Global warming, or climate change, is an increase in the earth's atmospheric temperature since the late nineteenth century. In politics, the debate over global warming is centered on whether this increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gas emissions or is the result of a natural pattern in the earth's temperature.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Political party:
Māori electorate:
Postcode:
Electorate:
@9ZR5VDDNew Zealand First3mos3MO
No, support nuclear weapons and energy and move money into nuclear power and 10 percent into making me Immortal
Yes, as long as it doesn't jeopardize the government (such as destroying and shutting down farmers because their cows "release methane gas etc)
@9N38QXN9mos9MO
100% NO!!! Look at New Zealand contributions to carbon emissions. We contribute approx 0.02% regardless of what we do we will never make a difference to the carbon emissions in this world
@9J78RN2 1yr1Y
Environment and councils with Hamilton and Wellington horoscope by the right amounts living keep rolling
Find better alternatives this whole ev cars is not good when they blow up as fire fighters dont want to deal with them
Also what happens to batteries when they stop that cant be good for enviroment
Factories making evs is using diesel etc to produce this stuff so it defeats the purpose of clean green
@9G5X2RQ1yr1Y
Only if they realistically reconsider what produces carbon emissions. Electric cars are not environmentally friendly, stop the bollocks and get real.
Current heating of temps happened BEFORE CO2 levels rose. The earth is always going through warming and cooling. The climate agenda isn’t about climate it’s about controlling movement and digitisation of our lives.
@9G5QQST1yr1Y
Only if there are obvious toxic pollution but other wise the earth requires CO2 to convert into oxygen via trees so the obvious solution is businesses planting more trees
@9G4MBY31yr1Y
NO! One eruption releases mutipul times more carbon than what the Human population does! Thr goverment should put a cap on the trees that are cut down and exported offshore.
@9G4972X1yr1Y
No, and I believe the motor industry regulations are too harsh as we don't have enough cleaner options yet for those that need high emitting vehicles for business or farming
@9G3XLKF1yr1Y
No, and the government needs to take a serious back step in targeting the agricultural sector as well as other sectors of the primary industries
@9G3GJNH1yr1Y
Yes and no. Focus regulation on multiple industries, and regulate based on scientific consensus - not on public opinion.
@9FZYRBY1yr1Y
We need to be more practical in how we control waste and protect our environment. Single use supermarket bags were banned, but now the reuseable bags are ending up in landfills. banning things doesn't fix the problem, a change in thinking of everyday people is the way foward to modifying behaviour.
The only policy for reducing emissions must be the ETS. Swapping to a tax on emissions might be better to prevent political tampering and improve clarity. Any further regulation of emissions will only cause inefficiency.
@9DWKFP91yr1Y
Yes excluding the primary industries
@9DWB8Z21yr1Y
Yes but not allow the “tree planting” method for carbon zero
@9DW9R9P1yr1Y
Yes, but for the big people, like air nz who have a big carbon footprint, not small timers
Policy incentives would be better than regulations.
Only if they are proven to be workable and effective.
@9DVDYWF1yr1Y
No, and I know that global warming is an utter lie and a form of control, there should be zero taxes on anything related to this lie.
New Zealand relative to the rest of the world is not a major contributor of carbon emissions. We do not have reason to further punish businesses when it is other nations not pulling their weight.
@9DSQ83R1yr1Y
@9DSLBFG1yr1Y
Yes, and ensure accessible results for users
@9DSJLHB1yr1Y
Pollution should be weighed against production, and waste penalised
@9DRZJF21yr1Y
No because lots of little businesses will go out of business
@9DRYDCR1yr1Y
@9DRXV7H1yr1Y
No. Multiple companies paying multiple carbon taxes on the same product from start to finish is STUPID and clearly a money grab. And the consumer ultimately pays. We can’t keep taking price increase hits.
