About the Author

Avatar photo

Dr Muriel Newman

The Paris Agreement

Print Friendly and PDF
Posted on

us-china-parisOctober was an important month for global warming advocates – New Zealand ratified the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

The 195-country agreement was negotiated last December and signed at the United Nations in April. It requires signatory countries to limit their production of green house gases to keep the global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (with a goal of 1.5 degrees), starting in 2020.

To have effect, the agreement had to be ratified by at least 55 countries, as well as by countries accounting for 55 percent of global emissions. Participating countries are locked in for at least three years, with a one-year waiting period required, if they want to withdraw.

At the G20 meeting in September, US President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping officially committed their countries to the agreement. Together, the US and China account for 38 percent of emissions.

India, the world’s third largest emitter, joined last month, and by the end of October over 70 countries had ratified the agreement, representing around 60 percent of global emissions. As a result, the agreement comes into force on the 4th of November.

Given the last international agreement – the Kyoto Protocol – took seven years to come into effect, the speed at which the Paris accord has progressed has caught everyone by surprise. Perversely, most of the credit should go to Donald Trump. The Republican presidential candidate, who believes climate change is a ‘con job’ and a ‘hoax’, has promised to cancel President Obama’s support for the Paris agreement if he wins the US election. It is the threat of Mr Trump winning that caused countries to rush in to sign up, so the agreement could pass its threshold, and take effect, ahead of Election Day.

However, although they have succeeded in getting the agreement through before the election on the 8th of November, if Mr Trump wins, it is not the end of the matter. While the procedure used by countries to ‘ratify’ treaties varies – with some needing the approval of their legislatures – in the US, since President Obama knew he would be unable to gain the support of the Senate, an ‘executive agreement’ was used to commit the US to reduce emissions by 27 percent from 2005 levels by 2025. Since the deal was approved through the President’s executive action, without the approval of Congress, Mr Trump knows it can also be quashed through an executive action – if he becomes the US President.

Even though the Paris agreement has come into effect, should the US withdraw its support, the agreement is likely to collapse, as it is difficult to imagine China, India, or any of the other major emitters following through on their pledges, if the US is not similarly constrained.

In addition to reducing emissions, one of the aims of the Paris accord is to require rich nations to fund poorer ones to the tune of $100 billion a year. If Mr Trump wins the Presidency next week, he has promised to cancel all payments by the US to the United Nations to mitigate climate change worldwide.

Not only that, but he is also promoting an “America first” energy plan that will unleash the production of oil, coal, natural gas and other energy sources in order to make the US energy independent.

If on the other hand Hilary Clinton wins the Presidency, then the US will uphold President Obama’s commitments and it will be business as usual for the climate change industry.

So what does the Paris Agreement mean for New Zealand?

Essentially the Government has committed us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 – even though an estimated one million more people will be living in New Zealand by then.

At the signing of the accord, the Minister of Climate Change, Paula Bennett said, “By ratifying today, we are demonstrating our commitment to global action on climate change. Although New Zealand contributes only a small proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions… our contribution counts.”

So what is our contribution to the so-called problem?

New Zealand produces substantially less than one percent of global emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. In fact, our contribution is just 0.16 percent. In contrast to other developed countries, most of our emissions come from animals, not machinery.

In most developed nations, 80 percent of emissions are produced by the energy and transport sectors – in New Zealand it’s 40 percent. The lion’s share of our emissions – around 49 percent – comes from agriculture.

So, while the rest of the world is striving to reduce emissions from industrialisation, our Government is trying to alter the digestive processes of ruminants.

Last month, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, issued a new report outlining the role of agriculture in global warming, and highlighting the danger to the future of the planet and to humanity itself from cows and sheep.

She said, “Globally, carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change, and it is accumulating in the atmosphere at an alarming rate. But in contrast to many other countries, the biological gases from agriculture form about half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. The sheep, cattle, deer, and goats – the ruminants – on our farms burp out a huge amount of methane. And the origin of most of the nitrous oxide – an especially powerful greenhouse gas – is the urine of farm animals.”

This, apparently dire problem, has not escaped the attention of our Government. In 2009 they set aside $45 million for a Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases to develop new technologies to reduce the emissions from farm animals. Some $20 million each year is being ploughed into research to reduce biological methane – including through methane vaccines and bio-technical methane inhibitors.

To their credit, the Government has so far refused to include the agricultural sector in their Emissions Trading Scheme – until “there are economically viable and practical technologies available to reduce emissions”.

