Response 659514057

Back to Response listing

Your details

3. Are you submitting as an individual, or on behalf of an organisation/group?

Please select one item
(Required)
Radio button: Ticked I am submitting as an individual.
Radio button: Unticked I am submitting on behalf of an organisation or group.

4. Privacy statement

Please select all that apply
(Required)
Checkbox: Ticked Yes – I have read and agree to this privacy statement.

Share 'one big thing' or upload a file

5. Are you here to tell us your one big thing?

Your one big thing:
I think the commission need to be clear about saying banning imports of combustion engines. as hydrogen is still a combustion. I think all options havnt been looked at and we base to much on EV being the right choice. there are more things to consider also like the fact that most cars are imported under the giltrap group so reality if NZ will really get good option at a good price or whats best isnt in the commission hands. we have alot of distance to travel i NZ so EV isnt the answer and putting chargers in the middle of knowhere has worse enviroment problems as well. is it not true the Doc sent to EV utes to Stewart island and then used diesel generated power to charge them. I also know.of another company here using a warehouse to hold reps cars on charge so they can swap at lunch time to get there area covered by range. so they own twice as many Evs than they need.

6. Upload a file

Please select all that apply
Checkbox: Ticked This file is a submission.
Checkbox: Unticked This file is supporting evidence.

Chapter 2: Assessing Aotearoa New Zealand's contribution under the current target

7. Our approach

Do you agree with our approach to assessing how the current 2050 target contributes to global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C? Why or why not?
no. as its to far out to know what changes are coming in tech
Are there any other approaches or pieces of evidence you think we should include in our final assessment?

8. Our conclusion

What role do you think Aotearoa New Zealand’s national circumstances should play in how the country contributes to global efforts to limit warming, as defined by the 2050 target?
Do you think Aotearoa New Zealand’s national circumstances justify departing from the IPCC’s international burden sharing perspectives? If so, why? If not, why not?

9. Do you have any other feedback about this chapter?

Your answer:

Chapter 3: Determining significant change

10. Our approach to checking for significant change

Do you agree with our approach to looking for significant change? Why or why not?
Are there any other approaches or pieces of evidence you think we should include in our final review?

11. Our initial findings

Do you agree with our initial findings related to significant change? Why or why not?
Is there any other important information or evidence you think we should include in our final review?

12. Do you have any other feedback on this chapter?

Your answer:

Chapter 4: The impacts of change

13. Are there any issues or impacts related to people and/or the climate that you want the Commission, and eventually the Government, to consider and prioritise when reviewing the 2050 target?

Are there any issues or impacts related to people and/or the climate that you want the Commission, and eventually the Government, to consider and prioritise when reviewing the 2050 target?
only if the comission is treating all New zealands as one.

14. Do you have any other feedback on this chapter?

Your answer: