I See Red

Labour should keep trying for ETS "grand coalition"

There is no doubt that National's Climate Change response and ETS policy in particular is bad news for New Zealand.  It shifts the cost of pollution off the polluters and onto all New Zealanders who will be paying more taxes to subsidize polluters.  It creates little incentive for polluters to develop technological or system change to reduce emission and little incentive to plant trees.  It is therefore bad news for New Zealand's environment and our reputation in the world.

Which is why it is so important for Labour to keep trying to reach out to National to develop a "grand coalition" consensus on the ETS.  Yes that will mean both Labour and National have to compromise.  Yes National deliberately strung Labour along in bad faith.  But that doesn't mean Labour shouldn't keep putting the national interest front and centre.  Business and industry need certainty and New Zealand needs action.

The alternative is an ETS policy that changes massively from one Government to the next.  Because one thing is certain, if National maintains its current polluter subsidy policy Labour must propose much bolder initiatives for when it becomes the Government to catch us up.

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.

Bryce Edwards on the current state of the left

Bruce Edwards has a thoughtful analysis of the current state of the left in New Zealand in 2009.  Some very interesting observations.  Some lessons include the importance of the left developing "Yes" campaigns (what we stand for, rather than against), but also the importance of debate on the economy becoming much more central to what the left in New Zealand stands for.  To generate that debate will require the left to question the status quo, generate debate and conversation and propose positive alternatives.  That will require boldness.

In my view climate change and the environment is an economic question as much (perhaps more so?) as an environmental question.  Cleaning up our environment, meeting our international climate change commitments, creating healthy environments and people, maintaining our clean green reputation etc, will require us to transform our economy.  The question is, what will that transformation look like?  I'm not sure what it will look like but I do know that it will require some "yes" campaigns.

Reducing emissions requires political and public will

Adding Naughts in Vain has an interesting blog post on water consumption in Queensland Australia and draws parallels to greenhouse emissions reductions.

His conclusion is that we can do it if we have the public and political will to do so: "dramatic and permanent efficiency gains are possible if there is the public and political will to make them".

In just a few weeks 86,000 have joined the "sign-on" campaign for a 40% by 2020 emissions reduction target.  That indicates to me that there is public will to change how we do things and among young people the mood for change is even stronger.

But what about the political will?  National will make changes but are too hamstrung by their traditional support base (and their coalition partner Act) to make the bold changes that are required.  Yet, at the same time, National is uniquely placed to bring the farming and big business interests on board.  And those interests must be on board if we are to reduce our emissions by 40% by 2020.  It is in the interests of New Zealand farmers and business as much as anyone else for New Zealand to be bold in this area and National could help provide the leadership to demonstrate that. 

Sadly I don't think it is an opportunity National will pursue.

On the positive side I think it opens up an opportunity for the Labour-Green Opposition.

I believe the next Government (which will be a Labour, Green, Maori Party Government) will be elected on a bold platform around emissions reductions.  A bold platform which will capture the aspirations of a new generation clamoring for real change - not the hollow change offered by this current National Government.

"gross dishonesty, or an abject failure in reading"

Keith Ng has done a simple but highly effective critique of Nick Smith's claims that the Greenpeace campaign for a 40% emissions reduction is unaffordable.  Nick Smith cited a report showing it would cost about $15 billion per year at 2020, or $60 per person per week.

With some basis fact checking Keith Ng demonstrates that the report Nick Smith was quoting from actually says the exact opposite; that doing nothing (using Nick Smith's own estimate) will cost about $15 billion per year at 2021, or $60 per person per week. 

When the report said that "40%" would cost $15b, it meant that if our carbon credit allocations were reduced by 40%, and our emissions level was unchanged, then it could cost New Zealand the equivalent of $15b.

So the cost that Smith talks about is categorically NOTthe cost of cutting New Zealand's emissions.

It is the opposite.It is the cost that New Zealand could face if we DON'T cut our emissions. Every unit of emission that we reduce now is a unit that come off this "$15 billion" price tag that Smith talks about.

Of course, the "$15 billion" was the worst-case-scenario. It's not outlandish, but it's definitely on the high end. But since Smith thought it was a reasonable enough scenario to use for his own ends, I'm happy to hold him to it:

According to the analysis that Nick Smith has been waving around, if we keep to the current emissions trends, it will cost us $15b per year – or $60 per person per week – by 2020.

I wonder if Nick Smith will apologise for getting it wrong and now support the Greenpeace 40% emissions reduction given his own example demands change. 

Changing the way we live

No Right Turn posts on projections on fuel price increases in the near future (note, not some distant future, the near future) and some of the ways we can better prepare ourselves as a country.   For too long people who have advocated for preparing us for the reality that a world of cheap fuel would end were pushed to the margins (and that includes the Green Party).  Unfortunately, "I told you so" won't ease the pain that people are now facing, and will continue to face, when it comes to fuel and food prices.  Thankfully Labour, with support, encouragement, and occasional demands from the Greens and Progressive Party, have made some significant moves over the past 9 years such as boosting public transport investment by 900%.  But it is not enough.  We need bold thinking.  This isn't some distant challenge about solving climate change in 100 years time.  As many have been saying for some time, the impact of the end of cheap oil will have a profound impact on the way we live now.

