is a tragedy in terms of the climate. It is a tragedy in terms of many land-use issues as well. It is partly because of the policy limbo we have been in for a while and it is partly because of the exchange rate wood prices and very high dairy prices and so on. But there are huge clearances under way now where forests are going and the land is being converted to livestock farming. One can see the smoke as one stands on the top of Maungatautere mountain in the Waikato unable to see to the south because of the pall of smoke rising from the burning slashed forests. 
Clearance for livestock of course gives us a double whammy. Not only do we lose the carbon stored in the forest—we lose our sink—but when animals are put on the land the methane emissions increase. So we are getting both less sink and more sources. 
 We urgently need to recognise the carbon that the foresters store in their forests and make some payment for that. But not by simply handing credits with the obligations that they entail for guarantees forever into the future to companies with short-term thinking. 
The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative is a good programme. We are told that it will require the maintenance of a continuous canopy—no clear-felling—and that there will be a limited opportunity for harvesting for high-quality timber which is another benefit to the economy. There will then of course be other benefits. Afforestation on steeper land which will be the cheapest land to afforest permanently will reduce erosion improve water quality reduce flooding and improve flood control and it will provide a habitat for biodiversity that does not disappear every 25 years with clear-felling. Those are huge environmental benefits. 
I have met a number of forestry companies that are just waiting for this bill to go through in order to take up the commercial opportunities that it offers. Some of them want to plant native production forests with continuous canopy; that is something that we badly need. Some of them want to plant high-value exotics for the same purpose; that will be a very welcome diversification from pine. Some of them are forming exciting new partnerships with Maori using Maori land with Maori benefiting economically from that and with the forestry company providing the expertise and the investment capital. Those are very productive partnerships. I know of one with NgatiPorou; I am sure that there are others. 
Climate change will accelerate extreme weather events. It will make the flooding worse. It will make the erosion worse. It will make the droughts worse. We need to plant that steep land urgently for a whole raft of reasons in addition to carbon storage. I said earlier that we are told that the rules will entail all these things. But there is actually nothing in the bill at all about what the requirements will be on foresters planting these permanent sinks. I am sure that the policy is firm at the moment and that the regulations that will be written under the bill will express that policy. But what happens in the future? What happens if we have a Government that decides to weaken the rules that no longer requires long-term guarantees and says “Oh yes you can clear fell if you like as long as you plant.” and all the rest of it? It is a little bit worrying that the bill leaves it all to regulations because they are so easy to change without coming back to Parliament. 
I comment finally on the statement we hear so often in this House that we should not ratify the Kyoto ahead of our trading partners. Let us really be clear about what this means. The Bonn Agreement in 1995 which set up the basis for negotiating Kyoto said that all countries can be party to it. Only OECD countries will take targets to limit their carbon for the first period because it is the OECD countries whose emissions have overwhelmingly caused the climate change we are all now experiencing. The developing countries still need to feed their people. They will look at taking binding commitments when the OECD countries have acted. China India and the rest are waiting to see what the developed world does in the first commitment period. If by 2012 none of us have met our commitments do not expect them to come into a future agreement. The only way we will get those countries in is to demonstrate that we can do it and to develop the technology to help them do it as well. 
So what is happening? There was never any rort about China not being part of the agreement. China participates in clean development mechanisms. China is putting in more photovoltaics than any other country in the world. It is manufacturing more photovoltaics than any other country in the world. It is taking clean energy and energy efficiency extremely seriously and its emissions would be a great deal worse by now if it had not done that. So let us give China a break. Let us say that they have got a right to feed their people and have jobs for their people. They have a quarter of the world’s people. 
Let us show what we can do with all the benefits of our developed technology our developed economies the capital we have and lead the way then those other countries will follow. The only OECD countries that have not ratified are the United States and Australia. Yes we trade with them. We also trade in a major way with Europe who are taking this more seriously than any other block of countries. So let us be real. Let us play our part in the OECD of which we are a part to show a way forward for the world that the other countries can follow.