Groser Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
Groser Tim: Climate Change (Emissions Trading and Renewable Preference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13811] 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow the very thoughtful contribution by my colleague David Carter. I would go one step further than him and say that I think this is probably one of the rare occasions we have in this House to write policy almost on a blank page. Although that is not technically true because there are some antecedents to this it is about as true as one ever gets in the real world of politics to writing a policy on a blank page. It is a policy of—and for once the words are justified—profound importance. This will have very large impacts on the way New Zealand will look in 20 to 30 or more years. 
Behind all the uncertainties of the debates we have had on climate change over the last 10 to 15 years I think the thing that motivates us in the National Party is a clear sense that in recent years the science has absolutely firmed up that human-induced or anthropogenic climate warming is becoming a greater and greater problem and that it is totally irresponsible to sit there and worry about the uncertainties and do nothing. I understand the uncertainties around the effects. For example we have around 380 parts of carbon dioxide - equivalent gases per million in the atmosphere. According to the Stern report this may reach a range of 450 to 550 parts inducing perhaps 2 to 3 degrees of global warming. Others have an even more frightening prospect. We are never going to settle these issues but we have to make a response now. The one thing I agreed with in Rodney Hide’s analysis was that yes some major issues are still being debated out there but as he said politicians have to decide on a response. On that ground the National Party will support this emissions trading scheme bill going to a first reading. 
In relation to the uncertainties there is a metaphor I like to use that I have used in the past and it is a quote from Arnold Schwarzenegger in his latest career move as Governor of California and one of the leading exponents in the United States of standing up to the plate on climate change. I thought he put it very simply and very neatly when he said: “If my son shows signs of sickness and I have nine physicians saying ‘Take him to the hospital.’ and I have one physician saying ‘This is a naturally occurring phenomenon. Don’t do anything. He’ll get over it.’ what do I do? I take my son to the hospital.” It is a very simple political metaphor and I think it is exactly the right prudential approach. 
Moving from that to the policy response is an awesomely complicated matter. There are two faces of this: the domestic and the international. The first point I want to make when I look at those two interconnected faces is that precisely because we are trying to get something that will be durable we have to factor political sustainability into the equation both domestically and internationally. That is why we put into the discussion paper on external strategies the following statement. We observed that there were three traditional strands to New Zealand foreign policy that we saw consensus emerging on across particularly the two parties—defence foreign affairs and trade—but we saw a fourth strand emerging which is climate change and that is the area that we need to work on. We need to work on that because only if it can command at least bipartisan support in the context of New Zealand politics will we have a politically durable base. And it is only if it is based on political reality that the companies and individuals whose behaviour we expect to modify through an emissions trading scheme will have sufficient certainty that although there will still be fine-tuning of the scheme in the future to be sure—this will have to regarded as a work in progress—the fundamental direction is settled. 
To me that is the real lesson of the carbon tax and the “fart tax”. I am not trying to make a partisan point here; I am just trying to make a point about the importance of factoring political sustainability into the equation. If we start off with a view that we do not need to take account of political realities and commercial realities as soon as pressure is imposed on those environmental policies what happens? It is the collapse of those environmental policies. So taking too extreme a view in terms of the balance between the environment and economic sustainability resulted in those two cases in the complete collapse of an environmental response. There is a deep lesson there for all of the people who will be involved in this debate. That is why right at the start of this process our leader John Key made it absolutely clear that we are not a one-issue party. We do want to sustain this country economically just as we want to fulfil our environmental responsibilities and we will be looking for balance. It is only in that way that we will get a politically sustainable solution. 
I now want to pass to the international dimension of this issue and make some fairly general observations. Frankly the international negotiation of this is the heart and soul of the matter. If we do not get an international response that builds on the first commitment period with a successor agreement or a set of interlocking complementary agreements then we have literally nothing. Kyoto is a first response by the international community to global warming. I was much intrigued by Peter Dunne’s interesting personal recollections of predecessor negotiations to the global warming convention. It is easy to criticise Kyoto precisely because it is a first and I think limited response by the international community. In reality all international economic diplomacy moves forward on the basis of incremental progress. People want revolutions. New Zealand farmers in the world trading system always wanted a revolution. That is not how it happens. If we look at the history of the international community’s response to international trade imperatives what we see is a successful policy of incrementalism—starting off 50 years ago with a very limited set of agreements building on the back of that and always moving in the right direction. 
I suspect that when the history—30 or 40 years from now—of the international community’s response to anthropogenic-induced global warming is written the history will be a very sad story of failure if we simply stop at Kyoto with its limitations. It will be a success if the future historians on climate change politics can write: “Kyoto was a first limited step which led to more sustainable political agreements.” 
In respect of the future of the negotiation let me make just a couple of points about the United States and the developing countries because quite clearly this is where we need major buy-in. Of the two personally I am much less concerned about the situation of the United States and I say that for three interlocking reasons. First of all in terms of the dimension of the problem the United States is probably currently around equal to China in respect of its total greenhouse gas emissions. In fact according to some estimates China may now be fractionally ahead. So the nature of the threat and the nature of the problem from the sum of all developing countries is a much much larger problem. 
Secondly I think it is palpably clear that opinion in the United States is changing. My colleague Dr Nick Smith our spokesperson on this issue has referred to 23 individual states where there are climate change initiatives under way. So although there have been some problems at the federal level to describe the United States as not moving in the right direction is I think a gross mischaracterisation of the reality. Thirdly we will be absolutely relying on the combination of international commitments and science breakthroughs if we are ever to seriously get on top of this problem. An enormous proportion of the world’s scientific knowledge scientific talent and research development money resides in the United States. I am not so concerned about that. 
I am not expecting very much from Bali and I would urge other people to be a little patient. The way I would see it panning out in terms of my experience with international economic negotiations is that Bali will be seen essentially as a holding pattern. The United States will define its position essentially for the post-Kyoto commitment period starting in 2013 after the next presidential election. That will take place at the end of 2008. The President whoever she or he is will appoint her or his chief climate change negotiator probably around May 2009. This will require a long period of consolidation in the United States. Members should not be surprised if it is not until 2010 that we see a United States response. 
In the meantime we will proceed down this track. We are committed to working with the Government. We think it is very important to get the detail right. Let us observe the point that Peter Dunne made—that this is far too important to rush through. Let us try to get this as right as we can.