News release

11 Comments
13 May 2007
NEWS: Climate Change Target - 50 by 50

National Party Leader John Key says his party willl set a target of a 50% reduction in carbon equivalent net emissions, as compared to 1990 levels, by 2050. In shorthand: A 50% cut by 2050. 50 by 50.

"National's '50 by 50' target will send a clear message to the world: New Zealand means business on climate change. This target is comparable with targets being set by other developed nations and it makes sense for New Zealand's agriculture-intensive economy.

"We are a fair-minded people and we're rightly proud that our country is a responsible international citizen. Tackling climate change requires global action, and New Zealand should stand up and be counted in the battle."

Mr Key used his National Party Northern Region Conference speech to spell out more of National's thinking on global warming.

"National will not pull out of the Kyoto Protocol; we are committed to honouring our international obligations. But I think Labour has been irresponsible in the extreme by failing to prepare New Zealand for the protocol's binding requirements.

"National will do much better at reducing New Zealand's emissions than Labour has done. As a starting point we think New Zealand needs a credible emission reduction target to strive for. A 'carbon neutral' goal with no timeline just won't cut it."

"National is committed to growing our economy. We see confronting climate change as a vital part of the policy mix for fuelling that growth."

Mr Key says climate-change awareness will create new markets for Kiwi industries, tourism, and technology. It's estimated that demand for low-carbon products will be worth at least $500 billion per year by 2050. Countries and consumers will be crying out for climate-friendly products and innovations.

"History has proven New Zealand to be capable of huge determination in the face of global challenges; under National we will be determined again.

"I have faith in New Zealanders. I have faith that every single one of you values our environment and is prepared to act to preserve it. It is in our interest and it is in our nature. I know we can rely on Kiwis to do their fair share."

Climate Change Target Overview & Backgrounder

Key Points:
National Party Climate Change Target

A 50% reduction in in carbon equivalent net emissions as compared to 1990 levels by 2050. In shorthand: A 50% cut by 2050 – "50 by 50".

Measures to achieve this include:

1. 'Cap and Trade' Permit System. We will introduce a comprehensive 'cap and trade' emission permit system to manage greenhouse gas emissions. This system will encourage cost-effective emission reduction across the economy.

2. Fast-track Renewable Energy Projects. We will make it easier to invest in renewable energy by reforming the Resource Management Act. We think it's ridiculous that Labour is allowing sensible green wind-farm and hydro developments to be caught up in red tape while Government-owned power stations burn more coal and gas than ever before.

3. Forestry Incentives. We will encourage tree planting. Labour's war with the forestry sector has led to a chainsaw massacre of trees. We will incentivise more planting and less cutting by giving some carbon credits to the foresters who plant the trees in the first place.

4. Boost Research and Development. We will boost research and development, especially in agriculture. No other country has as much a vested interest in solving the problem of methane emissions as New Zealand does. Agricultural technology, especially in ruminant microbiology, has the most exciting potential for big climate-change gains, both economic and atmospheric. We already corner the world market for science skills in this area, but even so, we have fewer than 25 scientists working in the ruminant microbiology field. National will up the ante.

5. Global Action and Trans-Tasman Co-operation. We will honour our Kyoto obligations while steadfastly working for additional and future global alliances. We believe a strong New Zealand voice on climate change is vital to the "brand" our exporters rely on, and can be a key force for rallying the global troops. We will particularly pursue trans-Tasman solutions and co-operation. National sees trading advantages in a trans-Tasman carbon market and in co-operation with Australia on research, development and technology.

6. Empowering Consumers. We will give Kiwis incentives to make climate-friendly choices. Whether it's catching a bus or buying an energy-efficient appliance, every individual can make a contribution to reducing New Zealand's emissions. Government has a role to play in ensuring Kiwis have access to the infrastructure, clear information and meaningful incentives that encourage the most climate-friendly behaviour.

Backgrounder:
National Party Climate Change Target

How does this target compare with targets in other developed countries?

Developed countries are opting for clear, measurable and time-bound emission-reduction targets.

    • Australia's opposition party supports a 60% reduction by 2050, as compared to 2000 emissions levels. This target is comparable with National's "50 by 50" target because our target is relative to 1990 emissions levels.
    • The United Kingdom is setting a binding target of a 60% cut in emissions by 2050.
    • The European Union aims to cut emissions by 20% by 2020.
    • Various states in America have devised targets, with the Republican Californian Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, committed to a target of 80% reduction by 2050.
    • Norway has committed to a goal for 'carbon neutrality', which they hope to achieve by 2050, but which is not legally binding. Norway is one of the world's major oil exporters.

What is the scientific basis of this target?

Evidence suggests global greenhouse gas emissions need to be within the range of 450-55O parts per million to stabilise climate change.

