" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below expectations" >for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key partners >and the international community."The Paris agreement was past its use by date the day it was signed. It is nothing more than political gesturing.
As we are talking about CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere havw they >changed the amount the non developed countries are allowed to emit?
Is this an admission that higer levels are okay? Or is it just some confused >reporting?
"Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to represent the >"highest possible ambition" in light of national circumstances."
Seems to me that the Paris Agreement is past its use by date.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
The Paris agreement was past its use by date the day it was signed. It is >nothing more than political gesturing.
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key partners >>and the international community."
As we are talking about CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere havw they >>changed the amount the non developed countries are allowed to emit?
Is this an admission that higer levels are okay? Or is it just some confused >>reporting?
"Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to represent the
"highest possible ambition" in light of national circumstances."
Seems to me that the Paris Agreement is past its use by date.
Until the big emitters commit to doing their part we are best off ignoring the >non-binding agreement.
It is at best a left wing distraction.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:09:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant, my op[inion stands and is well supported. Just because a government does something does not mean it is smart, after all look at all the errors the last government made.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
The Paris agreement was past its use by date the day it was signed. It is >>nothing more than political gesturing.
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>partners
and the international community."
As we are talking about CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere havw they >>>changed the amount the non developed countries are allowed to emit?
Is this an admission that higer levels are okay? Or is it just some confused >>>reporting?
"Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to represent >>>the
"highest possible ambition" in light of national circumstances."
Seems to me that the Paris Agreement is past its use by date.
Until the big emitters commit to doing their part we are best off ignoring >>the
non-binding agreement.
It is at best a left wing distraction.
Christopher Luxon addressed this on a radio report today. He has
assured us that New Zealand will not be withdrawing from the climate
change agreements. If we withdraw there may well be repercussions, in
which we may lose markets for some of our products, and dairy products
in particular, so we will not be withdrawing. He has previously ruled
out asking the dairy industry to do more to reduce emissions.
So if we do not meet targets for reduction in emissions there will beThere may be costs, there may not. If there are they may be sustainable costs, you don't know but you love to guess.
costs and still some potential market repercussions, but that is way
in the future - at least after the next New Zealand election, so not a >concern to the current government.
Are you expecting any of the big emitters to "commit to doing theirI don't expect them to do anything, it is being left up to gullible countries like this one and greedy people who make money out of the climate change sham. None of them are part of the agreement so your question is, as usual, pointless.
part" without that being a legal requirement, Tony?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:09:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant, my op[inion stands and is well supported. Just because a government
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
The Paris agreement was past its use by date the day it was signed. It is >>>nothing more than political gesturing.
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>partners
and the international community."
As we are talking about CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere havw they >>>>changed the amount the non developed countries are allowed to emit?
Is this an admission that higer levels are okay? Or is it just some confused
reporting?
"Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to represent >>>>the
"highest possible ambition" in light of national circumstances."
Seems to me that the Paris Agreement is past its use by date.
Until the big emitters commit to doing their part we are best off ignoring >>>the
non-binding agreement.
It is at best a left wing distraction.
Christopher Luxon addressed this on a radio report today. He has
assured us that New Zealand will not be withdrawing from the climate
change agreements. If we withdraw there may well be repercussions, in
which we may lose markets for some of our products, and dairy products
in particular, so we will not be withdrawing. He has previously ruled
out asking the dairy industry to do more to reduce emissions.
does something does not mean it is smart, after all look at all the errors the >last government made.
There may be costs, there may not. If there are they may be sustainable costs, >you don't know but you love to guess.
So if we do not meet targets for reduction in emissions there will be
costs and still some potential market repercussions, but that is way
in the future - at least after the next New Zealand election, so not a >>concern to the current government.
greedy or both?I don't expect them to do anything, it is being left up to gullible countries >like this one and greedy people who make money out of the climate change sham. Are you accusing Luxon and the current government of being gullible or
Are you expecting any of the big emitters to "commit to doing their
part" without that being a legal requirement, Tony?
