The Government yesterday announced that New Zealand's emissions reduction target will be 10-20%. 40% by 2020 advocates were disappointed, but not surprised. Cost was the main reason for not adopting a more ambitious target. Compromise between the environment and the economy was treated as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, compromise is not a viable option for the environment. As Bill McKibben said, the environment can't just say, “Oh I’m sorry, you’re having an economic downturn. We’ll suspend the laws of nature for a decade or two while you get your act together”. The 40% target comes from the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Working Group III Report. Perhaps the Government prefers to believe those scientists who think that more moderate cuts will be sufficient. I find it frightening to think that the people making the crucial decisions on our climate change mitigation strategy are not using the most generally accepted science available.
There is an intriguing contrast between the Government's response to swine flu and its response to climate change. When swine flu reached New Zealand, systems went into overdrive. A quarantine strategy materialised. The Government made the national Tamiflu stockpile available. Doctors and nurses were deployed to Auckland International Airport to check incoming passengers. Why such a dramatic response? Well, swine flu can kill people now. Climate change isn't likely to kill anyone (in New Zealand at least) in the next few years. I'm happy to set up appointments for Mr Key and Mr Smith with my optometrist, as their shortsightedness is a pressing concern.
A popular line of attack on the Government's weak position on climate change is that they are discrediting New Zealand's "clean, green image". People point to Scotland, with its impressive target of 42%, Germany, with its admirable target of 40%, and the UK, which has settled on 34%, but is willing to go to 42% as part of a global accord. Why hasn't New Zealand taken the same approach? My hunch is that the Government lacks belief in itself. Earlier in the year, a National representative said something along the lines of, "We don't want to adopt too ambitious a target and then fail to achieve it. Then we'd look like stupid losers." What a self-defeating mindset. If, at age 11, Mr Key had not set his mind on becoming the Prime Minister of New Zealand when he grew up, but instead had decided he would settle for becoming the manager of his local MacDonalds, do you think he would be Prime Minister today? He, of all people, should know that if you don't set ambitious goals, you'll probably never achieve amazing things. If you set mediocre goals, you'll probably achieve mediocre results.
There are other voices in Parliament that think a 40% emissions reduction is achievable. The Green Party went so far as to commission its own study into emissions reduction options. The report proposes changes to the electricity, transport, agriculture and forestry industries. The Greens' research suggests New Zealand could reach a target of 40% below 1990 level without too much pain. We could get 3/4 of the way there by adopting the proposed reforms, and we would only need to purchase about $1.2 billion worth of carbon credits on the international market. That's considerably less than the $15 billion figure bandied about by Mr Smith. It's amazing what a difference a can-do attitude can make.
Posts