The Stern Report indicates that in order to reach that target, global greenhouse gas emissions would have to drop by 25% by 2050. The report suggests that, in general, rich countries need to take responsibility for reducing emission by 60-80% by 2050, as compared to 1990 emissions levels. However, it notes that each country's reduction target needs to take account of a number of factors, including wealth, historic emissions and the nature of emissions.

New Zealand's emissions are significantly less per person than those of Australia, the United States and Canada. National believes the "50 by 50" target is New Zealand's fair contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change, taking into account our already high level of renewable energy and the difficulty of reducing agricultural emissions.

Why has National chosen 1990 as the baseline for its target?

1990 is the baseline agreed to in the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and is the international standard for comparing emissions. Most targets set internationally have been relative to this baseline, including those in the Kyoto Protocol

Will National pull out of the Kyoto Protocol?

No. We are committed to fulfilling New Zealand's commitments as a responsible global citizen. In an increasingly carbon-conscious world the implications of withdrawing would be damaging to our key export industries.

Why is a target needed in addition to our Kyoto Protocol commitments?

Developed countries are devising time-bound emission-reduction targets for the post-Kyoto period. In this context, New Zealand needs to make a definitive and credible statement about our intended long-term contribution to the battle against climate change.

In addition, the government needs to give Kiwi taxpayers, businesses, industries and farmers a clear signal about where climate-change policy is headed in the long-run so they can plan and invest accordingly.


National understands that to make good decisions investors need early and clear warning of what emissions levels future governments will allow.

National's "50 by 50" target meets three key tests: It is internationally credible, it is suitable to New Zealand's unique economic profile, and it is time-bound.

To download a printer-friendly version of this speech as a PDF document, click here.


Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Anthony Farrell 2007-05-13 19:52 - (Reply)

John, I am amazed that you appear to believe this man made climate change propaganda. I initially put your comments down to working a pragmatic populist agenda in order to attract the swinging left, but you are now talking regularly as if you actually do believe it. Surely you have competent scientific expertise available to you that can clarify the political science statements coming from the IPCC and put some credible facts in to balance the nonsense being promulgated in this amazingly stupid discussion. The statement you have quoted "Evidence suggests global greenhouse gas emissions need to be within the range of 450-55O parts per million to stabilise climate change." simply does not make rational scientific sense. If you do not agree go to this web site http://www.climatescience.org.nz/ and at least note that there is an alternative view that needs to be recognised in opposition to this craziness. As far as I am concerned your support for carbon emission control and the totally unnecessary legislation being considered is a vote stopper. My vote will not go to National based on unsound policy statements like this one.

#1.1 - Luna DeCleene 2007-05-14 09:50 - (Reply)

One voter lost - many more gained! I want to congratulate you on your initiative to control climate change. The steps that your party plan to take to achieve the goal of carbon neutral status seem logical and comprehensive. I have been considering voting National (as a regular Labour supporter) based on your common sense approach to the issues of late. The only thing holding me back was the issue of climate change. As a young person, i am extremely concerned about the state of the world - especially after watching An Inconvenient Truth (which i recommend to any sceptics). Thank you for adressing this issue. You have won my vote and confidence.

#1.1.1 - Mat 2009-12-06 12:53 - (Reply)

Its a LIE, why should I pay for Carbon Tax?? Or be tricked into thinking that riding in one of those climate safe DEATH TRAPS they call enviro-cars is really safe for my family ??

#1.2 - Andrew Atkin said:
2007-05-14 11:23 - (Reply)

Even if you're right Anthony, politicians have no choice but to "play politics", otherwise they will not get into power at all - and we've got Helen for another 3 years as the only other alternative (no thanks). Shows us the democratic importance of good media and good (relevant and unbiased) education for kids. However, regardless of the relationship between carbon-output and global warming, NZ has a lot to gain from greater oil-independence on economic grounds alone.

#2 - Paul Osborne 2007-05-14 08:16 - (Reply)

John I totally agree with Anthony's comments man made global warming is a total myth with no scientific backing. I would recomend the climate science website and I would also recoment you watch the great global warming swindle which aired in the UK recently and is downloadable from the web. I'm a swaying voter but this action has ruled National off the list. My vote will go to the party that says we pull out of Kyoto or at least offer a referendum to let the people of New Zealand decide if we blow billions of dollars on an unproven theory. Sadly it looks like I wont be voting for anyone

#3 - Paul 2007-05-14 08:17 - (Reply)

We don't need another apologist for human made climate change we need a leader who can take advise from world renown scientists here in NZ. look for yourself. http://www.climatescience.org.nz The rubbished reports put out by the IPCC can be disputed by any school kid where does that leave you ... not a leader! We don't need money to be wasted on this propaganda We want free university education for our children so they can become the doctors scientists that we need the current systems creates disincentives for any but the most financial to achieve. The climate changes so what!! I am looking forward to a hotter period of climate. We should be mining and using all the resources that we can to progress this county, not live in caves. Think Big! (thank you sir Rob) thats why we are in the situation we are to-day but to-morrows energy needs are way behind economic growth and cost too much. The loony greens will have us living in caves smoking grass. Hey John get some balls! next thing you will flip flop on tax cuts. [CAUTION: Please do not name call or use other gratuitiously derogatory language in this comments section! - admin]

#4 - Nicholas Shannon 2007-05-15 16:13 - (Reply)

What's Labour's Climate Change policy? Oh that's right 'carbon neutrality' - think it has something to do with Switerland. I agree particuarly with #4 Boost Research and Development. Science is all about making processes better & more efficient. So whether you believe in climate change or not one good thing that can come out this is more research.