None of them are part of the agreement so your question is, as usual, pointless.The government is part of the agreement.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:10:40 -0000 (UTC), TonySo unusual that in fact I said nothing of the sort. Your sarcasm is showing.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:09:02 -0000 (UTC), TonyIrrelevant, my op[inion stands and is well supported. Just because a >>government
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
The Paris agreement was past its use by date the day it was signed. It is >>>>nothing more than political gesturing.
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>>partners
and the international community."
As we are talking about CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere havw they >>>>>changed the amount the non developed countries are allowed to emit?
Is this an admission that higer levels are okay? Or is it just some >>>>>confused
reporting?
"Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to represent >>>>>the
"highest possible ambition" in light of national circumstances."
Seems to me that the Paris Agreement is past its use by date.
Until the big emitters commit to doing their part we are best off ignoring >>>>the
non-binding agreement.
It is at best a left wing distraction.
Christopher Luxon addressed this on a radio report today. He has
assured us that New Zealand will not be withdrawing from the climate >>>change agreements. If we withdraw there may well be repercussions, in >>>which we may lose markets for some of our products, and dairy products
in particular, so we will not be withdrawing. He has previously ruled
out asking the dairy industry to do more to reduce emissions.
does something does not mean it is smart, after all look at all the errors >>the
last government made.
Unusual for you to say that something Luxon says is irrelevant, I made
no judgement on it at all.
Forecasting is more guesswork than analysis. So there is no loss yet proven.There may be costs, there may not. If there are they may be sustainable >>costs,
So if we do not meet targets for reduction in emissions there will be >>>costs and still some potential market repercussions, but that is way
in the future - at least after the next New Zealand election, so not a >>>concern to the current government.
you don't know but you love to guess.
Losing a market which is what Luxon was forecasting is more likely to >represent a cost than not.
None of the above, do get some help.Are you accusing Luxon and the current government of being gullible orI don't expect them to do anything, it is being left up to gullible countries >>like this one and greedy people who make money out of the climate change sham.
Are you expecting any of the big emitters to "commit to doing their
part" without that being a legal requirement, Tony?
greedy or both?
I was not referring to our government, please get that help.None of them are part of the agreement so your question is, as usual, >>pointless.The government is part of the agreement.
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below expectations" >for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key partners >and the international community."
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key partners >>and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the
government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which
vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do.
It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the
government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which
vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do.
It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned
10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent
Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in
bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the
51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as
"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below
expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the
expectations of key partners and the international community.
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of
possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51
percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its
previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent.
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the
cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55
percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and
other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent
target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent
target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing
climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as
"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the
global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target
was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris
Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement
and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to
represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national
circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do
more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a
target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest
possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent
reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by
more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the
current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55
percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and
cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per
week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under
the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut
by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting
its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts
said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes
of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the
government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he
relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice
determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations
under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently
meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the
government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which
vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do.
It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned >>10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent
Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in
bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the
51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as
"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the
expectations of key partners and the international community.
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of
possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51
percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent.
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the
cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55
percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and
other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent
target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as
"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the
global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target
was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris
Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement
and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to
represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do
more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a
target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest
possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by
more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55
percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and
cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under
the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut
by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting
its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts
said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes
of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the
government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >>feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he
relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice
determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations
under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently
meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:- you are consistently nasty.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the >>>>>government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which >>>>>vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do. >>>>>It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned >>>>10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent
Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the
51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as >>>>"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>>expectations of key partners and the international community.
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of
possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51
percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent.
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and >>>>other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>>>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent
target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>>>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target >>>>was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris >>>>Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement >>>>and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to >>>>represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do >>>>more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a
target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest >>>>possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and
cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>>>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under >>>>the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut >>>>by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting >>>>its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts
said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes >>>>of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the
government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >>>>feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he >>>>relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice >>>>determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently >>>>meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably
very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this >>stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing
some of our dairy trade
Nasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose anything. You just can't help yourself from deleting words you have no answer to
You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National
Party . .
