Major parties take climate change seriously(ish)
Well, Labour and National have both used today’s Climate Change Symposium to give us a glimpse of what they propose to do about the problem. As others have noted, it’s very refreshing to see the major parties taking the issue seriously, especially National. Environmentalists everywhere should view it as a victory. As always of course, the proof will be in the (h)eating.
So, what do they have to say for themselves? Well, in the case of Labour, not much. David Parker sadly squandered the opportunity to announce, um, a panel, and to suggest that there might be a price-based measure, at some point. Barely a change from the status quo, and very ineffective at pre-empting National’s rather more dramatic announcement.
Nick Smith’s “Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand” will be officially released at 3pm this afternoon (and available from then on www.bluegreens.org.nz), but his speech at the symposium outlined the key features, the flagship of which is a Tradeable Emissions Permit Scheme on the electricity generation sector. It’s pretty gutsy (more gutsy than Labour by far), and certainly a good thing in and of itself, but IMHO it really needs to be applied more widely than just to the electricity sector (hello, agriculture, 50% of our emissions…), and would be most effective in combination with other price measures, like say, a carbon charge.
Internationally, National will keep us in Kyoto, and “try” to meet our obligations, but their ongoing lack of faith to the agreement will presumably make for strained times. They are placing more faith in New Zealand joining the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development instead.
Meanwhile, the real problem for National if it’s really taking this issue seriously is its history and support base. Until now, any time it’s been necessary to weigh up between environmental damage and economic gain, National’s come down firmly on the side of economic gain, and this will be a very tough habit to break.
In sum - great to see but I’m not too worried about National poaching those 1 in 20 voters just yet.
October 6th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Is there not some middle ground here?..while far from being a green party supporter I do have some sympathies with SOME of your environmental policies, what I cannot ever agree with (and hence you will never get my vote) is the green party social policy.
I honestly believe that so far the Greens have missed the boat, there are enough of our elected (and unelected) parliamentarians arguing and bitching about social policy, IMHO the greens would receive far greater support from the voting public if they concentrated on the less radical environmental issues.
October 6th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
http://www.bluegreens.org.nz/
The web-site needs work. I think it is a great trend, but how will Bob the Builder who jams 3 over 60 “luxury units” on a 600 sq m section feel when he is told to wipe his bum with his plans?
Henry
October 6th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
this AP6 thingy is a nonsense. It was kicked off by lobbying from the coal industry in the US and Australia. According to the Coal Pact’s own modelling, all six members will hit 100% increase in C02 emissions by 2050. So it’s a great one to get on board with.
there’s no money for it either. All the US money put in so far has been spent on lobbying. no change there then.
the Coal Pact is a sidetrack, a sideshow and a waste of time and money.
but of course it makes news here in NZ because we like to be seen to be playing in an exclusive big boys’ club.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
The kyoto is a complete joke and by the time it really starts to affect countries emissions it will probably be far to late, and it simply move all manufacturing to china/india where they are even less environmentally friendly than most, increasing the transport c02 and proping up the unelected government of china.
Its good to see the bluegreen web site as it gives me a option to vote for a party who doesn’t want to import all the aids babies of africa and burma’s child soldiers.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
frog and the greens would be very unwise to discount/dismiss the national party embracing strong green/environmental values..
nick smith looks like the cat that ate the cream…
so you know he’s gonna have a strong clutch of ‘green policies’ to brandish at the next election…(he’s already got that sorted..)
(and this is just the expected echoing of the greening of the english tories by their new leader..)
and there..as here..the tories have gone much further than labour…
(leaving them floundering..and appearing out of touch with the concerns of the people..)
n.b….a recent poll in australia determined their greatest fear was not of terrorist attacks..but of the effects of global warming/climate-change..
with commentators there noting that the general public are currently way ahead of their politicians on this one…
and as there..here..
and if the greens get all complacent that this is just national paying lip-service to environmental concerns…they will be making a very big mistake…
‘cos that recent (sudden) change in public concern about environmental matters will be even more so at election time in another two years…
and national aren’t stupid..they are well aware of this change in the zeitgeist…
so..what can the greens do to counter/contain this new threat to their very existance..?