#5 - Graeme Woodfield 2007-09-25 09:01 - (Reply)

I am perplexed by the emphasis on forests to absorb carbon dioxide. Surely all green plants use this mechanism. If so, and as NZ is one of the best countries for growth of green plants (including trees), surely this should be taken into account in the calculations? Without this, it puts NZ at a disadvantage as compared with countries that have large expanses of desert or low green growth. I suspect that the present methods of estimation are grossly incorrect for the real world.

#6 - Ron 2007-09-25 11:24 - (Reply)

Your support for this hysterical populist nonsense is most disappointing and will ensure that my vote will NOT be for National. It is patently obvious that you have not seen the BBC4 documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". I recommend that you do so as soon as possible. It demonstrates how this hysterical overreaction to a perfectly natural phenomenon has been politically induced and fed by the "environmentalist lobby" and the PC brigade. Sure - there has been a degree of warming - it is totally due to solar activity. Our input is minimal and our endeavours to control it will have no effect whatever. (This is not to say that we would not be well advised, simply in the name of good housekeeping, to clean up our act where practical.) The mass hysteria, Kyoto, Fart Taxing and so on is just an enormous con-trick by control freak gummints to extract further taxes to finance their dogmatic aims.

#7 - Jules 2008-07-25 00:14 - (Reply)

If you want to be convinced by the rubbish by TV shows such as "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - then I am sure you will be. It's total spin. It's also dangerous; people are easily duped by glitzy TV shows with nice CGI; as a number of you have been. Scientific consensus is that the 13,000,000,000 tonnes of 'man-made' CO2 we put in the atmosphere (that's globally every year) is having an effect on climate. There is really no 'debate' about this in scientific circles. The energy industry are the one's who are on a propaganda war here. Reading what some of the comments from fellow supporters actually makes me feel ashamed to be a national supporter. There are clearly some sheep in this flock. I commend John for accepted the advice of the world's scientists. I'd probably switch to the green party if he didn't

#8 - Brian Casey 2009-07-08 23:29 - (Reply)

I am disturbed about the lack of public input, and the apparent pre-conceived conclusions despite a tour by Hon Nick Smith to hear the public opinion, and get feed-back. If this is the stated John Key policy, why is National even bothering to ask anyone for their input? I am seriously concerned about how easily our PM John Key appears to have been persuaded by Al Gore, the purveyor of lies about islanders having to come to New Zealand because of rising sea levels caused by global warming, whereas in fact, any sea level rise is as a result of tectonic plate movements causing the island to sink, nothing to do with climate in any way at all. Prior to becoming PM, he said that Kyoto was quote "This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem. Even if it is a problem, it will be delayed for about 6 years. Then it will hit the world in 2096 instead of 2102, or something like that. It will not work. " Unquote ( Hansard 10/5/2005). Before the end of this year, we will have unmandated "negotiators" going to Copenhagen to bind taxpayers here for generations on the basis of the supporters of pseudoscience. Who are these "negotiators", who appointed them, whose real interests do they carry? No one is telling the consumer how much this will cost, because if they did, there would be riots. They are playing on the public's emotions to "save the world". Human nature wants to believe that everything that happens is as a result of mankind's actions. Yet no human can change the angle of the earth's axis to the sun, nor the complicated orbit of the earth around the sun, nor the effects of 90% of the world's underwater volcanoes, nor the other volcanoes above the sea, and they don't even understand why we have El Nino, nor La Ninya climate effects. Satellite readings, which are the best data we can get, show the world is cooling, despite all the hype about CO2 causing "dangerous increases in temperature". So go to the Hon Nick Smith's road-shows and ask the question: "What is this going to cost me, and my children? And is there a money back guarantee when it all proves to be rubbish, or will the bureaucracy be so great that no-one will be able to dismantle it? Is this scheme covered by the consumer guarantee act? Do yourselves a favour and read the latest science at the following link. http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/climate-depotglobal-temperatures-have-plunged-74%c2%b0f-since-gore-released-an-inconvenient-truth/


Add Comment

To prove you're not a spambot, just answer this simple question: Who is the Prime Minister of New Zealand?
 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.