Graham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeGraham Kennedy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 30 January 2014. Volume:696;Page:15692. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]2.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to theMinister for Climate Change Issues: Will the Government be announcing a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2030; if so when?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): For multiple good reasons no.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the European Commission agreed last week to reduce emissions—40 percent off 1990 levels by 2030—and given that the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for fast following why is the answer “No.”?Hon TIM GROSER: We now come to the multiple good reasons: first we have an aspirational target of a minus 50 percent reduction by 2050; and second picking these figures out of the air without reference to a country’s national circumstances is insane. The European Union is already projected to be around about 24 or 25 percent below 1990 emissions by 2020. So a minus 40 figure looks entirely different. You try to implement that on New Zealand and you will destroy the economy.Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the reason the Minister is so reluctant for New Zealand to do its fair share that his Government’s policies mean that New Zealand is now on track to actually increase its emissions by 50 percent around 2030 which has to be insane?Hon TIM GROSER: It is not insane if I could say so; it is a consequence of the forestry cycle. Our forestry cycle which works on a 27-year rotation cycle peaks at its maximum in 2030. If you extend this beyond 2030 to say 2040 then our forests begin to act once again as a very significant sink and you reach a completely different conclusion.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that forestry is of only secondary relevance to the issue of reducing emissions does he agree with the Ministry for Primary Industries’ recent reportFour Degrees of Global Warming that if we continue to sit on our hands and allow the planet to keep warming extreme weather will wreak havoc with our primary industries including forestry?Hon TIM GROSER: Well I am not sure about the specific context of this report but if indeed it said “sitting on our hands” in respect of just New Zealand I do not agree with it at all since we are not. Secondly if it is talking about as I think it should be the broader international response then I think I would agree with it. So what we need is a comprehensive internationally legally binding agreement that actually deals with the problem not the 0.14 percent of emissions New Zealand contributes.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he received a congratulatory message from the Green Party with the announcement by Genesis Energy of the closing its coal-fired turbine in Huntly one of the biggest contributors to New Zealand’s greenhouse gases also noting that in the previous decade the Government was subsidising the construction of new thermal generators?Hon TIM GROSER: Long ago in life I learnt never to wait for letters that I hope might arrive but do not ever arrive. So the answer is no. But what I would say to the Minister is that of course the thing that the member asking the primary question left out was the failure of the commission to get agreement on its renewables targets—it was trying to achieve I think from memory a 27 percent increase in electricity from renewables. Well hang on once again that is a difficult ask of the European Union because of its actual national circumstances. For us we have a 75 or 77 percent return already from renewables and we set a target for 90 percent. You need to look at the national circumstances of all countries not just pull figures out of the sky.Dr Kennedy Graham: Looking at the national circumstances of 27 countries in Europe and others and having regard to all of them and recognising that all of them are reducing their emissions collectively by 40 percent national circumstances notwithstanding does he then think it is right for other countries to do all this heavy lifting while New Zealand reduces its ambition and sits on its hands and by “following” does he actually mean freeloading?Hon TIM GROSER: Absolutely this Government is not freeloading on this. The fact of the matter is that we set last year a minus 5 commitment unilaterally—no matter what happens internationally we are going to do minus 5 by 2020. That is the same as Australia effectively—minus 4. It is roughly the same as the United States—minus 3. And it is somewhat better than Japan—plus 3—and Canada which is plus 4. I think we are absolutely consistent with what we said to the New Zealand public. We will do our fair share.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given how 5 percent for 2020 compares with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommendation of 20 percent to 40 percent by that year—5 percent falling way short—is this Minister confident that he will be able to look his children’s children in the eye and say he did all he could to leavethem a safer world as President Obama said he was determined to do during his State of the Union address yesterday?Hon TIM GROSER: Well this is not an entirely theoretical question since I have four mokopuna. I usually talk to them aboutThe Princess and the Pea not climate change but I am confident that later on I will be able to look them in the eye. But the underlying point here about minus 5 is that we have left on the table an offer to do a darn sight more—minus 10 to minus 20—but only in the context of a meaningful international agreement and some other very sensible conditions we put around it.