Pages

Thursday, October 9, 2025

David Farrar: Winston has a point


Stuff reports:

Foreign Minister Winston Peters told a UN leaders’ breakfast in New York that the world needs to face the “elephant in the room” on global emissions.

Addressing the room this morning, Peters said, “We have to be honest and realistic here. Four countries comprise 60% of the world’s emissions, and the rest of the 191 countries… are wrestling with this problem.”

“We have to face the fact, deal with it – we’re in a battle we can’t possibly win.”

Reporters were asked to leave the meeting after Peters’ remarks, RNZ reported, but a staffer later relayed that the World Bank’s Global Director for Climate Change, Valerie Hickey, went on to say the Foreign Affairs Minister had “dropped a truth bomb” and reinforced how critical it was for major emitters to take meaningful action.

The top 4 emitters are:China 30%
  • US 11%
  • India 8%
  • Russia 5%
What is interesting is the change in emissions since 1990 for the big 4. They are:
  1. China +311%
  2. India +199%
  3. US -4%
  4. Russia -13%
Also of note is that EU emissions are 37% lower than in 1990.

The only way global greenhouse gas emissions will stabilise or reduce is if China and India change track.

David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders

1 comment:

Barend Vlaardingerbroek said...

The rapidly industrialising countries such as the BRICS group are generally of the view that the West is the cause of global warming and other evils ostensibly resulting from greenhouse gas emissions and has no moral right to demand that developing countries slow down their modernisation by curbing their own emissions. It's all the West's fault so the West should cough up and pay for the damage done and continuing to be done by both themselves and developing countries. There is a serious flaw in this reasoning - it is like a small-time crook presenting as a defence the argument that the Mafia got rich on big-time crime so the court should let him continue doing what he is doing as all he is doing is 'catching up' - but it is convenient and so it has become standard dogma in those circles.