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), TonyNasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose anything. You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the
government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which
vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do. >>>>It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned >>>10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent
Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the
51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as
"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>expectations of key partners and the international community.
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of
possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51
percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent.
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and >>>other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent
target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target
was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris
Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement
and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to
represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do >>>more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a
target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest
possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and
cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under
the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut
by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting
its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts
said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes
of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the
government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >>>feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he
relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice
determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently
meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably
very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this
stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing
some of our dairy trade
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National
Party . .
So are you saying that Christopher Luxon got his decision wrong? All I
was doing was repeating his explanation for why the government is not withdrawing from Climate Change agreements. Are you saying he was
wrong?
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:31:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyI removed abuse and will continue to do so. You are nasty, I am truthful.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>>>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the >>>>>>government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which >>>>>>vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do. >>>>>>It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned >>>>>10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent
Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the >>>>>51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as >>>>>"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>>>expectations of key partners and the international community.
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of >>>>>possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51 >>>>>percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent.
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and >>>>>other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>>>>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent >>>>>target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>>>>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target >>>>>was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris >>>>>Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement >>>>>and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to >>>>>represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do >>>>>more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a >>>>>target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest >>>>>possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and >>>>>cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>>>>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under >>>>>the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut >>>>>by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting >>>>>its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts >>>>>said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes >>>>>of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the >>>>>government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >>>>>feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he >>>>>relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice >>>>>determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently >>>>>meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably
very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this >>>stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing
some of our dairy trade
Nasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose anything. >You just can't help yourself from deleting words you have no answer to- you are consistently nasty.
Luxon said that New Zealand may lose Trade agreements if it withdrewHe used the word "may" you ignored that, your English comprehension needs work. That measn, as I wrote, you are guessing. Kapish?
from the Climate Change Agreements - are you claiming he is a liar on
that point, Tony?
Wishful thinking, you know nothing.You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National
Party . .
I suspect that Luxon has a reasonably good a chance of remaining
leader of the National Party after the next election - there is not
exactly a lot of competition, is there? But it does depend on them
being re-elected to government, which does appear to be less likely
than a year ago.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:And if you read my post three lines up you will see that I too used
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:31:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyI removed abuse and will continue to do so. You are nasty, I am truthful.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:- you are consistently nasty.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>>>>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the >>>>>>>government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which >>>>>>>vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do. >>>>>>>It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned >>>>>>10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent
Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>>>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>>>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the >>>>>>51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as >>>>>>"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>>>>expectations of key partners and the international community.
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of >>>>>>possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51 >>>>>>percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>>>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>>>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent.
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>>>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>>>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and >>>>>>other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>>>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>>>>>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent >>>>>>target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>>>>>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>>>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>>>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target >>>>>>was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris >>>>>>Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement >>>>>>and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to >>>>>>represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>>>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do >>>>>>more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a >>>>>>target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest >>>>>>possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>>>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>>>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>>>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>>>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and >>>>>>cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>>>>>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under >>>>>>the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut >>>>>>by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting >>>>>>its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts >>>>>>said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes >>>>>>of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the >>>>>>government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >>>>>>feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he >>>>>>relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice >>>>>>determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>>>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently >>>>>>meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably >>>>very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this >>>>stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing
some of our dairy trade
Nasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose anything. >>You just can't help yourself from deleting words you have no answer to
He used the word "may" you ignored that, your English comprehension needs work.
Luxon said that New Zealand may lose Trade agreements if it withdrew
from the Climate Change Agreements - are you claiming he is a liar on
that point, Tony?
That measn, as I wrote, you are guessing. Kapish?So are you saying that Christopher Luxon got his decision wrong? All I
Wishful thinking, you know nothing.You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National >>>>Party . .