Yes, but focus on larger businesses that have more of an impact, as well as providing alternative energy solutions
@9DRQBPM1yr1Y
No, but actively provide information about and help implement cradle-to-cradle and circular economy concepts into all business sectors
@9DRNBHZ1yr1Y
Yes, but global warming is a natural occurrence made worse by humans.
no but provide more incentives for alternative energy production
@9DQCX3D1yr1Y
Yes - but the government needs to sort waste and manufacturers have the greatest responsibility to think of the end user and cover the costs/processes of waste. We will get back to having less with better quality items that last longer.
@9DPH5P61yr1Y
Yes, and the costs of reducing environmental emissions should be totally and completely absorbed by the companies and businesses instead of being trickled down to the customer
@9DNCTQQ1yr1Y
Ideally yes, but not to the point that we reach a deficit.
@9DN6J2T1yr1Y
No, provide different incentives such as for reducing fertilizer use
@9DK2XJS1yr1Y
Producing 0.17% of total global emission's, our governments (present & future) should be in agreement with joining whatever organisation is the flavour of the day. However, we should stipulate, that we will not penalise our farmers/industry and will not implement anything until the major polluters reduce their emissions to a certain level.
@9DH7QQK1yr1Y
No, instead add incentive to use local business with lesser emissions than international equivalents
Support simple efficient energy production aka more hydro instead of limiting
@9DGD63L1yr1Y
Yes but leave the farmers alone. Look at other businesses for this.
Not until there is both an accessible and affordable alternative which will not penalise the consumer.
@9DF9QR92yrs2Y
No, provide more incentives for positive actions that reduce carbon emissions
@9DDK5DV2yrs2Y
Yes, and tie the rate of increase in carbon tax to the increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Include investment funds and trusts, domestic or foreign.
@9DDJLZD2yrs2Y
No, and I believe in man made climate change but New Zealand already has the lowest carbon emissions in the world
@9D92HZ72yrs2Y
Why bother, the business will just pass the increase along to its buyers
Eahhh yous shouldn't tax the rich they're algood!
No, but we should find an alternative to combat global warming
More on Urban business, less on Agricultural businesses
@9D7CMSW2yrs2Y
Introduce environmental regulations on large buisnesses
@9D78J3V2yrs2Y
Depends on the industry and business, for smaller businesses such as sole trade or local businesses, slightly less regulation and more incentives, larger international conglomerates need to be heavily regulated to give our local businesses a competitive edge. We can also opt to encourage clean energy companies incentives to come over and provide some technology transfer to develop our own competitive industries.
@9D6YH642yrs2Y
no, but only on specific areas or carbon emissions, we support the farmers!
@9D6875B2yrs2Y
Reducing biogenic methane from farming must be included in NZs greenhouse gas inventory, and reduction of herds must happen asap, with farmers being given support to transition to other activities (e.g., horticulture)
No, but they should strengthen enforcement of the ETS
@9D4TSBV2yrs2Y
They should incentivise alternative energy and stop slamming farmers who are doing all the right things and are still getting so hammered they are selling beautiful, arable land to overseas carbon credit investors who plant the cheapest, least useful pines, ruin the land, don't manage or harvest the forest, and leave it to become a carbon emitting, rotting wasteland within 20 years, increasing the likelihood of flood damage in many areas.
@9D4DGH22yrs2Y
If its important such as food or a requirement for living, yes. If not, no.
@9FZ2N7V1yr1Y
Beware of greenwashing. There are better ways to reduce pollution. Food production is important. Getting fat eating buffet on a cruise ship is not.
Yes but do it smartly with the environment and not money behind it. Don’t just charge them for changing nothing. Invest the money in developing a better way.
The companies and people that have more money and do more harm to the environment should be more responsible for the community and the assets that they have taken advantage of. They should be paying for our roads and for our hospitals.
Companies should not be able to plant pine trees (particularly foreign companies) in NZ to offset their carbon footprint. They need to be regulated and supported to use cleaner ways of operating. If trees are used to offset they should be NZ natives
@9FT9T8T1yr1Y
Yes plus incentives for alternative energy production but also assistance to make that happen - don't make it unachievable.