The Emissions Trading Scheme is, of course, New Zealand’s main mechanism for reducing man-made greenhouse gas emissions. It is based on the European Union’s scheme, which works by putting a price on the emissions of carbon dioxide from heavy industry, to create an incentive for their reduction. The problem is that such a scheme is totally unsuited to a country like New Zealand, where half of our emissions are produced by animals, where more than 80 percent of our electricity already comes from renewable sources, and where our geography and population density are such that public transport and urban cycle ways cannot be used to replace cars for most families.

While the National Party opposed the emissions trading scheme, when it was being introduced by the Labour Government, once elected, they embraced it. Since its inception, the scheme has cost the government almost $40 million to implement and administer – with $6.4 million in the 2014–15 financial year.

Although households are not actively involved in emissions trading, they are nevertheless being penalised by the scheme, through costs from sectors that are included – such as the electricity and transport industries – being passed on to consumers through increases in the price of goods and services.

A National Impact Analysis for the Paris Agreement, tabled in Parliament by the Climate Change Minister in August, estimates that the short term cost of the agreement to New Zealand will be an annual secretariat fee of around $140,000, but in the long term, the cost to the economy could be as much as $3.6 billion by 2030, reducing household incomes by $1,300 a year.

The benefits of this economic sacrifice are highly questionable, since the impact of our actions on the global climate will be negligible. However, the key reason given by the Government for signing, are so New Zealand can “maintain our positive international reputation and our ability to influence international climate change processes”. In other words, to be part of the international community and avoid the risk of being ostracised and excluded from things that really matter, like trade deals.

The analysis states that the impact of runaway climate change includes rising sea levels, an increase in the frequency and severity of flooding, and more wildfires and droughts – although all of these are pure speculation, as ever since the UN started issuing their five-yearly global warming reports, all of their predictions of increasing global temperatures and a greater incidence of adverse climatic events, have been wrong.

The reality is that, short of killing off millions of sheep and cows to reduce agricultural emissions (and destroy our economy), the actions proposed by our Government will have only a limited impact – and may do more harm than good. They plan to reduce emissions by further undermining the security of the electricity supply by requiring the industry to make even greater use of unreliable wind and solar generation, by persuading 64,000 New Zealanders to buy electric cars by 2021, and by convincing landowners to plant 15,000 hectares of new forests by 2020 – through subsidies of $1,300 a hectare for new forests.

Forests are being encouraged, because, like all plants, they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But why New Zealand’s negotiators haven’t insisted that our grasslands and established native forests are also included in our carbon inventory is a mystery – because they too absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, and if they were counted, New Zealand’s net emissions would be zero.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is Dr Matt Ridley, a science journalist and Member of the House of Lords, who explained the fallacy of trying to reduce global warming in a recent speech to the British Royal Society:

“After covering global warming debates as a journalist on and off for almost 30 years, with initial credulity, then growing skepticism, I have come to the conclusion that the risk of dangerous global warming, now and in the future, has been greatly exaggerated while the policies enacted to mitigate the risk have done more harm than good, both economically and environmentally, and will continue to do so.

“Why do I think the risk from global warming is being exaggerated? For four principal reasons – all environmental predictions of doom always are exaggerated, the models have been consistently wrong for more than 30 years, the best evidence indicates that climate sensitivity is relatively low, and the climate science establishment has a vested interest in alarm.”

In his speech, Dr Ridley says, “A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot on its own produce dangerous warming”. This is due to the fact that the ability of carbon dioxide to trap heat declines logarithmically – which is why, during past geological eras, when carbon dioxide levels were up to eighteen times higher than they are today, the earth didn’t fry up.

This is such a basic point that it fundamentally shows that politics, not science, is driving the global warming agenda. Last year’s United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change head admitted as much, when she said their goal was not to save the world from ecological collapse but to destroy capitalism: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Why New Zealand supports this agenda, is hard to understand scientifically, but is easily understood politically – it does not want to become isolated and targeted. Quite possibly, this is the very same reason why other countries have signed up to the Paris Agreement, knowing full well, that it is more about being seen to be doing something at some undefined time in the future, rather than actually doing anything that could disrupt their economies. It’s a shame that the leaders of other countries are not as upfront about that as Donald Trump.


Should New Zealand have signed the Paris Climate Change Agreement?


*Poll comments are posted below.


*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.