I suspect that Luxon has a reasonably good a chance of remaining
leader of the National Party after the next election - there is not >>exactly a lot of competition, is there? But it does depend on them
being re-elected to government, which does appear to be less likely
than a year ago.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:56:54 -0000 (UTC), TonySo what? It merely reinfoces my point, thank you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:And if you read my post three lines up you will see that I too used
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:31:03 -0000 (UTC), TonyI removed abuse and will continue to do so. You are nasty, I am truthful.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You just can't help yourself from deleting words you have no answer to
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>>>>>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the >>>>>>>>government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which >>>>>>>>vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do. >>>>>>>>It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned >>>>>>>10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent >>>>>>>Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>>>>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>>>>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the >>>>>>>51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as >>>>>>>"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>>>>>expectations of key partners and the international community.
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of >>>>>>>possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51 >>>>>>>percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>>>>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>>>>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent.
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>>>>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>>>>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and >>>>>>>other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>>>>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>>>>>>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent >>>>>>>target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>>>>>>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>>>>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>>>>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target >>>>>>>was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris >>>>>>>Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement >>>>>>>and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to >>>>>>>represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>>>>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do >>>>>>>more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a >>>>>>>target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest >>>>>>>possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>>>>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>>>>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>>>>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>>>>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and >>>>>>>cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>>>>>>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under >>>>>>>the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut >>>>>>>by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting >>>>>>>its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts >>>>>>>said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes >>>>>>>of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the >>>>>>>government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >>>>>>>feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he >>>>>>>relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice >>>>>>>determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>>>>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently >>>>>>>meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably >>>>>very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this >>>>>stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing >>>>>some of our dairy trade
Nasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose >>>>anything.
- you are consistently nasty.
He used the word "may" you ignored that, your English comprehension needs >>work.
Luxon said that New Zealand may lose Trade agreements if it withdrew
from the Climate Change Agreements - are you claiming he is a liar on >>>that point, Tony?
the word "may". He clearly saw losing a trade agreement as
sufficiently likely to base a policy decision to not withdraw from
Climate Change agreements based on that likelihood.
Try thinking before you post, Tony - or better yet get someone else toMore abuse.
read it for you . . . .
No I am saying exactly what I wrote, you are guessing.That measn, as I wrote, you are guessing. Kapish?So are you saying that Christopher Luxon got his decision wrong? All I
was doing was repeating his explanation for why the government is not >withdrawing from Climate Change agreements. Are you saying he was
wrong?
Wishful thinking, you know nothing.You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National >>>>>Party . .
I suspect that Luxon has a reasonably good a chance of remaining
leader of the National Party after the next election - there is not >>>exactly a lot of competition, is there? But it does depend on them
being re-elected to government, which does appear to be less likely
than a year ago.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No abuse - you were (perhaps inadvertently) agreeing with me that we
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:56:54 -0000 (UTC), TonySo what? It merely reinfoces my point, thank you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:And if you read my post three lines up you will see that I too used
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:31:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I removed abuse and will continue to do so. You are nasty, I am truthful. >>>>
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You just can't help yourself from deleting words you have no answer to >>>>- you are consistently nasty.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>>>>>>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the >>>>>>>>>government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which >>>>>>>>>vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do. >>>>>>>>>It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned >>>>>>>>10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent >>>>>>>>Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>>>>>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>>>>>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the >>>>>>>>51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as >>>>>>>>"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>>>>>>expectations of key partners and the international community.
