Climate Change Minister Simon Watts says New Zealand cannot afford to pull out of the Paris Agreement despite Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters suggesting otherwise.
The deputy PM and NZ First leader criticised NZ’s involvement in the international climate treaty during his speech at NZ First’s State of the Nation event in Christchurch on Sunday.
Watts told interest.co.nz on Monday evening Peters’ comments on the Paris Agreement were said in his capacity as leader of NZ First, and NZ needed to participate in the international climate treaty.
“Our participation protects our trade access and our farmers’ trade access. As a small, exporting nation who exports over 80% of its agricultural production, our participation is crucial,” he said.
“We cannot risk losing access to valuable export markets which are the backbone of our economy and farming communities.”
Watts said NZ does have a lower emissions profile compared to other nations with larger economies – but that didn’t mean NZ’s efforts to combat climate change through the Paris Agreement will have no impact.
“Through this system, progress is being made,” he said. “The Paris Agreement has already brought global warming down from the 4 degrees projected prior to the agreement.”
During his speech on Sunday, Peters said some of the world’s largest economies have no intention of following through with their commitments to the Paris Agreement.
“That means that no matter what we do, our [NZ’s] sacrifice will make no difference,” he said.
Peters, who is also NZ’s Foreign Affairs Minister, said NZ should be investing into its own environment “instead of draining our money offshore, into foreign economies”.
NZ is one of 196 countries that signed up to the Paris Agreement, the legally binding international climate change treaty that came into force in 2016. NZ joined under the then National Government.
Countries who have signed up to the Agreement have a commitment to limit climate change.
Peters said on Sunday that more than half of the world’s CO₂ emissions come from just four countries – China, United States, Russia, and India. NZ’s emissions amount to 0.17% of all global emissions according to the Climate Change Commission.
Although the US has now left the Paris Agreement for a second time (both times having happened under Trump administrations), China, Russia and India are still in the Paris Agreement.
Peters said China or the US “could sneeze and produce more CO₂ overnight than we do in a year” and NZ was “punishing” farmers, taxpayers and the country’s economy.
“We need to stop this idealistic flight of futility,” he said.
Peters isn’t the only coalition party leader to question NZ’s involvement in the Paris Agreement.
Act Party leader and soon-to-be deputy Prime Minister David Seymour told Newstalk ZB in February the Government should consider withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
It means two of the three political parties that make up the Coalition Government are in favour of leaving the Paris Agreement.
Interest.co.nz asked the Climate Change Commission for comment on Peters’ climate remarks. The Commission is the independent Crown entity that provides the Government of the day with advice on climate change policy.
“The Commission’s role is to provide independent, impartial, expert advice to the Government. Our core work programme is set out in the Climate Change Response Act 2002 legislation. The Government has choices on what decisions it makes, the Commission’s advice helps them understand different choices and how they add up,” a Commission spokesperson replied.
“Under its obligations in the Climate Change Response Act, the Commission’s advice must be based on delivering an economically and technically achievable, and socially just transition to net zero by 2050.”
6 Comments
I agree that we can't just pull out of the Paris Agreement, but it should be more widely known that NZ is in fact a net carbon sink, as evidenced by the attached study. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007845
I asked one of our leading climate scientists Professor James Renwick for his view of this study and he confirmed its findings. I have now sent this to Simon Watts. What we do as a country should surely be informed by the best information available.
I was suspicious when Profile put it up, and I'm always skeptical of something containing so much jargon as to be unreadable.
But I slogged through it - and connected with Professor Renwick - then applied a little logic.
1 - NZ cannot always have been a carbon sink; forests mature, a bit goes into the soil, end of story.
2 - But the bigger point is missed; the problem is anthropocentric - the extraction of, and burning of, fossil carbon. The only reason we're not figuring as a net emitter, is because our population is low. Head for head, we're among the biggest emitters (of fossil-sourced CO2) in the world. The fact that there few of us, doesn't absolve us of that.
Though some be inclined to grasp at apparent get-out-of-jail cards.
Given what's happening resource-access-wise and geopolitically, the Paris Agreement will be abandoned by everyone. Modernity cannot be sustained ex dissipation, so it's stuffed, but they are going to attempt the impossible, threatening the life-chances of us all. And our grandchildren.
I suggest they would argue with you on some of your points PDK.
1 Why not? Would NZs carbon emissions have increased over time as access to fossil fuelled vehicles increased and forests cut down? An increasing population will also drive that and today we are bouncing around 5 mill, while not that long ago it was significantly less. NZ could easily have been very much a carbon sink, much more than today.
2 they specifically refer to anthropogenic sourced carbon as a significant source in the study (bottom up). They clearly define this as emissions resulting from human activity. I don't see any discussion on the threat of growing populations, which must also translate into any sustainability model.
the information is interesting, and I didn't find the 'jargon' onerous. What I do wonder about would be how someone like Luxon would take the information. Based on his current record being in favour of immigration to boost and support the economy, I expect he would ignore it, if not outright dismiss it.
"Though some be inclined to grasp at apparent get-out-of-jail cards". I don't know who that's aimed at, but perhaps what looks like good news-we are a net carbon sink-can always be interpreted differently. I'll try again. Headline: major study reveals plants now absorbing 30% more CO2 worldwide. New research reveals that plants absorb 31% more CO2 than estimated, reshaping climate predictions and highlighting natural carbon sequestration.
The finding was published in Nature. A team led by Cornell University, with support from Oak Ridge national Laboratory, introduced a novel approach to estimating Gross primary Production (GPP) using carbonyl sulfide(OCS), a trace gas closely linked to photosynthetic activity. Unlike CO2, which is released back into the atmosphere during plant respiration, OCS uptake is irreversible, making it a reliable proxy for measuring photosynthesis.
Whether or not the Paris Agreement is abandoned by everyone, it is most certainly dead in the water and has been for some time. Anthropogenic climate change is certainly real and the world will continue to decarbonise-slowly. Fossil fuels, including coal, will remain critical to the global economy for decades to come. That's the reality we have to live with.
Climate change tragics always revert to the marketing angle when the massive holes in the Paris Agreement logic are pointed out. NZ's 0.17% is another lie - half of that figure is derived from the biogenic carbon cycle - ruminants recycling carbon from grass to burps and back to grass again as opposed to grass decay biogenic cycle. It is impossible for a cow to add additional carbon to the atmospheric system.
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk7876/files/styles/sf_land…
"Median aggregate emission cut estimate from Paris Agreement 2016–30 is 31.8 Gt CO₂e, and high-end estimate is 63.8 Gt CO₂e (UNFCCC 2015, 10). To reach a low or no overshoot 1.5°C we need to cut 6410 Gt CO₂e (IMAGE, SSP1 1.9, IIASA 2018)."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157#bib…
"Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our 2014 estimates."
https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/signature/2015-energy-and-cli…
I have made a comment in a previous post that we should pull out gracefully. I think it can be done by watching other nations who have not updated their emission plans and just not submitting ours. So staying in but playing the game.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.