September 2, 2025 • 7 mins
A former Climate Change Minister believes New Zealand should stay in the Paris Climate Agreement.
ACT leader David Seymour's announced a policy to leave the global pact unless rules are loosened for our farmers.
New Zealand First has also floated the idea of withdrawing, as some larger nations have ditched it.
Tim Groser told Kerre Woodham this goes against public sentiment.
He says polls indicate a large majority of Kiwis believe we should do our share on climate change.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Kerrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talks hed B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
The Act Party, as we've been discussing, mons New Zealand
out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement unless we get
a better deal we signed up in twenty sixteen. The
previous government later passed the Bipartisan Zero Carbon Act to
keep us in line with the Paris targets. Prime Minister
Christopher Luxen says leaving the agreement will only hurt farmers.
(00:32):
David Seymour says the country's omission targets are causing kiwis
to go without. To discuss this, I'm joined by a
former trade minister and former New Zealand Ambassador to the US,
Tim Grosser, who I spoke to earlier this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Oh, come morning, carey.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
We've heard a lot from the farming community about the
nonsense of trying to meet unrealistic goals and ambitions. What
would it mean if we left their court as the
US has done.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Look, I understand the reasons why if some of our
farmers are getting increasingly concerned about this issue, but to
withdraw from the Paris Agreement would be a ridiculous step
for all manner of good reasons, and I don't put,
you know, the direct catastrophe of trade restrictions being imposed
on all the exports anywhere near the center of those concerns,
(01:26):
first of all, because fundamentally be against the public mood
that while there's a lot of legitimate room for debate
around whether this target was picked out of the air,
whether we are going to get anywhere close to it,
what sort of measures we should be using, all the
polls indicate that the large majority of newseumders believe we
should do our share on climate change. So it's a
(01:49):
very high level general point withdrawing from the Paris Agreement
is not the way to proceed in my clear view.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Would do there be will term real life implications of
seeing museum being made an example of. America is too
big to punish, but New Zealand's small enough to be
made an example of.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
I can guarantee you that if we formally withdrew from
the Paris Agreement, we would attract a great deal of
concern internationally. We would probably get a very negative reaction
from some of the giant food companies that New Zealand supplies.
But let's be very clear about this that New Zealand
agriculture missions, because this is fundamentally an argument about agriculture,
(02:36):
are the lowest per unit of output in the world.
There Even the EU does not impose the ETS the
price on carbon directly on biological emissions. They produce the
ETS on downstream activities. We do not need to, as
(02:57):
Russell Norman foolishly used to argue, put the herd in half.
That would destroy our economy and it would also encourage
uptake of alternative supplies that are less starven efficient than
New Zealand. So, you know, I understand they're consumed that
the farmers who are arguing for this have reached the
wrong political conclusion in my view.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
When it comes to the green reporting, you know, we've
seen businesses being asked to show that they are attempting
to do their bit for the environment, do their bit
to mitigate climate change, and banks are asking that before
they'll offer loans, and their masters are asking them to
(03:40):
show that there is green reporting. Is the ideology intertwined
in so many ways in which the world does business
that there would be these sorts of implications.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
I think you put it very well, Kent, and just
paraphrase what you said in terms of what you're describing
is what I would call a direction of travel, a
broad direction of travel internationally. So it's not like, you know,
nobody will buy products that have emissions above the level
(04:17):
of X. Nobody will demand that if you don't have
a price on biological emissions, we won't buy your products,
as nobody does that. It's more a question of there's
a general movement in this direction, and we would be
very foolish not to start to move in sympathy with
that direction of travel. It's not just about climate change.
(04:39):
There's issues broader issues around sustainability, around the use of pesticides,
and I think all of our major agricultural companies are
cleaning up their act quite impressively, so I think we're
on board. I understand that Foundness have reached this conclusion,
being triggered by Donald Trump's decision to withdraw for the
second time, but that's not where we want to go.
(05:02):
We need to have a serious debate about the range
of policy that are appropriate for a country like US.
We need to understand which the client change extremists will
never accept, that there are other issues that the government
needs to balance off the rest of the world. Is
not sitting waiting to see New Zealand showing the lead.
This is a fantasy, but we need to do our share.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
As I understand it, our agricultural sector is doing its share,
from the farmers on the ground through to the scientists
and the researchers. They're constantly looking at ways of improving
the way they do things in greenhouse gas mitigation, in
terms of the grasses that are being developed for the
cars to eat, the way the farmers run their farms.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Precisely, precisely. And one of the things, of course everyone's
now forgotten understand how politics works is that with very
strong support from Sir John Key when he was a
Prime Minister and I was responsible for the international side
of climate change, we established we did take him into
that read. We established the Global Research Alliance on greenhouse
(06:10):
gas emissions and I remember going to the FO meeting
in twenty ten with David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture
of the day, and we signed on behalf of New
Zealand along with forty four other countries. It's a larger
number now joint research efforts. So this is where the
debate in New Zealand gets really aligned in the wrong direction.
(06:34):
New Zealand agriculture. Let's just state this once again, according
to all the independent research, not New Zealand government research,
is the most carbon efficient agricultural producer of temperate climate
agricultural products in the world. Secondly, you're one hundred percent right.
The major companies from Fonterra down are all moving in
(06:57):
this direction. We are actually got a story to tell
that's very positive. But certain climate change extremists, resting on
the undeniable fact that some fifty percent of our emissions
come from agriculture, seem to think, oh, well, we'll just
abandon our whole exports and the world will sit back
and think what a wondrous thing New Zealand has done. Well,
(07:18):
it would be a disaster on every account.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
David Simol, maybe many things, but he's not foolish. What
on earth do you think is the motivation behind this?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Well, I'm no longer in politics, so I won't tell
the truth.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Always good to talk and thank you so much for
your expert commentary. I do appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Thanks Kerry for more from Kerry Wood and Mornings. Listen
live to news talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio,
You're listening to the Kerrywood and Morning's podcast from News
Talks hed B.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
The Act Party, as we've been discussing, mons New Zealand
out of the Paris Climate Change Agreement unless we get
a better deal we signed up in twenty sixteen. The
previous government later passed the Bipartisan Zero Carbon Act to
keep us in line with the Paris targets. Prime Minister
Christopher Luxen says leaving the agreement will only hurt farmers.