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of >>>>>>>>possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51 >>>>>>>>percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>>>>>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>>>>>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent. >>>>>>>>
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>>>>>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>>>>>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and >>>>>>>>other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>>>>>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>>>>>>>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent >>>>>>>>target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>>>>>>>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>>>>>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>>>>>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target >>>>>>>>was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris >>>>>>>>Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement >>>>>>>>and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to >>>>>>>>represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>>>>>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do >>>>>>>>more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a >>>>>>>>target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest >>>>>>>>possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>>>>>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>>>>>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>>>>>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>>>>>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and >>>>>>>>cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>>>>>>>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under >>>>>>>>the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut >>>>>>>>by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting >>>>>>>>its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts >>>>>>>>said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes >>>>>>>>of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the >>>>>>>>government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >>>>>>>>feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he >>>>>>>>relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice >>>>>>>>determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>>>>>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently >>>>>>>>meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably >>>>>>very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this >>>>>>stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing >>>>>>some of our dairy trade
Nasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose >>>>>anything.
Luxon said that New Zealand may lose Trade agreements if it withdrew >>>>from the Climate Change Agreements - are you claiming he is a liar on >>>>that point, Tony?He used the word "may" you ignored that, your English comprehension needs >>>work.
the word "may". He clearly saw losing a trade agreement as
sufficiently likely to base a policy decision to not withdraw from
Climate Change agreements based on that likelihood.
More abuse.
Try thinking before you post, Tony - or better yet get someone else to
read it for you . . . .
No I am saying exactly what I wrote, you are guessing.
That measn, as I wrote, you are guessing. Kapish?So are you saying that Christopher Luxon got his decision wrong? All I
was doing was repeating his explanation for why the government is not >>withdrawing from Climate Change agreements. Are you saying he was
wrong?
Wishful thinking, you know nothing.You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National >>>>>>Party . .
I suspect that Luxon has a reasonably good a chance of remaining
leader of the National Party after the next election - there is not >>>>exactly a lot of competition, is there? But it does depend on them >>>>being re-elected to government, which does appear to be less likely >>>>than a year ago.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:17:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes abuse, you no longer know the difference between abuse and normal discourse, abuse for you is second nature.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No abuse
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:56:54 -0000 (UTC), TonySo what? It merely reinfoces my point, thank you.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:And if you read my post three lines up you will see that I too used
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:31:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I removed abuse and will continue to do so. You are nasty, I am truthful. >>>>>
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You just can't help yourself from deleting words you have no answer to >>>>>- you are consistently nasty.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key >>>>>>>>>>>partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the >>>>>>>>>>government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which >>>>>>>>>>vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do.
It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned >>>>>>>>>10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent >>>>>>>>>Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>>>>>>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>>>>>>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the >>>>>>>>>51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as >>>>>>>>>"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>>>>>>>expectations of key partners and the international community. >>>>>>>>>
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of >>>>>>>>>possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51 >>>>>>>>>percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>>>>>>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>>>>>>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent. >>>>>>>>>
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>>>>>>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>>>>>>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and >>>>>>>>>other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>>>>>>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>>>>>>>>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent >>>>>>>>>target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>>>>>>>>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>>>>>>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>>>>>>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target >>>>>>>>>was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris >>>>>>>>>Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement >>>>>>>>>and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to >>>>>>>>>represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>>>>>>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do >>>>>>>>>more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a >>>>>>>>>target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest >>>>>>>>>possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>>>>>>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>>>>>>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>>>>>>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>>>>>>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and >>>>>>>>>cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>>>>>>>>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under >>>>>>>>>the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut >>>>>>>>>by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting >>>>>>>>>its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts >>>>>>>>>said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes >>>>>>>>>of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the >>>>>>>>>government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be >>>>>>>>>feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said."
__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he >>>>>>>>>relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice >>>>>>>>>determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>>>>>>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently >>>>>>>>>meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably >>>>>>>very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this >>>>>>>stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing >>>>>>>some of our dairy trade
Nasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose >>>>>>anything.
Luxon said that New Zealand may lose Trade agreements if it withdrew >>>>>from the Climate Change Agreements - are you claiming he is a liar on >>>>>that point, Tony?He used the word "may" you ignored that, your English comprehension needs >>>>work.
the word "may". He clearly saw losing a trade agreement as
sufficiently likely to base a policy decision to not withdraw from >>>Climate Change agreements based on that likelihood.
