Kerre Woodham: The realities of leaving the Paris Agreement

ACT Party Leader David Seymour has set the cat among the pigeons, or the Huntaway among the cattle, by calling for New Zealand to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a pact that’s part of the UN's framework convention on climate change, which started in 1992 with the Rio Earth Summit. The main goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep long-term global temperatures from warming 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, and if not that, then well below 2 degrees Celsius by slashing planet-warming emissions from coal, oil, and gas. It's not working, the numbers are still too high, but who knows what they would have been had the Paris Agreement not been in place.  

It works as a binding but voluntary programme for the member countries. Every five years, countries are required to submit a goal or a plan for what it will do about heat-trapping emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases. And these goals are supposed to get more ambitious every five years – you're supposed to improve on what you did last time. The countries themselves decide what's in those goals, and there is no punishment for countries who miss the goals.  

Despite this, despite the fact that there are no teeth and no punitive measures if you don't meet the self-imposed targets, ACT says that the Paris Agreement needs to change, or New Zealand needs to leave. David Seymour says it demands targets that are disconnected from science and blind to New Zealand’s realities. Net zero targets have been set without regard for the real cost to firms, farms, and families, they say, so they want New Zealand out, like the US.  

“At the moment, we face being punished for being a methane-heavy economy. I think it's about time that we, perhaps along with like-minded nations, I'm thinking South American nations like Uruguay that have a lot of livestock, also a lot of Southeast Asian nations which produce a lot of rice, which it turns out actually produces a lot of methane – we should be going to Paris saying, "hang on a minute’, instead of our government officials making representations to the public that pay them on behalf of these global institutions, maybe they should actually be going on our behalf overseas to say, ‘you guys need to give a fair deal to methane-heavy economies,’ because methane's a very different gas. It has a much different effect on climate because it breaks down over time, and therefore that scientific reality needs to be recognised.” 

So that was David Seymour talking to Heather du Plessis-Allan last night. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it's not going to happen; we're not going to leave. It would only hurt and punish and damage our farmers. He says our competitor countries would like nothing more than to see New Zealand products off the shelves, and he added that, having worked in multinationals, the companies would just move to another supplier, a more public-friendly, a more agreeable, a more green-friendly supplier.  

He does have a point. Well, both men have points, really. David Seymour is quite right in that methane is a different sort of a gas, that New Zealand does it the best in the world. New Zealand produces food better than anybody else in terms of accounting for climate change targets and goals. But Christopher Luxon has a point too, because green and social accounting is part of global financial reporting. We're seeing it right down to the smallest business in New Zealand. Your bank wants to see you committing to various environmental targets, goals, achievements. If you don't, the money comes at a higher rate. And it's the same for them. Their masters, their overlords, want to see that the banks themselves have required their clients to commit to environmental goals. It's absolutely entwined within the way the world does business. I don't know how you can separate one from the other.  

It would be very easy for New Zealand to be made an example of, far harder for the US because it is a global powerhouse. Notwithstanding Modi, Xi, and Putin all getting together to try and form another cabal or block of power, but the US is too powerful to punish. Were we to say, "You know what, we're out," it would be very, very easy for us to be made an example of. We're small, quite loud, there would be some people around the world who would have heard of us, so if we're made an example of, it would only hurt us. Nobody else would care.  

Furthermore, Christopher Luxon says that New Zealand has taken farming out of the ETS, the Emissions Trading Scheme, and promises there'll be an announcement on methane targets in the very, very near future. So where do you stand on this one?  

As I'm aware, farming as an industry and farming as a science is constantly working to improve efficiencies in the way they do things. Our scientists and our ag researchers are working overtime to try and bring down any harmful gases caused in the manufacture of food. Farmers are implementing all sorts of measures, and if they don't, they're off the books. They are no longer clients of places like Fonterra. So you have to meet really high standards before you can consider yourself a farmer in the modern age. I would have thought farming as an industry understood the global realities, given that they are a major global player. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.