Here's an interesting excerpt from a cabinet paper on climate change policy:
[H]ighly polarised submissions... indicate that many sectors, including some key large emitters, and the public perceive a potential policy vacuum if decisions are not taken and a future process established. For various reasons (e.g. impact on credibility, uncertainty), they consider that this would be undesirable. There is also a perception that, since 1990, successive Governments have undertaken a series of consultations and made statements of commitment under the Framework Convention, but have failed to take substantive action.
(Emphasis added).
That paper was written in August 1999. We are now on our second series of public consultations since then, the first one (and those before it) failing to result in substantive action. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose...
12 comments:
I think you are confusing yourself by te different requirements for the UNFCC and THE kp,Thee are completely different products.
With the KP effectively carstrated in montreal by the limiting of the marracreach agreement and the agreement of the g8 plus 6 and the consenus of the world academies of science as part of the spb agreement,there is ipso facto only one game in town now.
The limitations of the NZ goverment are within these parameters now,as was the un agreement for global energy security..
The conjunction of cc with energy security are now converged and technology is the mode of change prescribed nothing nothing less.
end of story
Posted by Anonymous : 9/06/2006 12:59:00 PM
Anon: I think you are confusing my words with those of the cabinet paper.
As mentioned above, the excerpt is from a 1999 cabinet paper. At that stage, the Kyoto Protocol had neither been ratified by New Zealand, or come into effect. Past NZ policy had been focused on meeting the requirements of the UNFCCC; the paper in question was part of the process of deciding how to implement Kyoto.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 9/06/2006 01:25:00 PM
And that is the paradox,there is now no emphasis on the kyoto P,excluding the cdm.The eturn to the UNFCC and the linking of the two complexes (energy and CC) NEGATES both C and T and tax disencentives.Unless of course NZ wanted to be the sole country to implement such a regime.
Posted by Anonymous : 9/06/2006 01:33:00 PM
Anon: I think you are mistaken. The Americans (and their sock-puppet in Canberra) have no emphasis on the Kyoto Protocol. States which are actually party to it are continuing on with it, and attempting to negotiate targets for a second commitment period.
As for domestic policy, New Zealand remains committed to meeting its Kyoto obligations. Unfortunately, due to past foot-dragging, we will now have to do this by purchasing carbon credits rather than from domestic reductions or sink creation. Other countries also remain committed, and have implemented regimes far stronger than ours.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 9/06/2006 02:26:00 PM
how sucessful have they been so far?
I also wonder how honest are they in their reporting....
Posted by Genius : 9/06/2006 03:29:00 PM
Genius: how sucessful have they been so far?
Depends on the country. The UNFCCC's compilation of Key GHG Data has inventory data for all parties up to 2003, and shows an overall decline in emissions from Annex I of 5.9% on 1990 levels. This is due mostly to economic collapse in Eastern Europe, but there have been notable success stories. The UK, for example, has managed a 13.5% cut, mostly by switching from coal to gas for electricity generation. France has managed 5.7%, Germany 19.2% (though they have had the benefit of shutting down East Germany and its dirty infrastructure). The EU-15 overall have managed 3.5%, and looks like they will make its target 8% reduction.
In a more recent example, the Dutch managed to reduce their emissions to 1990 levels last year. They have a long way to go yet - their internal EU target is -5% - but they're doing fairly well. It can be done, but it requires government to get involved. Our problem is that while our government has talked a lot, it has consistently backed away from implementing policy.
As for the robustness of the figures, they're subjected to international scrutiny, and you can be sure that if anyone is fiddling, someone will scream about it.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 9/06/2006 07:07:00 PM
It's worse than we thought... the highest levels of carbon dioxide in 800,000 years - http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/News_and_Information/Press_Releases/story.php?id=288
And governments including our own "totally fail to appreciate the urgency of the situation".
Posted by Anonymous : 9/06/2006 07:29:00 PM
wasn't there somthging about countries like the UK not correctly reporting their emissions data?
Posted by Genius : 9/06/2006 07:49:00 PM
I/S Sorry it is you who is mistaken,the montreal meeting depowered the Marracreach COP agreement.
Australai is the chair of the Bonn group to produce a model to replace Kyoto in 2012.
The g8+4 effectively replaced the KP and it was endorsed by Anan as the effective instrument for Energy agreement Read it.
This was also unanimously agreed upon by the world academes of science.
Intersting the number of other agreemnets NZ has not contracted to including the CTI.
Posted by Anonymous : 9/06/2006 09:24:00 PM
Anon: The Montreal Summit adopted Marrakech, rather than "carstrating" it, and established a formal programme among Kyoto's 157 parties to work towards further and deeper cuts for 2013 - 2017. The US and Australia have a side programme under the UNFCCC for a "dialogue on long-term cooperative action" to cut emissions, but given their blatant wrecking behaviour at UNFCCC meetings, I doubt anything useful will come of it. Instead, it just seems like another smokescreen to distract attention from the fact that they are refusing to act to reduce emissions.
Posted by Idiot/Savant : 9/07/2006 01:25:00 AM
Go the Dutch! Ebvironmental policy has been Labour's *big* failing of the past 6 years. They seem to think that they need to flag away these issues to keep business on their side. What a disappointment Hobbes was.
Peversely, and maybe because they already are seen as the party of business, Simon Upton and National achieved more in the 1990's with the RMA etc. Oh, for another Upton in this portfolia, you did not always have to agree with him to realise that at least he thought quite profoundly about the issues. And yes, he still believes taxation is the way to go to meet Kyoto targets.
Posted by Anonymous : 9/07/2006 08:56:00 AM
I/P adaption of the Marracreach agreemet means it is unforceable,article 18 of the KP says it is meant to be introduced by an amendment that would have meant ratification by ALL countries.The Saudi amenedment to provide this was not adapted it was reduced tp facilitative agreement by NZ and Japan.
Similar was the agreement to allow countries another year to adapt ie6 years instead of 5 a defacto 20% reduction in requirements
Icehawk I realise you are not very intelligent so let us see what we can find.
These from German press
14 July 2006
Aid to Africa and efforts against climatic changes have appeared on the St. Petersburg G8 summit agenda on the initiative of Tony Blair, Great Britain's Prime Minister. As energy security comes under discussion, the Prime Minister intends to focus attention on climatic change problems, thus to go on with debates started in Gleneagles. The theme will persist during the German and Japanese G8 presidencies, said a functionary directly involved in summit preparations.
Mr. Blair also intends to call summit attention to the necessity to elaborate an international instrument that would replace the Kyoto Protocol as it expires in 2012. This will encompass bringing in non signatories to the present sunset treaty!.The emphasis in conjunvtion with the Russian initiative on global energy security and innovative technologies.
hmm
leaving aside that you seemed to have missed everyhting that occured at the G8 St Petersberg and you lack of understanding of the international frameworks and agreements that were agreed upon by 70% of the worlds population do you really think they care what you think.
Posted by Anonymous : 9/07/2006 03:05:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).