Click to view x 120


Not sure David
Worth a try…but the maori seats unelected MUST go. Dianne
When the forecasts for CO2 emissions reflect global warming then look at signing Andrew
We need to play our part in addressing the problem even if its somewhat overblown. Graham
Just plant more trees. Margaret
MAN made global warming has been a con job from day one. People need to follow the science not politicians with an agenda to destroy economies. John
Why are the polar icecaps melting and the sea rising at the fastest rate since the Anthropocene era began? George
Why not? But it will be a miracle if all the signatories carry out their obligations. Ron
I and what other have previously commented that Climate change is JUST A BIG HOAX. If we has included out Native & Hand exoctic planted forests, plus our grasslands New Zealand produces ZERO emissions. Wayne
This is more to do with a one world government agenda 21 than saving the planet. Paul
I Only say no as I know the political elite are in control of the global economy and p.c. Prevails worldwide.If we disagree they attack us.The media,politicians,financiers,and academics are running and agenda that will crash the western world and my hope is not one of them is employed to reconstruct the ashes.Go trump Morrie
Climate change is a historical fact — it’s happened many times before without human intervention. From what I have read human activity creates .7 of 1%. What will the cost be and who will benefit from any monetary sanctions. Alan
The ‘full of bull’, failed socialist president of USA, B.Obama claimed in Feb.’16 that climate change was more important than getting rid of ISIS. Wake up America, we need a Trumpian to get rid of this rort. Paula Bennett looked and sounded pathetic and embarrassed when she announced she had signed this accord. Political correctness infects everything. Whatever happened to the country who bravely took on the USA and the world over being nuclear free? Monica
Global warming is not anthropogenic. We are being lied to and bullying tactics are being employed, as always when when there is no sound argument for the cause. We should stand for reason. Other countries would than us in the long run. Harvey
With Are levels we are not a problem, so others must make the changes before it will do any good. Richard
No I don’t think so. John
It’s a load of hot air. All those delegates eating, drinking and having a good time at our expense! Laurie
It is a rort!! Our leaders wonder why we have not time for them. We need a Donald, or at least a leader with balls. Peter
If we are concerned about our cows and sheep farting, what are the African and other nations going to do about the millions of migrating animals that do nothing but eat and fart. This is all a huge con job and nothing NZ does will alter a thing. Stevo
NZ is part of the world family. Warren
The climate change industrry is the biggest scam in the history of the world. New Zealand could cease to exist tomorrow and most of the world wouldn’t even notice the space left behind. Kerry
Probably we should not have signed. However there is always pressure to be with the majority of opinion holders to avoid being singled out as a non-caring renegade, or worse. Peter
I’m still not convinced that radical climate change is even taking place. Eric
More political international claptrap we don’t need. Donkey? Ian
I consider that the Government was conned into this Agreement by radical groups. Ordinary people were never given the opportunity to object or given the real facts of what is in effect the worlds greatest con. Brian
So right poitics not science and documented history is driving Climate change..another form of corruption costing the worker!!!!!! Craig
Everyone should read Ian Wishart’s book, “A VERY Inconvenient Truth” to find what is really behind this “Global warming” and “Climate Change” idea. Its hardly rocket science to know that “Global Warming” is supposed to be taking place, when you start deleting the readings from places like Siberia from the records! Ted
Man made Global Warming is a scam. Gary
Is Carbon Dioxide really the reason world temperatures are changing? World temperatures have often changed over the centuries. This was at a time when the world had no motor cars etc emitting CO2. Could it be that the factors in play in previous centuries be still causing the changes – and not CO2? Tony
The science is crap but if we hadn’t signed the EU and the Obama administration would have hammered us. We must do the absolute minimum necessary to avoid being hit by the climate change protection racket. Brian
The question is, is the world warming and I doubt very much whether this has been absolutely proven. Peter
To many points that point out that if we expand Trees alone it would overcome our quantity required. Lance
Follow the money not of Benefit to nz why are our native forests and grasslands not included in emission calculations? NT
Don’t believe in climate change, it is all scare mongering. The world is covered in 2/3 water and they are trying to tell us by the melt od 2 polar caps is going to make the sea levels rise 1m!! . A lot of this ice is in the water already so already displacing water! They need to show their workings on how they came up with this crazy money wasting idea!! Simon
The whole climate scare is a massive hoax. John