(’cos..face it..if both labout and national recognise most/all of our concerns…and effect/promise policy..where does that leave the greens..?
thanks very much for the tip/warnings..c u later..?…)
what the greens have to do is to come up with detailed..well thought out policy-planks/solutions..on a raft of issues..
(to prove their relevance/credibility..)
now..from my time in the greens..i know that policy development moves at a glacial pace..with very little to show at the end of the day..
so..you’d think this would be an area the green mp’s/leadership recognise this urgency..and would be paying lots of attention/energy to..eh..?..now..and up to the election..?..you’d hope..?..eh..?
‘cos the other imperative on the greens is that the next election campaign will be very different for them from ones that have gone before..and will largely be fought/won on strong policies..(with strong environmental policies making or breaking parties..)
unlike last time..where policy wasn’t emphasised/was submerged..out of fear it would sully/muddy the ‘we’re going with labour’ slogan/theme of that campaign…
the next campaign will be very different from the ones that have gone before..
the greens’ points of difference are in danger of disappearing…
‘cos..i repeat…why would people vote for the greens..if the majors have very green/the same policies..?
i hope those in the party who need to recognise these imperatives are recognising them..an acting on them..eh..?
it’s all food for thought..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 6th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
big bruv says:
“Is there not some middle ground here?… I …have … sympathies with SOME of your environmental policies, what I cannot ever agree with … is the green party social policy.” AND …”the greens would receive far greater support from the voting public if they concentrated on the less radical environmental issues.”
I’m afraid we are “talking past each other” here big bruv! You seem to assume that we would know which and what, in our policies, you are talking about.
The Green Party goes through a long process of consultation and consensus decision making (involving all members) when forming policies, and thus we would not (could not) change them lightly to “possibly win votes” from floating voters.
(We perhaps could spend the energy on better explaining our policies?)
ALL Green policies are “Radical” if one uses the meaning “getting to the root of the matter”. Thus your comment that our Environmental Policies are “less radical” is not a welcome comment! )
I am not sure if you have read the Green Policies or, perhaps, have relied on the media and heresay for your information … ?
Next time you want information on the Greens … ask the Greens!
(Ditto with comments.)
It has been said that Greens don’t fit the idea of a “Left-Right continuum”. “Green” can be perceived as “lefter than left” in some aspects and “righter than right” in others. That is why we use a “Green” continuum.
Kia ora!
October 6th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
The greens point of diference is “the non corrupt party of the left”. If played right they could do very well fighting on those grounds. While still holding national off with greater credibility talking about green issues.
Although I agree sensible policies would be good. Of course too much and you’ll scare the electorate who are desperate to find someone to vote for that they don’t hate.
the next election is the green’s best opportunity yet - they oculd have a parliment where Labour has no option but to depend heavily on them and where labour is weakened in more ways than just electorally.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
genius said..
“..The greens point of diference is “the non corrupt party of the leftâ€?..”
um..what does that actually mean..?
you aren’t just buying into the word of the moment..?..are you..?
methinks the whole ‘corrupt’ thing will be a distant memory at the election..in two more years…
and..pray tell.. how will the greens ‘hold national off with greater credibility’..?
if national presents (as expected) with concrete policies…and the greens are still banging on about wannabe nebulous feel-good concepts..with no policy muscle to back them up..?
that would be the formula for electoral disaster for the greens..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 6th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Phil,
“um..what does that actually mean..?”
my point is that a lot of people are unhappy with labour for one reason or another - that is a potential market.
“you aren’t just buying into the word of the moment..?..are you..?”
Maybe, but I’m pretty good at picking what things count - I’ve picked (reasonably far out) every major election in an anglo-saxon country right since I’ve bothered to pick and some non anglo-saxon countries besides.
For example - I bet you thought it would be a labour/green coalition in NZ and a democratic govt in the US and labour in Australia didn’t you?
