PM to go to Copenhagen leaders' event

14 Comments
03 December 2009
PM to go to Copenhagen leaders' event

Prime Minister John Key announced today he will be attending the leaders' meeting at the end of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen later this month.

The leaders' event at the conference is due to be held on 17-18 December.

"I have reassessed our position and taken advice from our negotiating team," says Mr Key. "I have decided that on balance it makes sense for me to be there for the leaders' meeting.

"The circumstances have changed in recent weeks. While it's unlikely a binding agreement will be reached at Copenhagen, political momentum is growing which is why in recent weeks a lot more leaders have indicated they will be attending.

"By my absence I wouldn't want to give the impression that New Zealand isn't committed to playing its part in the fight against climate change.

"The fact is that the Government is committed to doing something about climate change, balancing our environmental responsibilities with our economic opportunities.

"We go to Copenhagen with a settled emissions trading scheme on the books, a credible mid-term emissions target, and talented and knowledgeable representation at the negotiations in the form of ministers Tim Groser and Nick Smith.

"Important decisions may be made in Copenhagen and it is important that I am there alongside other leaders so New Zealand has input at the highest level."

More details about the itinerary will be released in due course.

Posted by admin in News release Trackbacks: (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Gary Westwood 2009-12-04 21:38 - (Reply)

Good evening Mr Key, To date your leadership has been astute & pragmatic & that is reflected in the opinion polls. Why is it that what was a photo shoot last week is a 'must do' this week? Why was the ETS legislation rammed through with urgency, legislation that needed to be carefully debated & legislation that has been rejected outright by our major trading partner. Why are you taking advice from NIWA with its links to the increasingly discredited organisation in East Anglia? I am far from being a global warming denier but I and many other National Party supporters are becoming increasingly alarmed with your uncharacteristic tunnel vision on this issue.

#1.1 - Alan Liefting 2009-12-04 23:09 - (Reply)

A few emails taken out of context from one, albeit a rather important, climate change research centre does not have any bearing on the robustness of climate change science. The body of scientific knowledge that is built up in all disciplines goes through a peer review process. Scientists cannot get away with doing bad science.

#1.1.1 - Brian Casey 2009-12-07 11:22 - (Reply)

Not a few emails taken out of context. We are dealing with senior scientists actively colluding to delete emails to cover their tracks, and deliberate moves to side-line any scientist who dared to question anything IPCC. So the "peer review" is not rigorous, and in the cosy club receiving millions of dollars from creating scary stories from the THEORY of AGW, it can hardly be credible.

#1.1.1.1 - Alan Lefting 2009-12-07 18:36 - (Reply)

Yes, the emails were taken out of context. You are making it sound like a handful of scientists call the shots on climate change science. That is that the case. Climate science is practiced by 1000's of scientists. Now you understand that peer review is not done via email? And climate change is not an "industry" or a conspiracy? And the use of the word "theory" has different meanings in the common vernacular and in scince?

#2 - Scott 2009-12-06 19:32 - (Reply)

To Mr Key, you have done a great job since you came in to office, but i, and many others have a problem with this Climate Change issue. NZ should not sign up to this possible treaty in (Climate Change Conference)Copenhagen, Here are some reasons: Australia does not have a ETS. Emails hacked from research certre give out new info against the Theory. No body talks about the Medieval Warming Period, becasue it will break Climate Change Theory. And, of course, their is still no evidence that the planet is warming because of CO2. Their is evidence the planet is cooling. Regards

#2.1 - Alan Lefting 2009-12-07 18:50 - (Reply)

What we do in NZ does not have to based on what Aussie does besides the Aussies are going to introduce an ETS by 2011 - just over a year away. The hacked emails have no bearing on the veracity of climate change science. The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon and it is still talked about and it does not "break" any theory. The increase in global average temperature is very well documented. There is no evidence of global cooling. The science is simple: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are increasing atmospheic CO, therefore it follows that the greenhouse effect is increased.

#2.1.1 - Andrew Atkin said:
2009-12-08 11:20 - (Reply)

Alan, The science is not simple. If you get an increase in warming, does that lead to an increase of cloud cover? (yes, of course), and does that cloud cover more reflect away than retain solar energy? Apparently yes. If the clouds do function like a shut-off valve (negative feedback system) then we should not expect a runaway greenhouse effects. In fact we get the opposite. Clouds put the brakes on more solar input to likewise resist excessive warming, like a natural governer. I suggest you check this out: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010#docid=2009981932959450626 And there is also the elephant-in-the room issues of *methods* to resist carbon emissions. You don't need to trade carbon to suppress its use. Why do we never get into this HUGELY important debate?

