Despite heat, Govt is remaining cool

Just how will the National Government approach the UN's crucial climate change meeting in Denmark later this year? Indications from Environment Minister Nick Smith, who spoke in Hamilton last week, failed to impress columnist Rob Love.

The National-led Government is engaged in a dangerous strategy to help it manage the mother of all political hot potatoes, climate change. How else can we explain how they are choosing to deal with the biggest challenge any government has ever had to face?

In December this year, Prime Minister John Key and leaders of 191 countries will gather in Copenhagen. The purpose of the meeting is to agree to binding measures, prescribed by the world's leading scientists under the UN initiatives on climate change.

From the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon down to numerous spokespeople for NGOs the message is clear: this meeting is a last chance to avert climate disaster by taking extraordinary measures to immediately reduce carbon emissions. Each nation must bring a meaningful commitment meeting the needs of this crisis.

The fact most New Zealanders do not understand the significance of the Copenhagen meeting is a huge indictment on this Government and the media. With something this important to every human, it ought not require death-defying stunts by activists to secure air time and column inches. Equally, what the Government is currently doing should not be allowed.

With minimum publicity, ministers have been holding public meetings up and down the country.

In smallish venues, and within the time constraint of 90 minutes, they monopolise the speaking time and inappropriately frame the debate. This allows them to say they have consulted widely and then get on with their already well-signalled intentions intentions, I might add, which science says are woefully inadequate.

I proved this to myself by attending the Hamilton meeting last week at SkyCity.

The Government billed this meeting as consultation. If consultation means a fair and helpful exchange of views, this was no consultation. For more than an hour the Government team worked hard to place the debate into an economic framework and consume the available time. This was achieved by tedious introductions, followed by a long PowerPoint presentation by Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith. Finally, the Associate Minister Tim Groser shared his observations on the blindingly obvious, while promoting the notion he is engaged heroically in the hardest negotiation ever undertaken. What was left after this political spadework was the opportunity for a very limited series of questions from the audience. Of the few who got to speak, most waived this opportunity, choosing instead to express a point of view. We heard from climate sceptics and the self-interested farmers, through to Greenpeace and environment worriers. A young woman pleaded for the future of her yet unborn children.

What we didn't hear was a blank and abject rejection of this process. I suggest it is shameful and disconnected from the reality of the climate crises that confronts us.

Early in his address Dr Smith drew the analogy of New Zealand's role in combating climate change to that of fighting fascism during World War II. He suggested New Zealand's part, though right and correct during that conflict, had been so small as to have had little impact on the outcome either way. I reject that, as would any student of history who understands how finely balanced that conflict was while New Zealand played its part. I further reject the implied suggestion that because our overall contribution to carbon emissions is relatively low we can afford to be "politically shrewd" with regard to our commitments to cut emissions. Indeed, though carefully couched, the message from our representatives was more disturbing than that: it would be economically naive to assume a strong position on emissions before seeing what cuts everyone else was prepared to adopt.

Really! Did we hold this view when we were the first to introduce universal suffrage, our policy regarding nuclear weapons or anti-smoking legislation? These are three examples of where we have led the world. Yes, we have a small voice in the world; however, our voice has carried and could still yet carry a resonance that will contribute greatly to our common cause.

In any case we do not have time for this political brinkmanship. Today we face a looming climate crisis that dwarfs many times the threat fascism presented in the last century. Further, climate change doesn't care about our or any other country's economy. If, as suggested by the numbers attending this meeting, too few understand the significance of the Copenhagen meeting later this year, the Government needs to address this also. It has a moral and legal duty to do so.

In all the Government rhetoric, we did not hear once what science is now shouting at us. We have a diminishing chance of capping climate change to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial age levels. A 2C increase is serious, the broad consequence will have a far-reaching impact on the world and therefore New Zealand; but it can and probably will get worse. Not once did we hear that above 2C our world becomes increasingly unstable as global tipping points are reached and bio/chemical feedback escalates the rate of temperature increase. Rather the meeting was allowed to proceed as if global temperature is something you can adjust the dial to, with an associated cost. If this nonsense runs through the consultations leading to Copenhagen (and I am afraid it is) heaven help us because science won't.

As we inch towards that all important meeting in Copenhagen the world is beginning to find its voice. Around the world messages are increasingly pushing their way into our media. In the United States a few days ago a huge canvas message to President Obama was unfurled across Mt Rushmore. Next to the iconic images of former presidents Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt; it simply said "America honours its leaders not politicians. Stop Global Warming". The imagery and message are unequivocal.

In New Zealand our politicians need to aspire to leadership to take us out of the Age of Stupid. Rather than holding meetings to explain how difficult the job is, they must develop some backbone and vision and start explaining how we will get there. Certainly driving home a 40 per cent reduction by 2020 is a big ask. It is, however, what the situation demands as the minimum to give future generations a chance.

Increasingly the message to our politicians needs to be "If you have to walk to Copenhagen with this commitment just do it!". After all you have been collectively kicking the tyre for so long it is little wonder it is now flat.

rob@netwhare.com.

- © Fairfax NZ News