(00:32):
David Seymour says the country's omission targets are causing kiwis
to go without. To discuss this, I'm joined by a
former trade minister and former New Zealand Ambassador to the US,
Tim Grosser, who I spoke to earlier this morning.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
Oh, come morning, carey.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
We've heard a lot from the farming community about the
nonsense of trying to meet unrealistic goals and ambitions. What
would it mean if we left their court as the
US has done.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
Look, I understand the reasons why if some of our
farmers are getting increasingly concerned about this issue, but to
withdraw from the Paris Agreement would be a ridiculous step
for all manner of good reasons, and I don't put,
you know, the direct catastrophe of trade restrictions being imposed
on all the exports anywhere near the center of those concerns,
(01:26):
first of all, because fundamentally be against the public mood
that while there's a lot of legitimate room for debate
around whether this target was picked out of the air,
whether we are going to get anywhere close to it,
what sort of measures we should be using, all the
polls indicate that the large majority of newseumders believe we
should do our share on climate change. So it's a
(01:49):
very high level general point withdrawing from the Paris Agreement
is not the way to proceed in my clear view.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Would do there be will term real life implications of
seeing museum being made an example of. America is too
big to punish, but New Zealand's small enough to be
made an example of.
Speaker 3 (02:13):
I can guarantee you that if we formally withdrew from
the Paris Agreement, we would attract a great deal of
concern internationally. We would probably get a very negative reaction
from some of the giant food companies that New Zealand supplies.
But let's be very clear about this that New Zealand
agriculture missions, because this is fundamentally an argument about agriculture,
(02:36):
are the lowest per unit of output in the world.
There Even the EU does not impose the ETS the
price on carbon directly on biological emissions. They produce the
ETS on downstream activities. We do not need to, as
(02:57):
Russell Norman foolishly used to argue, put the herd in half.
That would destroy our economy and it would also encourage
uptake of alternative supplies that are less starven efficient than
New Zealand. So, you know, I understand they're consumed that
the farmers who are arguing for this have reached the
wrong political conclusion in my view.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
When it comes to the green reporting, you know, we've
seen businesses being asked to show that they are attempting
to do their bit for the environment, do their bit
to mitigate climate change, and banks are asking that before
they'll offer loans, and their masters are asking them to
(03:40):
show that there is green reporting. Is the ideology intertwined
in so many ways in which the world does business
that there would be these sorts of implications.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
I think you put it very well, Kent, and just
paraphrase what you said in terms of what you're describing
is what I would call a direction of travel, a
broad direction of travel internationally. So it's not like, you know,
nobody will buy products that have emissions above the level
(04:17):
of X. Nobody will demand that if you don't have
a price on biological emissions, we won't buy your products,
as nobody does that. It's more a question of there's
a general movement in this direction, and we would be
very foolish not to start to move in sympathy with
that direction of travel. It's not just about climate change.
(04:39):
There's issues broader issues around sustainability, around the use of pesticides,
and I think all of our major agricultural companies are
cleaning up their act quite impressively, so I think we're
on board. I understand that Foundness have reached this conclusion,
being triggered by Donald Trump's decision to withdraw for the
second time, but that's not where we want to go.
(05:02):
We need to have a serious debate about the range
of policy that are appropriate for a country like US.
We need to understand which the client change extremists will
never accept, that there are other issues that the government
needs to balance off the rest of the world. Is
not sitting waiting to see New Zealand showing the lead.
This is a fantasy, but we need to do our share.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
As I understand it, our agricultural sector is doing its share,
from the farmers on the ground through to the scientists
and the researchers. They're constantly looking at ways of improving
the way they do things in greenhouse gas mitigation, in
terms of the grasses that are being developed for the
cars to eat, the way the farmers run their farms.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Precisely, precisely. And one of the things, of course everyone's
now forgotten understand how politics works is that with very
strong support from Sir John Key when he was a
Prime Minister and I was responsible for the international side
of climate change, we established we did take him into
that read. We established the Global Research Alliance on greenhouse
(06:10):
gas emissions and I remember going to the FO meeting
in twenty ten with David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture
of the day, and we signed on behalf of New
Zealand along with forty four other countries. It's a larger
number now joint research efforts. So this is where the
debate in New Zealand gets really aligned in the wrong direction.
(06:34):
New Zealand agriculture. Let's just state this once again, according
to all the independent research, not New Zealand government research,
is the most carbon efficient agricultural producer of temperate climate
agricultural products in the world. Secondly, you're one hundred percent right.
The major companies from Fonterra down are all moving in
(06:57):
this direction. We are actually got a story to tell
that's very positive. But certain climate change extremists, resting on
the undeniable fact that some fifty percent of our emissions
come from agriculture, seem to think, oh, well, we'll just
abandon our whole exports and the world will sit back
and think what a wondrous thing New Zealand has done. Well,
(07:18):
it would be a disaster on every account.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
David Simol, maybe many things, but he's not foolish. What
on earth do you think is the motivation behind this?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
Well, I'm no longer in politics, so I won't tell
the truth.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
Always good to talk and thank you so much for
your expert commentary. I do appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Thanks Kerry for more from Kerry Wood and Mornings. Listen
live to news talks. It'd be from nine am weekdays
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio,
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.