> and. pray tell.. how will the greens ‘hold national off with greater credibility’..?
I agree that the greens need to have policies (something to talk about!) but if I go into an election booth, blue just isn’t the colour of environmentalism. Just as long as labour doesn’t do something really stupid like the “chameleon addâ€?.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
> that is a potential market.
In fact it is pretty close to the greens ONLY market - that and people who otherwise would not have voted at all of course.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
“what the greens have to do is to come up with detailed..well thought out policy-planks/solutions..on a raft of issues..”
Phil, have you read the Turn Down the Heat paper that Jeanette launched earlier this year? It’s a good start.
PS You are right that this new trend shouldn’t be simply be dismissed as lip service. I’m genuinely pleased that National (and the British Tories) are taking climate change seriously. The Greens are not so electorally greedy as to want to keep the issue for themselves, since nothing substantive will ever happen to improve the situation without buy-in from big players.
However, it’s still important to unpack National’s new policy (and anything else they come up with) because their track record in this area is not good, and because if we are going to have real debate in this area it should be well informed.
October 7th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Heh. I suspect that the Nats have simply done a copycat exercise after observing the new Tory leadership in the UK.
Wouldn’t want to push the analogy too far, but here we have a Labour government rather burned out electorally and ideologically, a hapless right-wing opposition that’ll try anything to get their bums back on the leather seats of the ministerial cars, and the zeitgeist…
Are they sincere? … Wouldn’t put it past them. Nothing wrong with flying pigs if they bring home the bacon.
October 7th, 2006 at 6:17 am
frog said…
“..Phil, have you read the Turn Down the Heat paper that Jeanette launched earlier this year? It’s a good start…”
and does not the fact that i have ‘an interest’ in this topic/follow the greens..(through the media and here..)
yet..no..i hadn’t heard of/registered on this greens’ blueprint on climate-change..
(and should just that fact not set off alarm bells for you..?..)
so..what does that tell you about the success of getting that ‘message’/policy out the the punters/voters..?..(those lacking my ‘interests’..)..?
should not by now..this policy (especially this policy!) have been well-’aired’…and able to be reduced to debating points to counter upcoming (similar?) policies from both national and labour..?
(i really wouldn’t be relying on being in the noise/smoke of an election campaign..and being able to ’sell’ that message….eh..?..)
in fact frog..i would contend that in your reply..you have identified serious flaws/shortcomings in the selling of (any) green messages…
and um..shouldn’t even that alert you to the need to make more use of frogblog..?..as a vehicle to sell/debate those issues..?
and i tell you..if you have enough confidence (as you should) in these policies…
propping up people/spokespeople/mp’s/leaders on frog to debate these issues..will give you much traction/coverage/respect from the rest of the blog-world/media…
(the powers/influence of this world i would not underestimate either..
in fact i would contend the taito phillip field and ‘corruption’ issues wouldn’t have such current import had they not been vigorously pursued by the rightwing bloggers…urging on and inciting the nat mps..)
so..i would contend that the greens need to make much more use of these new technologies..
and..(given the strengnth of/belief in those policies as a given)..this and the rightwing forums would be good places for the greens to effect a (much-needed) raise in the effectiveness of selling/promoting those green policies/ideas..
(others thoughts/ideas on this vexed subject are welcomed..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 7th, 2006 at 7:50 am
Go to the blue green national website - they have a survey/feedback section there but you will notice all the questions are framed in such a way that almost no one can disagree with them.
It just reeks of insincerity.
But I guess trying and being insincere is slightly better than openly opposing…
October 7th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Oh dear, even Nick’s joined the climate change brigade. Mind you, he’s so flakey he didn’t last two weeks as Deputy Leader before he went on stress leave and I had to replace him.
Those darn Greens though - even my own MPs are trying to steal their ideas! What a worry!
October 7th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Interesting times. If nothing else the National discussion paper and apparent change of heart really highlights how weak Labour are on Climate Change. Labour’s policies are just pathetic and getting worse with each announcement.
