3News » Home

Full Story

Health researchers: Govt 'going backwards' on climate change

4 comments | Post Comment email Email printer friendly Print    Text Size:
aA
aA
aA

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 5:43p.m.
Public health researchers have drawn some bleak conclusions from analysis of the Government response to climate change.

"It is likely that New Zealand emissions will not decline significantly, as they need to if we are to cut emissions significantly by 2020 as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends," said researchers Nick Wilson and Philippa Howden-Chapman of Victoria University, and Ralph Chapman, of Otago University.

"The situation raises doubts as to the claim that this country acts as a responsible member of the international community or that it is much concerned with its `clean and green' reputation," they said in a paper published in the NZ Medical Journal.

The researchers listed Government actions according to the amount of progress in reducing emissions.

They found "relatively few areas of clear progress, and many areas of either `no progress', or where government response has gone backwards'."

They listed 15 areas, ranging from subsidies for home insulation to the emissions trading scheme and requirements for Government departments to move to carbon neutrality.

They concluded that since the Government was elected last year, there had been two areas of continued progress, five of no progress, six areas which had gone backwards, one of "possibly backwards" and one of "probably backwards".

Recent medical research had shown climate change was a critical challenge to health internationally.

There was also an ethical obligation on developed countries which had generated most of the existing greenhouse gases, to show clear leadership.

"This is especially so when it is clear that time is running out for the international community to avoid warming of 2degC above pre-industrial levels, the `guardrail' for dangerous climate change."

New Zealand should particularly be concerned about its environmental reputation because of its dependence on affluent consumers in tourism and food and other exports.

NZPA
Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments [4]

Jes
12 Nov 2009 9:28p.m.

But less people will suffer from cold related diseases won't they, so overall health is not a problem.

Gilbert
08 Nov 2009 8:21p.m.

When we have Public Health researchers telling us that we, as a nation, are behaving in a manner that is both unethical and dangerous to human health worldwide it's a wonder more people aren't shamed into rethinking their part in this situation. All the naysayers can ever come up with is 'it will cost us money' That is an indication of where their own ethics lie. If its money you want, consider this; Al Gore is about to become a billionaire mainly by investing in new green technologies. Is he stupid or are we?

james
25 Oct 2009 12:59a.m.

OPORTUNITY The wealthiest man in China this year climbad the rich list from 111 to no-1.Why? his investment in an electric motor .NZ needs to see oportunities from the changes to come.Sustainability is going to be the next big thing.

cyril
25 Sep 2009 6:31p.m.

our enviromental reputation wont be worth a toss when we are religated to a broke 3rd world country because we drove ourselves broke trying to lead the way when anything we do will not do more than wave the flag to show others we are still prepared to be the first to throw ouselves off a bridge.

Post a comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide here
Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:



3News Video 3News Audio

Post your opinion

3News - Sonny Bill Williams in his dressing room poses with his belt and supporters after winning the New Zealand Heavyweight Belt title boxing fight Sonny Bill title fight - was it a farce?
Sonny Bill Williams defeated Clarence Tillman III in the first round of the New Zealand Professional Boxing Association heavyweight title, with many fans and commentators calling the fight a farce – what’s your opinion on the fight?
Comments (36)