More abuse.
Try thinking before you post, Tony - or better yet get someone else to >>>read it for you . . . .
- you were (perhaps inadvertently) agreeing with me that weIn your dreams, nobody knows that. You are guessing.
may lose either or both money or trade agreements.
No I am saying exactly what I wrote, you are guessing.
That measn, as I wrote, you are guessing. Kapish?So are you saying that Christopher Luxon got his decision wrong? All I >>>was doing was repeating his explanation for why the government is not >>>withdrawing from Climate Change agreements. Are you saying he was
wrong?
Wishful thinking, you know nothing.You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National >>>>>>>Party . .
I suspect that Luxon has a reasonably good a chance of remaining >>>>>leader of the National Party after the next election - there is not >>>>>exactly a lot of competition, is there? But it does depend on them >>>>>being re-elected to government, which does appear to be less likely >>>>>than a year ago.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:It does not surprise me that you do not know what you were thinking,
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:17:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes abuse, you no longer know the difference between abuse and normal >discourse, abuse for you is second nature.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No abuse
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:56:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So what? It merely reinfoces my point, thank you.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:And if you read my post three lines up you will see that I too used
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:31:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I removed abuse and will continue to do so. You are nasty, I am truthful. >>>>>>
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You just can't help yourself from deleting words you have no answer to >>>>>>- you are consistently nasty.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of key
partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the >>>>>>>>>>>government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which >>>>>>>>>>>vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to do.
It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government warned
10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent >>>>>>>>>>Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>>>>>>>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>>>>>>>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the >>>>>>>>>>51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as >>>>>>>>>>"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>>>>>>>>expectations of key partners and the international community. >>>>>>>>>>
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of >>>>>>>>>>possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51 >>>>>>>>>>percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions.
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>>>>>>>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>>>>>>>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent. >>>>>>>>>>
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>>>>>>>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>>>>>>>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and >>>>>>>>>>other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>>>>>>>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the >>>>>>>>>>Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent >>>>>>>>>>target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing >>>>>>>>>>climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>>>>>>>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>>>>>>>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target >>>>>>>>>>was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris >>>>>>>>>>Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement >>>>>>>>>>and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to >>>>>>>>>>represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>>>>>>>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do >>>>>>>>>>more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a >>>>>>>>>>target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest >>>>>>>>>>possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>>>>>>>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>>>>>>>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>>>>>>>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>>>>>>>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and >>>>>>>>>>cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per >>>>>>>>>>week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper.
He also noted that the government was already legally required under >>>>>>>>>>the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut >>>>>>>>>>by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting >>>>>>>>>>its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts >>>>>>>>>>said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million tonnes
of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the >>>>>>>>>>government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will be
feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said." >>>>>>>>>>__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he >>>>>>>>>>relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice >>>>>>>>>>determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>>>>>>>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently >>>>>>>>>>meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably >>>>>>>>very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this >>>>>>>>stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing >>>>>>>>some of our dairy trade
Nasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose >>>>>>>anything.
Luxon said that New Zealand may lose Trade agreements if it withdrew >>>>>>from the Climate Change Agreements - are you claiming he is a liar on >>>>>>that point, Tony?He used the word "may" you ignored that, your English comprehension needs >>>>>work.
the word "may". He clearly saw losing a trade agreement as >>>>sufficiently likely to base a policy decision to not withdraw from >>>>Climate Change agreements based on that likelihood.
More abuse.
Try thinking before you post, Tony - or better yet get someone else to >>>>read it for you . . . .
- you were (perhaps inadvertently) agreeing with me that weIn your dreams, nobody knows that. You are guessing.
may lose either or both money or trade agreements.
No I am saying exactly what I wrote, you are guessing.