Yes, but it must be viable. If kiwi companies cannot afford to adhere, then we are killing our own industry
For corporations yes, for small businesses, no
Only with a backing of NZ based scientific knowledge and research. Too many regulations have been coming in with a world based research, in places very different to NZ
@9FKDRT31yr1Y
Would not know enough on subject
No, but enforced regulations for the top 5% of contributors
Yes, if there is a sensible way for that industry to implement emission reduction. Government should also move NZ’s entire grid to renewables.
@9FHL4RV1yr1Y
No- Decrease environmental regulations to allow easier building of hydro power stations, thereby reducing the cost of electricity and increase incentive to opt out of fossil fuels
Yes, but only for massive corporations, and not local businesses that can be considered small.
Yes, but only for bigger businesses
More regulations placed on fossil fuel industries and less on the farming sectors
Certain businesses should. Not all businesses however.
@9FCC4SL1yr1Y
Yes, but robust support should be provided to assist in meeting regulations, especially for small businesses like farms
Yes, but also educate and offer assistance by the use of incentives for positive behaviors and name and shame those not acting responsibly and heavily fine those not adhering to current regulations.
@9FBWVMB1yr1Y
Yes but depending only for large companies
No, because this results in carbon offsetting and mass planting of exotic trees, of which there is no real scientific evidence to support.
Yes, there are plenty of incentives. It just takes time for an economy and sectors to adjust and embrace
@9F93LNJ1yr1Y
These schemes just create loop holes for money go rounds and creative accounting deals. If you want to offset carbon, plant trees or incentivise green tech and reductions in waste
@9F7KM6Q1yr1Y
I think the government should introduce regulations, but subsidise and help businesses to meet these regulations for the first 10 years
No, although global warming is real, frivolous action in NZ won’t contribute greatly and will instead be harmful.
@9F6LXJM1yr1Y
No, not until the government has invested further in R&D for better products and practices for our carbon emitting businesses
@9F65ZRH1yr1Y
depends on what the company does.
If it doesn't cause inflation that then hurts the very people at the bottom who always suffer from regulation change
Only reduce buy a small amount.
@9F5JX531yr1Y
Incentivise carbon draw down
@9F5GYMW1yr1Y
Self regulation on businesses with them footing the cost.
@9F4KH46New Nation1yr1Y
There is a degree of climate fraud being perpetrated. NZ is likely near carbon neutral with over 40% of our land area actively sequestering carbon
@9F2C4G71yr1Y
Not just carbon emissions but environmental waste too Each business should be responsible for ensuring that the product they produce does not having a lasting negative effect on consumers nor the environment They should be made to think big picture and take responsibility for the effect their product has from start to finish through the whole cycle
All businesses regardless of industry should be accountable on a comparable scale, farming, flying or office based all should have to show and prove their “number” and mediate where possible
No business should be allowed to ignore this, incentivise rather than tax and allow trading of the carbon emissions in MZ only no allowance to overseas companies to have this capability
Large corporations and manufacturing seem overlooked. Stop targeting farmers
I think government should include the business that would be affected in the decision making as well as making sure they are well informed before imposing carbon emissions. Currently there is evidence poor decisions have been made which has affected the wrong businesses
Not just carbon but all environmental regulations should be regulated to reduce pollution and co2
@9DCCQHCOpportunities2yrs2Y
This is an Americanised question. It doesn't really suit New Zealand. American wording does not necessarily work in in NON American countries. Either rewrite this question or dump it.
@9DBP4P92yrs2Y
No, the focus on CO2 leads to misallocation of resources. The focus should be on sustainability instead.
@9DBKDMD2yrs2Y
Somewhat yes. this is a progressive issue local govt are still developing from central govt policy/legislation. Should be on public/private businesses to monitor GHG emissions and report on them.
Incentivise business to do the right thing, help make it economical and it will create traction.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...