BUT only for political reasons. So called science has been captured by alarmist greenies. Doug
No western country in their right mind should have signed it. It is a means by which overseas bureaucrats will gain control of our economies and continue to pull them down. The ideology being that rich countries are the problem! And they should pay!!! How many times do we need to be reminded %u2013 in the last 2 billion years there have been 5 ice ages. All of them had CO2 levels higher than now! One was around 8000 ppm against 400 ppm that exists today. The last ice age was 12,000 years ago and there was no industrialisation. Oceans are rising politically but not scientifically! However, the effects of this scam are already being felt! In South Australia the government rushed to shut down the cheap non-eco power stations and replaced them with wind farms and solar power. Along came a huge storm this year and shut down the whole state power grid rendering the state without power for a full week! Some of the grid was not restored for a month. In Victoria the next move of the deceitful and devious, anti-democratic idiots that govern us in AUS are about to shut-down the huge coal fired (cheap) power station in Latrobe Valley. Considering compound multipliers this should achieve the total loss of about 10,000 jobs. It is un-imaginable how this mob of untrustworthy politicians could even arrive at such a decision in view of its economic impact on this region? We must Brexit from this UN bureaucratic, socialist swill before we end up third world countries!!! Frederick
I suppose that, politically, we had to; so let’s hope the whole silly thig falls over before it damages New Zealand’s and the world’s economy too much. Rob
In the last 10 days my 230 ha farm and the animals on it, have sequestered the carbon of 1 ton of dry matter pasture growth per ha, 230 tons, while the citizens of my local town exhale 40 tons of CO2 per day, and gobble up $20m of farm expenditure per month from the district’s 800 farm catchment. Nice dose of realism Muriel, my sub’s in the mail. Go Donald Trump. John
This is ONLY to make the govt. look good but Kiwi’s are paying the price. Cindy
This whole climate change, cost of carbon etc is just a great big financial rort plus the UN trying to gain more control of the worlds population, finances and resources. Mike
Then ignore it. The article contains two myths. 1. Animal emissions area source of accumulating green house gases. Even ignore any knowledge of the carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen cycles, simple anaylis of ecvidence debunks it. what happened to all the greenhouse gas emissions from all the animals that previously existed? The amount of green house gases from two cows maybe i twice that of one cow in the atmosphere but it remains fixed , where as the amount from a car contains to rise every year it burns fuel. As it is methane is produced by small organisms called archaea which make up more than 25% of the earths total biomass. Worrying about their occupation in the gut of all animals is futile in the extreme. 2. Forests are only a carbon sink during their growth phase, When mature that are in a balanced state releasing from decay the green houses gases they absorb for growth. The Amazon forest does not sit on feet of coal or peat. Grasslands do slowly accumulate carbon as organic matter but this is destroyed and released by cultivation. Our green houses gases and CO2 come from release from organic matter when forest are destroyed , from soils from cultivation and principally from burning fossil fuels. The idea we can keep cars as long as we ease up on meat and milk is absolute rot. Copernicus’s problem was not the ignorance of the masses but the power of vested political interests of the church/state. Nothing had changed when it came to the Kyoto Agreement. Politics of vested interests always out guns science. Mervyn
Its political, no fact. Chris
Decisions should always take into account the effects of failure (being wrong). If I am wrong, and we pursue my path, will the outcome leave the company/country/world in a better, the same or worse position. If the answer is worse, another course should be taken as mankind does not have a good record, when judged by history, of being right. David
Donald Trump is intelligent enough to realise this is a big con. Key knows it too, but wants to look good on the world stage. We are already being taxed for the stupid emissions scheme, which the Nats opposed in opposition, but signed willingly when they held the purse strings. Like America, it’s time to “drain the swamp” in NZ too. Wake up sheeples. Carolyn
It will not greatly affect us either way. Theodorus
Climate change has been tried in 2 overseas Supreme Courts, New Mexico, can’t remember the other, and it was found “Climate Change failed to be proven but the gasses Climate Change condemns was, indeed, good for the planet”. So there you are, the Climate change hoax is killing what it claims to be saving. George
It is a political scam. Mike
No thought went into how we were achieve the targets set for our country. It is evident it is unachievable and by signing the agreement was only a sop to make New Zealand look good. Dennis
False science which could destroy NZ economically. Catherine