That measn, as I wrote, you are guessing. Kapish?So are you saying that Christopher Luxon got his decision wrong? All I >>>>was doing was repeating his explanation for why the government is not >>>>withdrawing from Climate Change agreements. Are you saying he was >>>>wrong?
Wishful thinking, you know nothing.You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National >>>>>>>>Party . .
I suspect that Luxon has a reasonably good a chance of remaining >>>>>>leader of the National Party after the next election - there is not >>>>>>exactly a lot of competition, is there? But it does depend on them >>>>>>being re-elected to government, which does appear to be less likely >>>>>>than a year ago.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 21:25:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyMore abuse gone. All Rich has is abuse. No logic, no debate, just abuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 06:17:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes abuse, you no longer know the difference between abuse and normal >>discourse, abuse for you is second nature.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No abuse
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:56:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So what? It merely reinfoces my point, thank you.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:And if you read my post three lines up you will see that I too used >>>>>the word "may". He clearly saw losing a trade agreement as >>>>>sufficiently likely to base a policy decision to not withdraw from >>>>>Climate Change agreements based on that likelihood.
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:31:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I removed abuse and will continue to do so. You are nasty, I am truthful. >>>>>>>
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You just can't help yourself from deleting words you have no answer to >>>>>>>- you are consistently nasty.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:49:05 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:52 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>And neither should we.
On 27 Mar 2025 22:53:08 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/556438/new-climate-target-below-expectations-of-partners-government-warned
" The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>>>>>>expectations"
for a developed country and unlikely to meet the expectations of >>>>>>>>>>>>>key
partners
and the international community."
That article nowhere states *who* did this "telling" to the >>>>>>>>>>>>government. It's total fake news. It's the article itself which >>>>>>>>>>>>vents its lefty editor's spleen and "tells" the government what to >>>>>>>>>>>>do.
It should be used as an example of why to defund RNZ.
Yes it does read this:
"Local Democracy Reporting
Comment & Analysis
In Depth
Weather
New Zealand Politics28 Mar 2025
New climate target 'below expectations' of partners, government >>>>>>>>>>>warned
10:11 am on 28 March 2025
Eloise Gibson, Climate Change Correspondent >>>>>>>>>>>Eloise.Gibson@rnz.co.nz
Climate Change minister Simon Watts, wearing a blue suit, stands in >>>>>>>>>>>bright sunlight near a rocky shore, with Rangitoto Island in the >>>>>>>>>>>background.When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the >>>>>>>>>>>51-55 percent emissions reduction target, he described it as >>>>>>>>>>>"ambitious". Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The government was told its climate target for 2035 was "below >>>>>>>>>>>expectations" for a developed country and unlikely to meet the >>>>>>>>>>>expectations of key partners and the international community. >>>>>>>>>>>
Officials laid out their assessments to Cabinet for a range of >>>>>>>>>>>possible climate targets, starting from cutting emissions by 51 >>>>>>>>>>>percent by 2035 and topping out at 65 percent reductions. >>>>>>>>>>>
The lowest possible starting point was 51 percent, because the Paris >>>>>>>>>>>Agreement requires each country's new target to be a step up on its >>>>>>>>>>>previous one - and New Zealand's target for 2030 is 50 percent. >>>>>>>>>>>
That was the figure the government went with.
As well as being the lowest, it was also rated by officials as the >>>>>>>>>>>cheapest and most feasible to achieve.
However the government left open the possibility of achieving a 55 >>>>>>>>>>>percent reduction, if technology for reducing livestock emissions and
other developments go well.
When Climate Change Minister Simon Watts announced the 51-55 percent >>>>>>>>>>>target, he described it as "ambitious".
However the assessment he showed Cabinet - which the Ministry for the
Environment proactively released this month - rated a 51 percent >>>>>>>>>>>target as having "low alignment" with the principle of fairly sharing
climate efforts between rich and poor countries. It was described as >>>>>>>>>>>"less likely to to be considered sufficient by key partners and the >>>>>>>>>>>global community" compared with any other target. A 55 percent target
was rated slightly better but still not strongly on the Paris >>>>>>>>>>>Agreement's principles of equity.
