Keisha's Castle-Hughes' Response To John Key

After John Key publicly stating that Keisha Castle-Hughes should 'stick to acting' over her stance on climate change she published a very articulate reply (on signon.org.nz) and Key has asked to to meet over a cup of tea to chat about her concerns. Here's Keisha's reply, aired on 6 August:

"I think it's derogatory to state that it's not okay for New Zealanders to stand up and take interest in the world around them.Climate change is a global issue that affects our country as a whole. Before being anything else in my life, I am a mother, and that is why I am a part of this campaign. And as a mother i believe i have a right to speak up if i have concerns about the future of my daughter. Discouraging New Zealand youth to participate, think and speak out is not on for the Prime Minister of NZ.

I'm not claiming to be a scientist nor a climate expert. I am just doing what I can as a good global citizen.

John Key's climate change Minister Nick Smith has spent the last two weeks running a public consultation on what NZ should do on climate change. I was under the impression that the NZ Government was therefore interested in what the public had to say. Is the PM all of a sudden NOT interested in public input?

This week is the Pacific Island Forum, where low lying states are calling clearly for help on climate change from countries like New Zealand. The Alliance of Small Island States is asking for developed countries to cut emissions by 45% by 2020. John Key should spend less time commenting on a Kiwi Mum's right to free speech, and more listening to our Pacific neighbours."

Other Pacific Islands Show NZ The Way With Emissions

Following on from yesterday's blog article we have some more from 'Eco' a publication of the CAN groups attending the Bonn Climate negotiations, August 2009. As you can see not only are other Pacific Island nations stepping-up to the plate but they are also setting an example to their neighbours.

(http://www.signon.org.nz/sites/default/files/08/12/Eco2_Bonn-III_can-talk.pdf)

Leading From Below

"As we now know, New Zealand’s CC Issues Minister has put forward an unacceptably weak target (10–20% on 1990 levels, hedged with conditions). To add insult to injury, as Ludwig noted yesterday, he has had the gall to challenge Pacific Island countries to show themselves willing to reduce their own emissions – which amount to around 0.03% of the global total. New Zealand’s stand at 0.21% (even without allowing for the sheep).

Fortunately the Pacific Islands have done more than show themselves willing, they are already taking action. Here are a few examples, an incomplete list, that the “Hon.” Nick Smith might like to consider:

• The Fiji Electricity Authority aims to generate at least 90% of its energy needs from renewables by 2011.

• In July 2008, the Tongan government announced a major renewables campaign with a target of having 50% of its electricity from renewables within three years.

• Samoa’s adopted national energy policy has a goal of increasing the contribution of RE for energy services and supply by 20% by year 2030, using sources including wind and hydro.

• The Power Utility at Vanuatu (UNELCO) has set itself a goal of generating 33% of its electricity from renewables by 2013. As of April 2008, UNELCO was using coco-fuel for power generation at 25% mix for 200 liters per hour. UNELCO is also installing wind power capacity of 2.75 MW that would in 2010 contribute to 6% of the total electricity generation.

• Nauru has set itself a target of 50% renewable energy by 2015 as part of a national strategic plan on energy.

• Tuvalu aims to be a 100% renewables country by 2020.

These countries have low responsibility and limited capability, but are doing all they can to secure their survival. Developed countries might follow their example, and consider targets that correspond with their responsibility and capacity – more than 40% by 2020 would be in line with the science."

100% Pure NZ - You Can't Be Half Pregnant, You Have to Go All The Way. The Age of Stupid

A bit more effort is needed if NZ stands any hope of living up its 100% Pure marketing aspirations. A robust commitment to reducing carbon emission would be a good start in establishing NZ's green credentials. The issue is being taken very seriously indeed by other Pacific Island Nations. many of whom are low-lying and will be devastated by sea level rises.

from: http://www.signon.org.nz/sites/default/files/08/12/Eco2_Bonn-III_can-talk.pdf

"Yesterday’s target announcement from New Zealand’s had one – and only one – positive aspect. It surpassed the ‘extremely low’ expectations that ECO announced yesterday, by a whole 5%. Now it’s just ‘really really low’ instead. And still below the Bali range.

Think of it this way: imagine that you have a giant chasm to cross. Call it a ‘grand climate canyon’, if you will. Your entire population lives on one side of the canyon, but scientists warn you that floods, famines and food shortages will cause unimaginable suffering, unless you can find a way to cross to the other side. Your best scientists, lawyers and engineers conference together, do the measurements, and determine that you need to build a bridge exactly 1,000 metres long, to enable your fellow citizens to cross safely to the other side.

But for some unknown reason, your social and government leaders decide to build a bridge that only goes 500m. (And even this might be too high a figure, considering current progress in the LCA.) Citizens see the government making ‘progress’, they celebrate, and they are lulled into the false sense of security that they will be safe. Their leaders happily shepherd them onto the bridge, and they happily march forward, towards their impending doom. And that’s not hyperbole.

In the same way that you can’t be half pregnant, you can’t reduce emissions by only 20% by 2020 and miraculously expect the climate to stabilise below 2 degrees C. You need to go all the way.

It is well known, from various analyses by the UNFCCC and others, that the targets put forward by Annex 1 nations, in sum, amount to only a 10-16% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. No wonder the IPCC scientists – and some here at CAN – are being driven to drink these days. On the outside, even the youth climate campaigners look hopeful, but under their youthful, happy veneer, even they are getting desperate. The New Zealand target completes a rather dismal Annex I picture.

The same ‘threshold problem’ applies not only to carbon reduction targets, but also to climate finance, technology transfer, adaptation, and REDD/LULUCF. To be safe, you can’t just build half a sea wall. You can’t halftrain a renewable energy engineer. You can’t plant half a tree. You can’t give someone half a course of anti-HIV medicines. You can’t use half a condom. You can’t fly half a plane. You can’t use half a parachute. And you can’t reduce carbon emissions by half the amount that science demands. That’s why they call it ‘runaway’ climate change.

So, here at ECO, our message is this: we fully expect that, by Copenhagen, the idiotic targets put forward thus far by Annex 1 nations will be more than doubled. More than 40%, or bust."

For those who remain unconvinced about climate change (yes, there are many in New Zealand) perhaps this film will change their minds

Australia & New Zealand Trailer HD from Age of Stupid on Vimeo.