Emissions Trading Scheme review now calling submissions
My position on climate change is that it is happening, and it is not as some said, "just a recovery from the little ice age" - human activities are at least partially responsible. There are uncertainties on how worse it would be, but there should be no doubt that it is happening.
So I feel very unease to talk about a "balance" between combating climate change and accommodate economic growth. Environment, the global weather system is still something that we don't fully understand how it works and when it will strike, yet it is so closely connected with the future well beings of mankind. Nature should be something that every one of us respect, not something that you can do "trade and exchange" or mess up with. Our survival solely depend on environment, not economic development.
For this review, any significant change that denies the existence of the climate change will send a wrong message to the world(yes, I'm talking about Rodney Hide). This looks unlikely for now, but there are still chances for surprises in the final select committee report, for example, extracted from the terms of references:
- identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding these projections
- consider the timing of introduction of any New Zealand measures, with particular reference to the outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting, the position of the United States, and the timetable for decisions and their implementation of the Australian government
Well, what you say? The submissions close on February 13 - it's shorter than usual, but hey, at least they didn't sneak it through the system before the Christmas.
Balance between combatting climate change and economic development? Seems to me that if you play your cards right, combatting climate change is economic development. For example, the prevailing wind in NZ is a westerly and 2/3 of NZ's terrritory is in the Roaring Forties. NZ's entire west coast- "From Cape Reinga to Stewart Island", to quote a particularly irritating song I was forced to sing in primary school- should be lined with offshore wind farms. NZ, as anybody with half a brain and a rough idea of how many volcanoes NZ has can see, is sitting on top of a phenomenal wealth of geothermal energy, and yet all we have in the way of geothermal power plants is Wairakei and one planned? under construction? near Kawarau. NZ also has a huge amount of marginal land that could be planted in jatropha, which could be harvested for biofuel (Air NZ is testing that out and will likely be in the market very soon. Why force them to source all their biofuel from India and Africa?) and a huge amount of untapped solar energy. There's also a lot of methane hydrates sitting on NZ's seabeds- and methane is better burnt than emitted, considering how much more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2 it is. So NZ should be developing all these technologies, spending a lot in the short term to save shitloads in the medium to long term, then selling the mature technologies overseas. Combatting climate change and developing the environment.
But what do I know? I'm just an English teacher.
Well from the moment that John Key stated his idea on Climate Change, "we need to seek a balance between combating climate change and economic development" I started to dislike him. It's just another way of saying "sacrifice our future a little, develop a little."
It's hard to believe that a PM, a "business-minded" person, and especially, minister of tourism, failed to see all the opportunities as you stated. I think voters got confused with a foreign exchange dealer and a real businessman.
I think your last sentence summed it up perfectly.
Oops... combatting climate change and developing the economy.