The lowest target was, however, also rated most feasible to implement
and least likely to involve spending money.
Under the Paris Agreement, each country's target is supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>represent the "highest possible ambition" in light of national >>>>>>>>>>>circumstances.
As a developed country, the advice says New Zealand is expected to do
more towards global efforts.
In a Cabinet paper, Watts told other government ministers that a >>>>>>>>>>>target range of 51 percent to 55 percent "represents our highest >>>>>>>>>>>possible ambition given our national circumstances."
He said it was "a relatively small progression over the 50 percent >>>>>>>>>>>reduction [for 2030]".
"Other countries are likely to progress their [Paris] commitments by >>>>>>>>>>>more."
However he noted it could be achieved inside New Zealand, unlike the >>>>>>>>>>>current target which requires overseas help.
"Officials estimate that achieving a reduction of 51 percent to 55 >>>>>>>>>>>percent will reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent in 2035, and >>>>>>>>>>>cost the average household $80-$195 per year or about $1.50-$3.75 per
week," Watts advised his colleagues in the Cabinet paper. >>>>>>>>>>>
He also noted that the government was already legally required under >>>>>>>>>>>the Zero Carbon Act to reduce emissions in line with a 51 percent cut
by 2035, so this did not require any extra work.
However the government is currently 9 million tonnes short of meeting
its obligation under the Act, based on policies today, a gap Watts >>>>>>>>>>>said would be addressed closer to the time.
Achieving a 55 percent target would require an extra 10 million >>>>>>>>>>>tonnes
of emissions cuts on top of what was already required of the >>>>>>>>>>>government in domestic law, he said.
"There is uncertainty about what levels of emissions reduction will >>>>>>>>>>>be
feasible in the 2031-35 period," he said." >>>>>>>>>>>__________________
So the person telling Cabinet was Simon Watt, the Minister, and he >>>>>>>>>>>relied on a report from staff that relied on scientific advice >>>>>>>>>>>determined in accordance with the Agreement, as well as expectations >>>>>>>>>>>under the wording of that agreement. New Zealand is not currently >>>>>>>>>>>meeting its obligations under the Agreement.
A predictable reaction from you Tony, but Dairy farmers are probably >>>>>>>>>very happy that Luxon is sticking with the Agreement at least at this >>>>>>>>>stage. He doesn't really care, but even he understands that losing >>>>>>>>>some of our dairy trade
Nasty use of "even he" and there is no evidence that we would lose >>>>>>>>anything.
Luxon said that New Zealand may lose Trade agreements if it withdrew >>>>>>>from the Climate Change Agreements - are you claiming he is a liar on >>>>>>>that point, Tony?He used the word "may" you ignored that, your English comprehension needs >>>>>>work.
More abuse.
Try thinking before you post, Tony - or better yet get someone else to >>>>>read it for you . . . .
- you were (perhaps inadvertently) agreeing with me that weIn your dreams, nobody knows that. You are guessing.
may lose either or both money or trade agreements.
No I am saying exactly what I wrote, you are guessing.
That measn, as I wrote, you are guessing. Kapish?So are you saying that Christopher Luxon got his decision wrong? All I >>>>>was doing was repeating his explanation for why the government is not >>>>>withdrawing from Climate Change agreements. Are you saying he was >>>>>wrong?
Wishful thinking, you know nothing.You are still guessing, but hey that is what you do.
would not be a good look during this term -Irrelevant sarcasm.
he probably has dreams of continuing as the leader of the National >>>>>>>>>Party . .
I suspect that Luxon has a reasonably good a chance of remaining >>>>>>>leader of the National Party after the next election - there is not >>>>>>>exactly a lot of competition, is there? But it does depend on them >>>>>>>being re-elected to government, which does appear to be less likely >>>>>>>than a year ago.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 48:42:37 |
| Calls: | 10,397 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 14,066 |
| Messages: | 6,417,284 |
| Posted today: | 1 |