New Study Shows Speed Of Antarctic Ice Melt, Govt Fans Climate Flames
'This is a clear and urgent signal that the climate crisis is accelerating, and a critical tipping point may have already been passed. It's not a distant threat to think about somewhere down the line; it's here,' says the Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson.
'The Aotearoa we all deserve is entirely within our grasp. Devastatingly, this Government is failing us all, undermining global climate efforts at every opportunity–all in the name of short-term thinking and profit.
'Last month, we learned the Government was being sued for their lack of a climate plan. Then we learned their 'investment' into gas fields was a breach of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS), having sought no advice on the ramifications.
'Then, just two weeks ago, Luxon's Government abandoned the international Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. It cannot go on.
'The Green Party is calling on the Government to urgently show real climate leadership, by honouring the global commitments we have signed up to.
'We also need serious investment in climate-resilient infrastructure, which is possible and affordable, as we've shown in our Green Budget.
'Truly prosperous economic activity is only possible if our planet is also thriving. We depend on a stable climate for the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the materials for life–the things of true value,' says Marama Davidson.
Using Scoop for work?
Scoop is free for personal use, but you'll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.
Join Pro Individual Find out more
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
40 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
South Island Assembly could lobby Govt for 'a better deal'
A South Island Assembly formed to lobby central Government was one of the suggestions discussed at an Environment Canterbury workshop. The hastily convened talks on Wednesday followed suggestions that regional councils could be abolished as part of the Government's Resource Management Act reform. Councillors at the workshop discussed four models, including a Canterbury Assembly based on the Greater Manchester Council model. While there was limited support for a Canterbury Assembly, several councillors suggested forming a Te Waipounamu / South Island Assembly could be an effective way of lobbying Government for ''a better deal''. ''I don't think governance in Canterbury is mature enough in isolation, but I would be interested in a Te Waipounamu General Assembly,'' deputy chairperson Deon Swiggs said. ''We have a Minister for the South Island and he needs somebody to do the work for him.'' South Canterbury councillor Peter Scott said a Te Waipounamu Assembly, representing more than one million people, would have more clout to lobby Government. South Island mayors and councils have long raised concerns about the lack of support from central Government. For instance, the Canterbury region has around 13% of New Zealand's population and accounts for around 15% of vehicle kilometres travelled, but received just 5% of national transport funding. Other options considered included a combined council, a unitary council(s) and a regional environmental leadership body. A regional environmental leadership body, which would comprise a mix of appointed, elected and Mana Whenua representatives, attracted the most interest. North Canterbury councillor Grant Edge said it would require the least transition from the existing regional council structure and would support the move district plans to regional plans. Councillors Scott, John Sunckell and Iaean Cranwell said they had positive experiences with the transitional council from 2016-19, with the mix of appointed and elected councillors. Cr Genevieve Robinson raised concerns about the accountability of appointed councillors, but suggested having representatives from each of the 10 Papatipu Rūnanga and 10 elected members. Chairperson Craig Pauling said a combined council would be similar to the Canterbury Mayoral Forum, ''but with teeth'', comprising the region's mayors, a regionally elected chairperson and Mana Whenua representation. There was little support for unitary councils, with councillors expressing the need for more consideration of how these might work. Crs Swiggs and Scott said unitary councils in the top of the South Island and Auckland had struggled to fulfil their regional council functions. Turning the 10 existing councils into unitary councils would require some amalgamation, councillors said. While it was suggested a Greater Christchurch unitary council might be viable, suggestions of moving to North Canterbury, Mid Canterbury and South Canterbury councils could lose ''a wider Canterbury strategic voice. Waimakariri Mayor Dan Gordon questioned the timing of the debate. ''I understand why conversations about the structure of local government arise and if there's a genuine need for change, then let's have that discussion properly, with all the right partners around the table, including iwi, local councils, and our communities. ''But I would seriously question the timing of this debate, especially when councils across New Zealand are carrying the load on infrastructure, housing, and essential services all while managing major reforms and ongoing funding pressures.'' By David Hill, Local Democracy Reporter ■ LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
A response to sincerely-held concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill
