
Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill - mikedilger
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_87861/climate-change-response-zero-carbon-amendment-bill
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> Ardern went on to say she absolutely believed climate change was the
> "biggest challenge of our time" and the "nuclear moment" for this
> generation.

I find it ironic the prime minister is using “nuclear” as a pejorative when it
was the left’s irrational opposition to nuclear power that resulted in much of
the world's electricity being produced by fossil fuels.

If we had embraced nuclear power 2 decades ago, we would have been in much
better shape with respect to CO2 than we are in now.

~~~
yarg
Perhaps if the war hawks had allowed for the development of nuclear reactors
with passive safety mechanisms- rather than exclusively funding R&D on those
with weaponisable byproducts, we'd have globally usable nuclear energy
technology today.

Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors, requiring
active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear meltdown is a
genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl and Fukushima).

~~~
arcticbull
> Regarding the irrationality of the fear of current nuclear reactors,
> requiring active intervention (with control rods) to prevent nuclear
> meltdown is a genuine and justified cause for concern (as evidenced by Three
> Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima).

Fear of nuclear is irrational. Chernobyl was the single worst nuclear accident
in the history of the world and UNSCEAR projects a death toll of no more than
4,000 [3] from the original accident (which directly killed about 50) onward.
A large amount of them are suicide by people who fear they were “contaminated”
when the most likely cancer, thyroid (due to radioactive Iodine-131 released)
has a 98% survival rate [4]. Better than some flu years. That's what they were
taking iodine pills for -- to saturate the thyroid so it didn't take up any of
the Iodine-131.

Three mile island killed nobody and Fukushima killed 2-12 (almost 600 died
from the actual quake). We learned from all 3 incidents and incorporated
substantial additional safety measures for future designs.

The worst hydro accident by comparison, the Bangqiao Dam failure killed
230,000 people instantly. [2]

Nuclear has an order of magnitude fewer deaths per TWh than solar (it’s 10X
safer than solar panels, yes) and two to three orders fewer than hydro and
coal. [1].

Nuclear is no question the safest and most environmentally friendly energy
source in the world by all metrics, and especially carbon emissions.

Of course I’d love to see thorium cycle explored too but we'll never get the
funding with negative sentiment towards nuclear. It should be respected, not
feared.

[1]
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/d...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-
per-twh-by-energy-source.html%3famp)

[2]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)

[3]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_dis...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_cancer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyroid_cancer)

~~~
nstart
Those are some interesting facts. I've generally been on the side that nuclear
is not safe because I don't trust governments to build things safely if
nuclear ever became mainstream. I'd expect multiple bidders to show up, some
corrupt under the table deal happens, politicians takes a massive cut for
themselves, project runs under budget, over time, and the infrastructure built
gets dumped onto an area close to areas with higher rates of poverty, and
what's built constantly has leaks or contamination of the environment around
it due to structural errors.

That said, my confirmation bias never led me to consider how the situation
could play out similarly for any other form of energy. So thanks for
articulating those facts so clearly.

~~~
arcticbull
Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency,
which cuts both ways. That means very little nuclear gets built, and what does
get built is super safe -- and very expensive.

~~~
nstart
> Nobody wants to be the elected official who irradiated their constituency

Ummm... I wish it were that straightforward but I can't be confident of that.
Power doesn't balance out as much as we'd like it to. There are a lot of
elected officials who are ok with doing as bad to their constituency and they
get away with it fine. And by get away that might mean they don't get another
term but they take their money and go live a life of leisure. No jail time,
nothing of major consequence. And usually they'll keep playing the political
corruption game using the connections built up. (Eg: bringing in "preferred
investors" for a "commission")

Reality around political power is ugly af :(

------
chris1993
A lot of the commentary here is attacking the specifics of the bill as
unrealistic posturing. This ignores what I think is the main point - that the
NZ government has reached consensus acknowledging that climate change is an
existential risk and they need to respond at a goverment level. The details of
how they act will almost certainly be changed but it's a start. It also
assists in putting pressure on Australia. This is important because Australia
has a climate-change denial government and powerful coal mining lobbies, and
with only 25M people generates more CO2 pollution than the UK, France, or
South Korea [1][2].

[1]
[https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/P667%20High%20Car...](https://www.tai.org.au/sites/default/files/P667%20High%20Carbon%20from%20a%20Land%20Down%20Under%20%5BWEB%5D_0.pdf)

[2] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-
co2...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2-exports-
third-highest-worldwide/11420654)

------
ConceitedCode
Full digest of the bill - [https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-
laws/bills-digests...](https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-
digests/document/52PLLaw25931/climate-change-response-zero-carbon-amendment-
bill-2019)

Lots to read over, but this stuck out to me so far.

"gross emissions of biogenic methane in a calendar year are 10% less than 2017
emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2030; and are at least
24% to 47% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1
January 2050 and for each subsequent calendar year"

"no remedy or relief is available for failure to meet the 2050 target or an
emissions budget, and the 2050 target and emissions budgets are not
enforceable in a court of law, except that if the 2050 target or an emissions
budget is not met, a court may make a declaration to that effect, together
with an award of costs"

~~~
marcusverus
Unless they plan to ban the consumption of meat, the biogenic methane cap
seems like it would result in more emissions. If Kiwis don't grow their own
beef, they will just have it shipped from abroad. Same consumption pattern, no
global change in gross biogenic methane, but now there is the added emissions
of shipping the beef across an ocean.