#2.1.1.1 - Alan Liefting 2009-12-09 20:37 - (Reply)

Point taken on the simple science. The premise is simple - but the science is complex but is getting increasing unravelled. The video is utter rubbish. You cannot use it as a reference. It is a very blinkered viewpoint of one person who is very selective with the info that he uses.

#2.1.1.1.1 - Andrew Atkin said:
2009-12-10 04:25 - (Reply)

Alan: The video was rubbish? Well, how can I/we all know? An example of where he got it wrong would be appreciated. I thought the narrator in that video made some good points. Who do I trust? I certainly don't trust Gore, and I don't trust people who claim that we need an international tax to reduce carbon emissions, because we don't. I want to see some kind of royal commission on this issue. There's just WAY too much dodge going on with all this.

#3 - Andrew Atkin said:
2009-12-10 09:49 - (Reply)

I think I can get to the heart of it: The public is in a position where it must, basically, have blind faith in officialdom, because the truth is we cannot understand climate science to make up out own minds without months of personal study, and direct access to orginal data. Likewise the public, instinctively and rightfully, holds officialdom to a very strict standard. If we get the impression that we are being lied to, on any level, we start to get nervous because we are in a position where we are basically being asked to hand over a blank cheque to the officials who assure us that they are [supposedly!] right, and need our money. What the vast majority of us so-called climate change deniers are, are just people who are asking for a "please explain" with respect to many mistakes and allegations relating to the AGW movement. This is not about being a paranoid denier, it's about being a responsible and concerned citizen. We need to get to the bottom of this GW thing before we start handing billions(?) over to the UN, and signing treaties that may or not have serious soverignty issues tied to them.

#4 - Andrew Atkin said:
2009-12-16 19:48 - (Reply)

Apparently: Less than 0.04% [about 1 part in 2000] of our atmosphere is made up of CO2. At least 70% of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from natural sources such as volcanoes. Hell John, you may have been duped. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX-SYBD6LKc

#4.1 - Alan Liefting 2009-12-18 13:19 - (Reply)

Andrew, you have to start reading some of the science rather than pastors and politicians who are VERY disingenuous with their arguments. You also have to realise that is is the EFFECT not the absolute measure of greenhouse gases that is important.

#4.1.1 - Andrew Atkin 2009-12-19 13:15 - (Reply)

Alan, I understand this, and I have not studied the science in depth. I doubt very much that you have either, at least not objectively from both sides. Only a tiny minority has. My main goal is to bring attention to the controversy because that at least is real. Why don't I automatically trust officialdom? Because the responses have not been the right ones if the CO2 problem is real. That is what I do know about, and that is where the heart of my suspicions has always come from, and why I listen to serious critics on AGW. (along with faith in my ability to sense sincerity and a lack of it). But some things are fundamental. 1 part in 2,000 of the atmosphere is CO2? Correct me please if that is wrong, but that is an example of what is fundamental: What an utterly extraordinary greenhouse gas CO2 must be to create an apocalypse at those atmospheric concentrations. You make lots of assertions like 'disingenuous' and 'nonsense' but you never make a point that provides any kind of real information for consideration - we just have to believe you know better? Why not direct the way to some real information that directly responds to the common accusation from deniers? Though I can smell the rot in this game, I can still be shown that I have nothing to worry about with respect to the honestly behind the AGW game.

#5 - Andrew Atkin said:
2010-01-07 12:37 - (Reply)

Hello My Key and National: Sorry for beating this drum so hard, but the included point (and link) reinforces a point that, to me, is a "cruncher"; a simple, common sense reality that makes the runaway greenhouse effect so hard to believe. It is understood by both sides of the debate that if we double atmospheric CO2 then that, alone, would give us about a 1-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures. The IPCC have done everything that they can to try and "prove" that this will be reinforced by positive-feedback so as to produce a runaway greenhouse effect. What nonsense, I say! Because if the feedback was positive (rather than negative) then the Sun, with its great output-variability, would have provoked runaway greenhouse effects probably 10 million times over since the dawn of life on Earth, as it does *exactly* what CO2 does - increases temperature. And obviously it has not. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYrS9xWVuKE

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.