The real story here is not so much the big shift by National (let’s see if they can walk the walk) but the fact that Labour has just announced a lurch further towards where National used to be on Climate Change. So at the same time the public is coming to grips with the seriousness of the situation Labour are slowing down on any plan for action even more!
In particular the announcement that nothing will be done in terms of market measures (i.e. cap and trade) for another 6 years if they are still in power (unlikely) is downright criminal. And saying they will do nothing unless the USA and Australia do something first (as our two largest trading partners) is weak and pathetic and hardly in line with our desire to be seen as an innovative country.
The whole thing is summed up for me by the fact that Phil O’Reilly from Business New Zealand is happy with Labour’s policy shift and has concerns about National’s announcements. What Phil likes is very rarely good for the environment and what he doesn’t like usually is.
October 7th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Does anyone else find it amusing the presence of a plastic container on the front of Nationals nice and shiny new policy document…
October 8th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Having heard both “announcements” at Friday’s conference, I have to say I found Labour’s pusillanimous attitude hugely disappointing, while National’s “initiative” looks to be “let’s do as little as possible but still look better than Labour”. Their cap & trade scheme applies only to electricity generation (not a huge part of our GHG emissions), it’s not clear whether they intend to link to international carbon pricing (which is essential), and in any event they won’t move any faster than Australia. Dynamic stuff from both our major parties…
October 8th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
Are they sincere? … Wouldn’t put it past them. Nothing wrong with flying pigs if they bring home the bacon.
Birdie Birdie in the sky
Why’d you do that in my eye?
Gosh I’m glad that
Cows don’t fly…
Nothing wrong?
respectfully
BJ
October 9th, 2006 at 9:12 am
I think most people (read: voters) have come around to accepting the reality of global warming and its cause. Hopefully they care enough to vote based on the consequences this will have on the world. But no, I don’t think National now trying to win Green votes is a good thing for the environment…especially with statements from the Greens saying that it is. Mainly, to effect real environmentally friendly change we need the Greens in power to ensure whichever one of the major parties gets in (and I’m guessing the Nats at this stage) actually applies its green policy and is forced to go further. The Greens need to make this clear: if they don’t, voters who *are* concerned by climate change could easily convince themselves that they’re doing good by the environment by voting the way they always have (whether it be Labour, National or one of the other parties).
I also agree, somewhat, with those voters that like the Green’s environmental policies but not necessarily their social ones: I am a Greens supporter and agree with most of the Greens social policies. However, as far as priorities go, the environment (particularly now) is way at the top of the list for me. The Greens don’t have to change a word of their social policy, but I think that going into the next election should make it clear that the environment is at their heart, and that those policies will not be backed down on in any negotiations with the major parties.
I know the Greens are a complete party, with the most complete policy package going into the last election, but guys: global warming is happening, “something’s really happen Reg”!
October 9th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Something really is happening (Reg!)! There’s real mainstream press op. here: Inconv.Truth seems to have awoken the masses (its intention), reporting on envir. issues (and cl.chg. in particular) can now sell more advertising than ever. Can’t the press now stir it up with climate as the subject rather than petty “gone by lunchtime” issues.
Once the press embraces this seriously we can start having inclusive debate from a more informed platform. ie. more of us will be able to make sense of climate change from an individual perspective. Thats where change must occur. And after all, “you’ve got to think for yourselves. You’re all individuals!”.
You’re bang on Alicia, “Reg has been dominating us for too long”.
October 9th, 2006 at 10:06 am
You are right about needing the press to embrace this issue seriously mikeymike. Interesting to see 65.3% of voters thought NZ was starting to suffer the effects of climate change in a stuff poll over the weekend, since stuff polls are so notoriously conservative.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Alicia wrote:
“The Greens don’t have to change a word of their social policy, but I think that going into the next election should make it clear that the environment is at their heart, and that those policies will not be backed down on in any negotiations with the major parties.”