Also, I can scarcely think of a more Orwellian idea than that Kiwis may soon
be required to hold a (scarce) methane permit in order to raise livestock on
their own land. Your sow had a litter, ey? Hope your permits are in order!

~~~
phs318u
There are other approaches to livestock methane reduction being actively
investigated (and I’d suggest more promising than perennial unicorns such as
carbon sequestration).

One example: [https://blog.csiro.au/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-our-
livestock-...](https://blog.csiro.au/feeding-seaweed-to-cows-our-livestock-
methane-research-lights-up/)

~~~
ip26
Even just feeding cows grass instead of corn improves the methane emissions.

~~~
phs318u
I think corn feed is more of a US thing due to the over abundance of
subsidised corn production (I’m amazed at how much of the human and animal
food chain in the US is corn derived). In Australia and NZ, it’s mainly
grass/hay.

------
jngreenlee
Unfortunately it looks like just another bureaucracy with opportunity to
appoint friends and supporters, but no real teeth or legal authority:

"-no remedy or relief is available for failure to meet the 2050 target or an
emissions budget, and the 2050 target and emissions budgets are not
enforceable in a court of law, except that if the 2050 target or an emissions
budget is not met, a court may make a declaration to that effect, together
with an award of costs

-a person or body may, but is not require to, take the 2050 target or an emissions budget into account in the exercise or performance of a public function, power, or duty"

~~~
wolco
The great thing about a 31 year old target with no teeth means everyone can
feel good today and no one responsible will be around if it fails.

~~~
notmyfuture
+1. It's hard to imagine any level of success without at least specifying
milestones over those 31 years.

------
notmyfuture
Several regional councils in New Zealand have also declared a "Climate
Emergency" over the last year (e.g.
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-
news/113747732/c...](https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-
news/113747732/councils-declare-climate-emergencies-but-will-it-result-in-any-
real-change)). I appreciate the sentiment, but fear that this amounts to
little more than posturing when what we need is action.

~~~
phs318u
As I’ve said elsewhere, public sentiment has to be so strongly in side that it
can withstand a media onslaught from the energy lobby and friends. Without the
public strongly on side, any real actions will be short lived. Australian PM
Gillard was the proof of that pudding.

------
dzhiurgis
I'd like to know how come cheapest $40k USD ($62.3k NZD) Tesla in US, cost
$75.9k or about 18% more in NZ?

And come the only "incentive" is "you don't pay road tax thru fuel" (while you
still pay quite a bit thru yearly registration)?

How come there are 0 electric buses or heavy equipment in Auckland or whole
NZ?

How come solar panels for your boat or lithium batteries for your bike (or
electric bikes themselves) cost something like 4x than outside world?

And also where are the bike paths? Or even pedestrian paths in some places? If
you live in North Shore and wanna get into city using your electric motorbike
(that costs 2-4x per year to keep registered when compared to a car)? Tough
look.

Ah yes scooters, nearly destroyed by likes of NZHerald with fear mongering
articles...

Lastly this one is more to criticise business and I actually find them vile
and atrocious - but where are all the Impossible Burgers?

~~~
notmyfuture
Yes, also keep in mind that incentive won't last long (ref:
[https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-
modal/climatechange/elec...](https://www.transport.govt.nz/multi-
modal/climatechange/electric-vehicles/)). Once EV's make up > 2% of NZ's
vehicle fleet they plan to start charging.

Given the suitability of NZ for EV's it would be nice if there was more
government support for their uptake.

~~~
cgrealy
While I agree that we should be incentivising EVs in NZ, I will point out that
NZ is also probably one of the least suitable countries for EVs.

Most of NZ is very sparsely populated; your transport choices are basically
fly or drive yourself. There isn't much of a rail network and buses take
forever. There are basically no motorways. The South Island especially has a
lot of mountains, and many roads that cover over high passes.

My wife and I are looking at an EV for our second car, but my primary vehicle
will be an ICE for the foreseeable future. It's just hard to go camping,
skiing, or even travel between the larger towns in an EV.

~~~
dzhiurgis
Utter nonsense. The longest stretch without a gas station in NZ is something
like 1-2 hours. 30 minutes between a house or a farm where you'd be able to
get help in an emergency.

Plus 90% of people never leave cities anyway. Finally EVs will soon have
longer range than ICE's.

I am not sure what roads do you travel, but I find it's actually quite
difficult to hide on NZ roads - if you wanna do something cheeky or sleep -
you'll be driving long way to find something that's not private property or
fenced farm. Nature is absolutely gorgeous but it's already divided and feels
almost artificial (even my father joking they've put speakers in bush to make
fake bird sounds).

------
rb808
> • Reduce emissions of all greenhouse gases except biogenic methane, to net
> zero by 2050

Lol more self important politicians making symbolic statements that will never
be implemented. It didn't say how they do this. Go Nuclear? I guess the
current politicians wont be there in 2050 so it doesn't really matter.

Good thing they import all their manufactured goods from China, so at least
they dont count.

------
benmmurphy
This bill seems completely aspirational and doesn’t actually change anything.
It seems to codify some kind of goal but there is no way to make this goal
actually happen. Am I missing something? In Westminster Democracy if you want
to reduce emissions by X you need to actually introduce laws that will change
people’s behaviour. This bill doesn’t do that.

------
DevKoala
Does the USA have a similar website or API that allows you to see the progress
of legislature as it is passing?

~~~
oftenwrong
[https://congress.gov/](https://congress.gov/)

------
mikedilger
Local news commentary:
[https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&object...](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12283372)

------
KorematsuFred
This is great. Now larger countries like USA and India and China should wait
for a decade or so to see how this translated to the smaller countries over a
decade.

