Such a boast is irrelevant.
So without radical changes we will exceed 2C.
The challenge now is not just to reduce carbon emissions to zero but to actually remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Even with that mountain to climb we have to instigate enough adaptation policies to weather the storm that will prevail until the atmospheric carbon concentration gets back down to a ‘less than dangerous’ level.
This is why the majority of public submissions to our Government on our contribution to emissions reduction by 2030 was for emissions of 40 per cent below 1990 levels.
Tim Groser has gone to Paris offering an 11 per cent reduction.
The Government has presented a ropey analysis of the high costs of doing any more to reduce emissions.
The work is so bad and so misleading that it should damage any reputation of honesty.
From what I have seen of the document I don’t blame the modellers for this analysis I blame the Government for asking them to include stupid assumptions.
Examples include no scope for new technology uptake – the exclusion of any initiatives with forestry and an unrealistic baseline case that ignores initiatives under way.
New Zealand’s costs of reducing emissions are certainly higher than they should be and this is because our track record on emissions has been so negligent.
Unlike many developed countries our emissions have grown significantly since 1990 which makes it far more costly to reduce them to the levels other countries are promising.
The reluctance of the deniers and the timid who have held sway in successive governments to address the risks from climate change has driven up the cost of reduction to New Zealand.
The longer we delay the greater this bill will become and the more likely we are to become an international pariah on the per capita emissions metric.