I don’t think National’s political agenda supports signing. As stated, include the native bush and we are 0%. Idiots. Di
We are part of this planet Earth. We are already seeing change.. sea-lvel rise, droughtsfloods, much stronger winds and quite frequently. We must be part of the solution. Recently heard on national radio that a seaweed supplement of some kind reduces methane belching by 90% plus. Surely to be eagerly promoted/accepted. etc Rochelle
Because it’s just another green industry con job. John
It’s utterly ridiculous to think that we can control the climate in any way and the cost will be huge, achieving absolutely nothing. What ridiculous people we have running our country. Can’t they actually think for themselves and have the fortitude to stand firm against being sucked into such a scheme. Helen
Global warming has not been scientifically proven to have been caused by mankind but rather it is currently a natural planetary cycle of events. Kevin
The science is NOT settled at all. Hans
Thank-you Muriel for summing up this ludicrous situation perfectly. This has always been a political agenda problem, with nothing to do with science. Example; livestock can only emit the amount of gas that they have consumed, which is then absorbed by the pasture etc that they eat, a perfect cycle. If CO2 prevents heat escaping, why does it not prevent the heat from entering ? {The sun is our only source of heat, yet the UN ”scientists” are not allowed to use the sun influence in their calculations.} By the time you read these comments, we may know the out come of the U.S.A. election. The determined to have world wealth redistribution advocates, Socialists including Key & his cronies, could react unpredictably, if Donald Trump is the new President.. A.G.R.
NZ should not have signed until a more widespread agreement with the big players could be guaranteed. Peter
It’s a scam. “real” science debunks it. Ken
Another big con job, as Dr. Ridley says there is no scientific proof. Politicians gravy train more likely. Fraser
Climate has been changing for millions of years before humans arrived. Edward
From time immemorial the climate has had dramatic changes and will continue to do so in the future. Pat
Climate change is a fallacy drummed up and promoted solely to screw money out of everyone. NZ should never have signed the Paris Agreement. Diana
Co2 is not conclusively proven to raise global temperatures. Yes changes have and will happen. Stu
The paris climate agreement is more Zionist control. Robert
Bs take out the animals and we are 100% better than most. Barry
What a rort! Absolutely not.! Don
It is all airey fairey conjecture, no one knows for sure. Ray
Global warming is & always was a natural occurrence. It is being pushed for political/financial reasons. Nick
Climate change is another way of governments to make money and extrct money from the public and employ more pen pushers . Ken
NZ is a zero contributor. Why have our grasslands not been credited for sequestering Carbon as they should? Geoff
What a load of Fraud that Paris Climate Change Agreement Is. Geoff
Definitely NO! All governments have the power but NOT the moral right to tax everyone to feed pressure-groups such as the climate change fraud. Historically, we can thank the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci for Political Correctness and Mussolini for the fascist regulatory state. Regulations kill innovation. Legitimate laws proscribe criminal behaviour while prescriptive regulations direct productive behaviour. (paraphrased from, Equal is Unfair, p.225). If you ever thought that we got rid of the last tyrant in WWII, think again – every generation breeds new ones. Don
Why a gullible public has taken in this piece of transparent socialist nonsense defeats me. If, as the article suggests, attacking capitalism is the aim then it is virtual financial suicide on a global scale. Auntie Podes
Climate Change is all BS!!! Ian
Lets get real the earth has moved off its axcess by about 1 deg & this changes the climate, but no one talks about it, Billons of years ago the Earth has rotated twice, so how do we know that we are not in a slow rotation cycle. Geoff
Maybe not, we are such a small country. If we didn’t sign it we can still find ways to reduce our emissions. Kerin
It is a con job to raise extra taxes. All commonsense facts show the earth is cooling. Facts also show we appear to be entering a mini ice age. refer Maunder minimum and what is currently happening. John
Global Warming is a fallacy,. Science has no proven this. The ‘Climate Change’ schemes in NZ are simply a process to create a profitable business operation, out of nothing at all, for the few rich that can plant/own forests. MervB
We are an extremely low emitter on the global scale of polluters. If we stop all our emissions it would make NO difference. The cost of this scheme is a complete waste as far as NZ is concerned. Graeme
