Graham Kennedy: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Sitting date: 06 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6292. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 In the limited time we have I do not want to devote too much time to responding to the previous speaker a speaker for whom I have considerable respect not least on climate change issues. Notwithstanding that it is not too hard to refute each of the points he made. 
Firstly he commented on the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 to 2008 and the reduction in emissions from 2009 to 2012 as if that was a badge of honour for the Government. It was nothing of the sort. It had to do with the global financial crisis. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it doesn’t. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: It does. The gross emissions— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s the stop in deforestation. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: That is one aspect. But the fact is that the gross emissions went down—you are talking about net—largely because of the global financial crisis. If in fact there is economic growth again and if you do not decouple then those gross emissions are going to rise again. What Dr Smith did not do was point out figure 2.1 of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Panel’s report to the effect that gross emissions are going to rise. He did not point that out. Whichever Government is in power unless there is a strong emissions trading scheme in place gross emissions are going to rise. And I do not see him to receive the point. In fact he asked for the Government to be commended for the gross emissions going down. Well if that is the case the Government has to be commended for the emissions going down because of the global financial crisis only. 
His second point from the  
Guardian 
 is that New Zealand lamb has less of a carbon footprint than British. That is true as far as it goes. What he did not say is that in either case our agricultural emissions are going up as a result of increased meat production to meet increased global population. So unless you can decouple agriculture from an increase in gross emissions we in this country—whether we are less carbon-intensive than Britain or not—are going to be responsible for an increase in emissions. We cannot afford to do that and neither can the world. 
Point No. 3 was that with manufacturing jobs you cannot have it both ways. True you cannot and you do not have to. The Green Party put out a platform in 2011—only a year ago—for 100000 new green jobs that reduce emissions and increase the quality of life with employment going up. It is easy enough to do; it is just that we do not get hung up on the old-fashioned notion of how to get jobs. 
Point No. 4 was that with electricity prices you need a balance. I totally agree with that. It is just that you get a balance by some recycling of revenue that can be obtained through either an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax and it does not have to be in the way that Dr Smith is implying. 
Finally he is criticising the Opposition for critiquing the emissions trading scheme as going backwards and said that that was untrue. Well he is right there. It is not going backwards; it is going forwards. It is going forwards to dangerous climate change and potentially catastrophic climate change. Nothing is going backwards. Nothing can go backwards at least not in this universe—although there may be one or two parallel ones in the Chamber. But the fact is that we cannot afford to have the kind of emissions trading scheme that is in front of us that is being further weakened if we want to have regard for what is going on around the planet. Mr Banks looks at me as if he is wondering what is happening in the Arctic. Well the fact is that polar ice has melted 80 percent since 1980 and it is on course to be ice-free for 1 day in 2015. That is 50 years ahead of 2065 which was the scientific— 
Shane Ardern 
: So how would taxing agriculture— 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: We will get to that yes—patience and we get there. You can adopt only an emissions trading scheme that is going to be strong enough to meet the requirements coming from the science. That is the premise on which the Green’s Supplementary Order Paper 147 is based. It is a rather broad-ranging emissions trading scheme which seeks to strengthen all the provisions that have been weakened in the emissions trading scheme in the last 3½ years. 
The departure point for—let us call it—the Green emissions trading scheme is that we look to the purpose of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 which is to enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations under the convention and the protocol. That is not just the Kyoto Protocol; that is the framework convention as well which goes beyond the Kyoto Protocol. So we have to meet the requirements of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions post 2012 under the framework convention. That is an obligation. How do we do it? And how do we do it in a way that meets the science that is coming out? The science makes it clear that there is a range on countries such as ours to reduce emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 and 80 to 95 percent by 2050. I note in the Cabinet paper that the Government has the impudence to say that it does not follow that New Zealand or any country has to be within that range which I suggest is an illogical absurdity and morally irresponsible. That range is determined by the scientists. All annex 1 countries are meant—meant—to be in that range. 
If we proceed from that we can then turn to the targets as they are set out in Part 1 of new schedule 5 proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 147. Here are the figures—which I have never seen come out from the Government incidentally although they are there more or less—in the review panel’s report as to the tonnages that are meant to come down. We can either say it is too damned hard and we will rip it up and throw it into the waste-paper basket and look forward to potentially catastrophic climate change or we can say: “My God this is going to be difficult and let’s work together to work out how we do it.” I am prepared to do that. I do not think for a second that we have got all the answers but these are the figures that would be required. 
Shane Ardern 
: The basic question is by taxing agriculture— 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: Yes I understand the question—thanks for that. We will get there. If you then proceed to Part 2 of new schedule 5 you will find there are 5-yearly carbon budgets as in the British model as to how we get there. They reflect the figures that are in Part 1. If National MPs and Green MPs look to that we would be able to at least have an informed dialogue as to how to get there. 
How do we get there? We get there by setting up an independent commission on climate change to give independent advice to the Government—whether it is National Labour Green—as to what figures are meant to go into the carbon budgets to get down to virtually a carbon-free economy by 2050. We would set up an appeals tribunal to receive any pleas for financial relief from any sector—whether it is corporate farming households or individuals—that believes it is experiencing undue financial hardship as a result of a strengthened emissions trading scheme. Let us not gloss over the fact that there will be change and uncomfortable change as a result of the need to adapt to a low-carbon economy. The challenge is not to deny it; the challenge is to work our way together as to how you get through it. I do take the points about the shock therapy of an apparent carbon tax. 
The measures would be the introduction of a price floor and termination of the price cap; a phase-out of the one-for-two surrender obligation; termination of the issuance of free allocations to participants; introduction of auctioning under the general discretion of a Minister commencing in 2013; restrictions on international units that can be traded and surrendered in New Zealand to the tune of 30 percent; introduction of agriculture into the scheme in 2014 which was originally intended to be 2013; and a requirement on emissions trading scheme participants who are purchasing units under the scheme to purchase a minimum percentage of those units in the form of units held by participants in the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. The foresters have had it bad. Permanent Forest Sink Initiative foresters are only part of that but they are probably getting a worse deal than anybody. 
There is a huge need to look at each of these provisions. I put it forward to the Committee with respect to the Minister for Climate Change Issues to engage in a proper dialogue—a respectful mutual dialogue—on each of these provisions. Although I will receive sincerely a critique of these provisions from the Government which no doubt will be on the grounds that it is too difficult and it will incur too much short-term financial pain the answer to each of those critiques to the Minister to the Government to National MPs and to all colleagues in this Committee—because we are in it together let us face it—is whether you can show to our satisfaction a weaker scheme that is going to meet the demands of the science that has come out in the last 3 years since the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report pertaining to ice melt potential methane release and the impacts of climate change that are around us. Thank you.