Climate Change: a defining moment for our small country

New Zealand needs a Government that will be bold on Climate Change, and if it is not National, then New Zealand needs to wake up quickly and elect a Labour-Green Government.  But it must be a Labour Party  that is willing to stand up for what it believes and articulate a new way forward.

Caring about the environment is not a domain exclusive to Labour and Green voters. New Zealanders have a deep connection to the land.  There are many responsible farmers for example who respect the land and care about the treatment of their stock on that land.  My in-laws have a dairy farm in Kaikoura as do many of their relatives.  I know they care deeply about that land.  There are many conservative rural voters who care if our rivers and air are polluted; I spoke to many of them during my 2002 and 2005 campaigns in Rakaia.  And there are right-leaning liberal city voters who care whether we have clean water to drink; water was the major issue during the 2007 local government elections in Christchurch.

But there is also a fear of what action on the environment might mean and a belief that environmental solutions will come at an economic cost.  It is an understandable but flawed 20th century way of looking at our 21st century economy and environment.

We have known for some time that our environment (dirty air and water) has a huge impact on our physical health.  But there is a dawning realisation that our economy is intrinsically tied up with our environment, both in terms of our ability to continue to rely on it into the future (sustainability), and our environmental reputation overseas in terms of our exports.

And there should be a dawning realisation that our economy can prosper and our country become a better place by focusing on improving our environment - as Obama is demonstrating in America by investing in Green jobs and Green technology.

New Zealand is uniquely placed to be at the forefront of creating a strong economy by enhancing rather than sacrificing its environment.

The smallness of our thinking is currently preventing us from reaching out to where we need to be.  A new generation, both left and right, must make it a priority to overcome this challenge and make it a defining moment for our small country at the bottom of the world.

A deep connection to that land is what unites Maori and Non-Maori New Zealanders.  It is a fundamental component of our national identity.  Now must be the time for us to take the bold steps to reshape our economy and improve our environment.

Comments

[Gooner]

What's all that s'posed to mean? You've lost me. It read like the same drivel I read from Rod Oram in the Sunday Star Times: all puffery and no substance.

[George D]

What's all that s'posed to mean?

I wonder the same things.

[George D]

That wasn't meant as a criticism, by the way. Just a question. What do those words /mean/?

[Tony Milne]

It was a long post :) which words in particular?

[George D]

I'm a practical man, Tony, I like to see policies, suggestions about what should be changed. I've heard too many fine words in my time, and I've only been on this earth since the early 80s. I don't expect you to make policy on the run, but defining what specific things you think Labour could change is important, otherwise it gets quite vague. That was Helen Clark's problem - she often refused to engage with real policy instruments that would have brought immediate improvements (at little or no political cost, in many cases).

That said, I thought the second paragraph was particularly important. I think Labour MPs and local candidates need to work with those communities who are being stripped of their clean water funding right now. That is one seriously bad idea, and I'm shocked that the Government is even contemplating it.

[Tony Milne]

I see. I could name lots of specifics, but in this post I was trying to look at some of the bigger debates/assumptions that a lot of the specifics are debated around. That right leaning voters do care about the environment, that environmental action doesn't have to come at an economic cost, and that a new generation will have to advance environmental issues in a similar way as the nuclear free movement.

I'll start working on a post with specifics (but it is also important to contest the assumptions - particularly environmental progress = economic cost).

[George D]

That right leaning voters do care about the environment, that environmental action doesn't have to come at an economic cost, and that a new generation will have to advance environmental issues in a similar way as the nuclear free movement.

I agree. If you compare how a environmental and foreign policy transferred over to National from the 4th Labour Govt, it's quite disappointing. National let DOC funding slide, but otherwise they were pretty good. I think it is one of unfortunate realities of NZ politics that there has been no new 21st century environmental consensus created that would have been carried over to the current Government. I think Labour have some of the blame (although how much I don't know), and National a great deal more. The extremist anti-environmental activists in ACT and National haven't been marginalised in the last few years, and now they're setting a lot of the terms of the debate.

How do we move on from here? I think building coalitions is important. And for that, I think you need genuine dialogues and rational debate between groups that have a lot of support and mana. That should involve; environmental groups, of course, but also communities, scientists, specific sectoral interests, and groups who have intersecting interests in the problems you're presenting. From there, you can build policy positions that are both environmentally sound and have strong support from most. In order to have those conversations though, people need to feel like they can talk to your party - a reasonable number of moderate environmentalists felt shut out. There were specific issues where they could have meetings with ministers and make good progress or at least relay their understanding, and others in which their letters would simply be acknowledged. I think that can change - I'd start by getting Carter, Robertson, and whoever else is dealing with environment in Labour to sit down with Cath Wallace for an afternoon to simply listen. And do the same for other key groups.

Ultimately, I think there will be cost. To pretend otherwise is naive, and puts you up for a fall. It also gives the initiative to those self-interested sectors who can express their upset about costs most most loudly. It's difficult politically, certainly.

I think that people are willing to weather some cost once you've got them on board, and they feel like they have a common stake in a position. Emphasising shared values seems to me to be key, in the same way as you the welfare state is "sold" politically. That's hard, of course, but it needs to be done.

[George D]

That should have been Carter and Parker [rather than Robertson]

[Regan]

NZ has tried to elect a Green / Labour government on several occasions. However, Labour kept going with the other guys and implementing policies that had little or no real impact upon the quality of the environment. If you want green policies... vote for the Green party.

[Tony Milne]

Regan, that's a bit of a myth - but regardless I'm interesting in looking to the future, not the past.

And yes, if people want Green policies, they should vote Green. Seems pretty logical.