Of course we have “Climate Cgange” Every day and every hour of the day. What a heap of political hogwash – those with their nose in the political (money) trough love that junket! They fly all around the earth, drive on heat seeking (hot) roads, cook on BBQs or in the oven or microwave – giving off heat – turn on the a/c winter & summer, have a hot shower or bath or spa, go for a run or a bike ride; all emitting heat! Drive their cars, boats, motor bikes, perhaps even even motor mowers! Swim in heated pools, sip coffee, eat out and about all emitting lots of hot air!! Why didn’t they stop the glaciers from melting and retreating millions of years ago? Why don’t they replace the thawed glacial ice which historical nature created? Fridges and freezers generate heat to make ice blocks! Lets turn the lights out like they did in South Australia when the two months ago storm shut down the windmills; there was no sun for the solar panels, so to turn the lights on again, the green SA govt had to buy power from the better managed neighbouring states. Stuart
It is a load of BS and has finally been recognised. CO2 is not a pollutant but a necessity of life. Al Gore has become very rich out of all this nonsense. IAN
It’s a croc. Phil
Just another tax hoax to pillage the citizens and enrich corporations and elites! Neil
Sensitivity to CO2 is unlikely to be more than 1 degree C Don
It’s just Green bribery for the feel good factor. Totally illogical. Chris
We should have grass in the calculation. Ian
Load of rubbish. Bevin
It is a complete scam to compare agricultural emissions with burning fossil fuels. All agricultural emissions are off set by the carbon dioxide sequestered by growing grass and crops. Agriculture is a neutral emitter. John
Every time we are signed up to something in Europe we end up paying with little benefit to NZ. I am sure we have expertise and ‘know how’ to achieve more for ourselves then signing up to look good. Elizabeth
The news does appear to back up Al Gores video, ” An inconvenient truth ” ie; global warming is in fact progressing exponentially. Donald
A Huge Con Job…. when countries purchase “Carbon Credits”. Donald
It just a huge unjust money making gravy train for intellectuals. Bryan
People like the Greens have been brainwashed over this matter. Roger
The Paris accord claims it will solve an emaginary problem – any cost imposed on us is therefore a scam. Rex
It is amazing how ignorant people are agreeing to put more tax on themselves just because they are ignorant on this subject and too gutless to challenge their peers on the science. But that is the power of our foreign owned media working to enrich already rich individuals. Peter
Biased so called ‘scientific’ evidence is a nightmare that is continually used to try and persuade all that climate change is due to mankind’s lifestyles. Hylton
Corrupt politicians and self serving scientists fueled by green ideology. Brian
History shows that the state of the world is controlled by nature not man or animal. Rob
Sounds as if the cost will outweigh any results. Posturing as usual. Sue
Political rubbish. Lloyd
It is impossible for carbon dioxide to affect the climate. Graeme
Present our sound argument why not as scientific justification. Stuart
…just another Rip_Off’ to reduce the Working Class to an even lower form of SLAVERY…!!!!! Chris
As long as there’s money to be made by the ” Fat Cats “, this type of alarmist statement will be made and encouraged. John
Because so many of the major polluting nations are not taking a blind bit of notice of climate change. Rog
Not proven! Michael
What a waste of money. Climate change is a natural event. Human impact is minimal. These Agreements are pointless. Gifford
Time for countries to be honest about “climate change ” that it is all a lie and there is a different agenda. Neil
Its money that is driving the climate change policies. Les
UN are thieves. Bruce
This deal is another step to control and tax people based on lies and deceit. I’m sick of politicians who won’t stand up for what’s right and honest and truthful! Steve
Global warming a myth. Laurie
This is just trying to impress the big countries by the Key government. Murray
It’s a load of bollocks. Graeme
However not sure – I could have voted the other way. Kevin
It’s a sad fact of today that those who know nothing and are influenced by almost any sort of irrationality, vastly outnumber those who’d at least attempt to ascertain facts before leaping on to bandwagons. Jim
I don’t think there’s enough evidence to support the computer model lie. Ian
Against it need a big country to bring the Paris agreement down after all was Al Gore in America that started it all so perhaps there is hope on the horizon that we get rid of all this carry on. Russell
I can understand the reasons for signing this agreement but I feel the sacrifices and cost may be too damaging to the economy. Rayward
The Paris Agreement provides no practical benefit. Neil
Global warming is just a con – I’m with Donald trump on this. If other leaders started being honest, we wouldn’t be in this ridiculous mess where vast amounts of money are being poured into a big black hole thanks to the actions of the radical socialists in the environmental movement! Mike
No, we should have stood firm and kept well out of this foolish mess. Carol
The earth is cooling not warming – sunspot activity is the lowest its been in 100 years. Soon we will be calling for countries to increase greenhouse gas production to help keep the planet from freezing. Nigel
No, National should have stood firm. Other countries would have followed suit. Brian
It is sickening that millions of dollars is being ploughed into a non-problem. How stupid to try to stop cattle and sheep from producing methane and nitrous oxide. These politicians needs their heads read! John