It appears that most of those opposing the Bill emphasise its failure to include Treaty of Waitangi principles. For them, this omission represents a fundamental threat to Māori wellbeing and New Zealand's constitutional framework. Some fear it will undermine decades of progress. These fears reflect what people have been told, and genuinely believe. Distrust of the bill's intentions is significant. The most ideological submitters think the bill is driven by an unacceptable 'neo-liberal', libertarian ideology. Many more think it prioritises individual property rights over collective wellbeing. The bill's premise is the opposite: that the collective rules all. Parliament represents the collective voice of the nation. Its laws are those of the collective. It is sovereign lawmaker. Nothing in the bill changes that. Instead, the bill makes the Government of the day more transparent and accountable to Parliament when asking Parliament to pass a regulatory measure. Specifically, the bill requires the Government to inform Parliament about departures from key fundamental legal principles, and to provide a reason. Parliament is free to ignore that information. It would be as free as now to implement strong environmental protections, extensive public health measures, or policies specifically to advance Māori interests. The Bill draws on ten legal principles from the Government's own Legislation Guidelines. Photo / Mark Mitchell That is the key point. It is why the bill is merely a transparency measure. A related, sincerely held view is that the bill's selected principles are ideologically biased. They screw the scrum in favour of individual rights. Yet the state's first duty is to protect citizens in their persons and possessions. National defence, the police and the courts are fundamental state responsibilities. At their most basic, constitutional arrangements need to protect citizens, as groups and as individuals, from the unprincipled abuse of the state's power. Chapter 4 of the 2021 edition of the Government's Legislation Guidelines distils 10 default principles from 'the fundamental constitutional principles and values of New Zealand law'. The 10 default principles include preserving the rule of law, a presumption in favour of liberty, and respect for property rights. That is not extreme, it is basic. The six broad principles in the Bill draw heavily from the most relevant of those default principles. This is not accidental. The 2009 Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce drew them from earlier editions of the same publication. (Space does not permit going into differences here.) Why not include a reference to Treaty principles? The open question is 'precisely what difference would this make'? Specific examples would be helpful. For some years now Cabinet has required officials to identify departures from these 10 default principles. Ministers must give reasons for such departures. This is to be done before a measure is put to Cabinet or to a Cabinet Committee. The same requirement applies to another 138 default principles from the other 22 chapters in the guidelines. The problem here is that Cabinet can ignore its own requirements when it wishes to do so. Hence the concerns about measures pushed through Parliament under urgency. The bill aims to make it harder for governments to ignore such requirements, at least in respect of the most fundamental common law principles. Another widely expressed concern is that complying with the bill's assessment requirements will cost many millions of dollars in public sector time. First, that would be worth it if enhanced parliamentary scrutiny could help prevent regulation disasters, such as the housing affordability disaster. Second, it is hard to see any additional costs from the scrutiny the bill proposes – if officials and ministers are complying with the myriad of existing requirements. With respect to the review of existing laws and regulations, there will be additional costs. But the scope for using rapidly-improving AI to greatly reduce those costs has not been factored into current estimates. Nor does the Regulatory Standards Board have 'sweeping powers'. It is pretty toothless. It declares a finding but cannot force anyone to pay it any attention. Its function is to increase transparency. Finally, some common ground. Experts widely agree that regulatory quality in New Zealand is a concern. The challenge now is to move beyond misunderstandings toward a more constructive, better-informed and less ideological discussion about how more transparent and principled lawmaking can better serve New Zealanders.
Otago Daily Times
an hour ago
- Otago Daily Times
New push to make State Highway 1 four lanes
A petition calling on the Government to reconsider four-laning State Highway 1 between Rolleston and Ashburton collected 85 signatures in its first week. A similar petition was launched seven years ago by former Rangitata MP Andrew Falloon. Canterbury woman Rachel Gillard-Tew has launched the latest petition at While the petition has failed to gain traction to date, both the New Zealand Transport Agency and Minister for the South Island James Meager have not rejected the idea. NZTA hasn't ruled out four-laning the 63km stretch of road in future, but it is not part of its National Land Transport Plan 2024-2027. NZTA regional manager for system design, Rich Osborne, told Local Democracy Reporting the agency was aware of safety concerns about the busy State Highway 1 corridor, as raised in the petition. However, safety improvement works were being planned and undertaken, he told LDR . 'Providing for wide centre lines has been a recent focus of safety improvements. 'This creates more space between lanes and keeps vehicles further apart, which can reduce serious crashes resulting in death and serious injuries. 'Recent work has included widening of the southbound shoulder of State Highway 1 south of Rolleston, between Dunns Crossing Rd and Burnham Rd, to install a wide centre line.' Further improvements planned over the next few years include building a second Ashburton bridge, a Rolleston access improvements project, and a new roundabout at the Burnham Rd/Aylesbury Rd intersection. Rangitata MP Meager told LDR the idea of four-laning needed to be re-evaluated. 'We need to do the work to see how it stacks up - the last time anyone looked at it seriously was in 2017, before Labour came into government,'' Meager said. 'My main focus is getting construction started on the second Ashburton bridge and making progress on our other major South Island roading projects.' Gillard-Tew said the potential for ''devastating accidents'' was increasing by the day on the stretch of highway as it became busier. 'The lack of safe intersections and an adequate median barrier makes this highway section particularly perilous,'' she said. 'The need for immediate action is clear and compelling.' The petition is available here.