That pretty much sums it up for me. And your points about positioning the Greens as the party to hold Labour and National to account on Climate Change (and related Energy issues such as Peak Oil) I think is also a good one. The challenge we have is to create the appropriate sense of urgency for these issues - something that is missing from mainstream debate right now.
And this isn’t about becoming a ’single issue party’ - it is about getting the most important and urgent aspects of the Greens policies enacted. We can’t afford to dilute this message anymore (as happened with those now infamous billboards that no one could understand) it has to be much more front and centre. After all, social justice is hard to achieve if the environment is going into a death spiral.
October 10th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Genius Says: Go to the blue green national website - they have a survey/feedback section there but you will notice all the questions are framed in such a way that almost no one can disagree with them.
It just reeks of insincerity.
I echo that statement.
That is one of the most poorly designed web sites I have ever seen, and it looks like they paid some high school kid to build it for them the other weekend at less cost than a single one of their billboards in the last election campaign.
If National were truly sincere about this issue I think they would have reflected that by throwing some serious money at that site and hired a top notch professional web designer to do it for them.
ekstatek Says: Its good to see the bluegreen web site as it gives me a option to vote for a party who doesn’t want to import all the aids babies of africa and burma’s child soldiers.
That has to be one of the silliest things I have ever read on this blog.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:01 am
ekstatek - this is an excerpt from the National Party’s 2005 election policy on climate change:
National’s policy on Climate Change is about ensuring New Zealand jobs and growth are not sacrificed on the basis of equivocal science or commitments that have New Zealand carrying an unfair share of the burden arising from climate change. National wants a more balanced approach that ensures New Zealand contributes constructively to a global response to climate change but not at the expense of jobs and growth.
Now, do you trust them? Or has Don Brash has suddenly seen the light in the past year?
October 13th, 2006 at 10:03 am
I have seen the light. The Exclusive Brethren showed it to me.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I would say that, in view of what happened last time, the Greens should make no deals before the next election, but make it clear that we’re for sale to the highest bidder. After all, everyone sees this as normal for the other small parties.
And frankly, a close association with Labour like last time would be disastrous. Plus, it’s hard to see any arrangement that would be less effective for environmental policy than the current one. Yes, put social policy on the back burner for three years, and collaborate with National, if that’s what it takes.
October 13th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Alistair ! Even I would not have gone that far… I am shocked!
but are you serious?
Overall I don’t think we need to compromise principles, but we DO need to optimize methods and communications.
respectfully
BJ
October 13th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Electoral arithmetic, Chip. Alliance with Labour was the right thing to do last time, it’s just that the numbers didn’t work out. It’s not the right position for next time. We need to be as ruthless as Labour. It’s quite likely that the other small parties will be out of parliament at the next election, which greatly increases our chances of holding the balance of power. We would naturally prefer to go with Labour in that case, but we need them to sweat about it. And not shrink from a bidding war!
However hopeless the Nats are, they will end up in government some time soon. Rather than sitting in opposition, criticisising their half-*rsed environmental measures, we need to be on the team driving change, and holding them to their fine words, if they are going to claim environmental wisdom.
It’s also probable that ecological fiscal reforms will be better accepted by business if they come from the Nats rather than Labour.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
I don’t see how we will ever be able to deal with the Nats, but you’re quite right that they have a natural advantage getting business to accept any reforms they actually drive. I just don’t see them being entirely in control of their own destiny. Of course if we have a few seats and can swing control so that they can’t live without us, then yeah, there’s a power play, but our presence in such a government would probably cancel the aforesaid advantage and then some.
Maybe we’ve been studying porcine aerodynamics too long
respectfully
BJ
October 13th, 2006 at 11:43 pm
A question for Dr Dunny Brush: was it from an energy efficient lightbulb? Or - as I suspect - a high wattage piece of cr*p?
October 18th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Actually, I think it was the glow of a coal fire burning at the end of a disused railway tunnel…
Hey, convert the trains to run on West Coast coal - now THAT’S an idea!