How to avoid 2 degrees of warming
That our government are fixed on doing next to nothing to mitigate the causes of climate change, is evidenced in the title of the Minister. Paula Bennett is the Minister of Climate Change Issues.
The Minister’s title relegates her focus to ‘issues’ whilst acknowledging climate change as a fact. Sea level rise is an issue, as is ocean acidification, extreme weather events and food security.
For sure, actions need to be taken around each of these issues but putting each in a little box means the overarching cause is ignored. This is something that not everyone can afford to do without fear of the consequences.
How does this title compare to those of other governments that we identify with?
The British have a Department of Energy and Climate Change. Or at least they had until new Prime Minister Theresa May buried the climate change responsibility in a Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.
The Aussies once had a Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Tony Abbot changed that, moving responsibility for climate change to the Department of Industry and Science. He also ditched the 2011 Labour government’s carbon tax. Like our neoliberal government, they appear to think that climate change will be solved by industry much like the tooth fairy resolves a kid’s wiggly tooth.
So if governments are going to ignore the underlying causes, then it falls on individuals to do something to mitigate the causes of climate change. If every person reduced their direct CO2 emissions by 10 per cent, would that have a significant impact?
Yes. A 10 per cent reduction would achieve one fifth of the only emissions reduction target our government are committed to - a 5 per cent reduction of net carbon emissions below 1990 gross levels by 2020.
Note the target is a net one below a gross figure. The difference is the impact of new forestry plantings as trees take carbon out of the atmosphere thus subtracting from our gross emissions to realise a net figure.
This is why the government is confident that we will meet this target. Some will say that, if planting trees means we will meet the target, then why do anything additional?
One reason is that for the world as we know it to survive, we need to reduce actual emissions. A business-as-usual approach does not achieve that. Another reason is that another target - a 10-20 per cent reduction by 2030 - requires us to actually reduce emissions and a 10 per cent reduction by individuals will achieve that.
The most compelling reason, is that if we are to stay under the 2 degrees of warming goal set in Paris last year, the global budget for carbon emissions will be exceeded around 2035 unless we do something different now.
John Allen is the director of Rural Connect, www.ruralconnect.org.nz
HAVE YOUR SAY
Letters should not exceed 250 words and must have full name, residential address and phone number. The editor reserves the right to abridge or withhold any correspondence without explanation. Letters may be edited, referred to others for right of reply before publication. Write to Letters to the Editor, Franklin County News, PO Box 14, Pukekohe or email julie.kaio@fairfaxmedia.co.nz with your views.