And in some cases Labour has been as guilty as conservatives of the old thinking - building more and more roads.  Well it is very possible that within a short time people may not be able to afford to drive on the roads, and the costs of building them will continue to climb. 

Now that the Labour-led Government has bought rail into public ownership it is time for the Government to start building an integrated and bold plan for public transportation in a world where we no longer have cheap oil.  It's time to invest more heavily in science and technology.  It's time for Council's to develop city plans which allow people to live locally without having to drive to get to the local library, swimming pool, community centre or shops.  And it's time for employers, where possible, to start thinking about ways that their employees can live closer to the workplace or work from home.

The solutions are there.  It just requires to political will to do it, and the leadership to share that vision with the nation and bring people along for the ride. 

It's an exciting challenge, and if we get it right, New Zealand and New Zealanders will be well placed to ride out the difficult transition period.  But if Labour is occasionally guilty of the old thinking, National and Act are on another planet altogether.  I have no confidence at all that National and Act will understand the challenge and be able to address it. 

GIvE uS tHe caSh or tHe CLiMaTe gETs it!

Greenpeace have launched a campaign against big polluters with a full page advert in the Dom Post today as well as setting up a website.  Their criticism is not directed in business, but at the big polluters who are vigorously lobbying to scuttle proposed climate policies.  Hence the ransom note.

Bread and Butter electon in 2008

The 2008 General Election will be a bread and butter election - literally.  The top issue this election will be the economy.  Food prices, power prices, petrol prices, mortgage rates, tax cuts, strategic assets, broadband, rail, climate change, free trade, saving for the future.  All relate to the role Government plays in the economy and the impact that has, or could potentially have, in helping ease the pressures faced by households.  Health, education, crime and the environment will feature, but the economy will be the top issue.

I've been meaning to post on the issue of the Emissions Trading Scheme "backdown", and carbon neutrality.  But I didn't want to post in issolation and without context.  (Jordan Carter has done two posts here and here, and George Darroch two posts in response here and here, that should be read before this post).

The context is that it is election year with the Governing party polling in the mid 30% to National's low 50%s.  Labour has been stung in the past for moving too fast; moving forward without bringing people on board.  Many people were shocked at the depth of feeling Don Brash's Orewa speech generated.  Those in touch with working-class New Zealand wouldn't have been so surprised.  For many, years of resentment had grown (whether justified or not) and Don Brash tapped into that deep resentment to wedge off Labour's working-class support. It was almost enought for National to win the 2005 General Election.

The new tactic of the right in NZ and elsewhere?  Appear to shift back to the centre, attack the Governing party/person as being out of touch, while focussing on crime and cost of living issues.

So what's really going on with the Emission Trading Scheme (and the regional fuel tax).  And is this all about the election?  Yes, and No.  Labour is a social democratic party.  It's first concern will always be with low and middle income people.  These are the people who will be hurt (short term) the most by rising petrol prices, rising power prices and rising food prices.  The same people who won't vote on the basis that the Government is doing something about climate change.  Back in January I did a post on the challenge Labour faces to win the 2008 election.  In it I argued that:

Like Climate Change, most working-class Labour supporters don't give a stuff - it is the domain of the liberal and elite.  Labour needs to reconnect with the hopes and dreams of working-class New Zealand. Policies delivered, not as an act of benevolence by the Government, but because they are the basic right of New Zealanders and what New Zealanders should expect from wise investment of the nations tax - such as universal free health and education, and affordable quality housing for all.

Does this mean NZ won't be carbon neutral?  No.  George is spot on in his second post.  It is the carrots and not the sticks that currently have the most electoral appeal.  The sticks will come too, but not all at once.  Labour must take the country with them - or risk being thrown out. 

And, again as I said the other day, people have choices.  For those passionate about climate change as their number one concern, they know who to vote for.  But this election will be fought in the centre, on bread and butter (and petrol and power) issues.  Going into the election guaranteeing to increase the price of all those things isn't the way to get elected, and isn't the way to build consensus on climate change policy.

Revenge of the Pukeko

Sustainability

Helen Clark's first speech of the year was significant.  It was a speech of substance, leadership and vision - and most importantly, consistent with Labour and New Zealand values and beliefs. 

I don't think some have quite realised how significant it is yet.  After the last election the Government decided to focus on three key themes - Economic Transformation, Families, National Identity.  But now, Helen Clark has put an overarching theme on top of those - sustainability will be at the heart of Labour's political agenda.

And it is significant because while the environment forms an important part of the sustainability agenda - including addressing the Climate Change challenge - sustainability is about so much more than the environment.  It is about how we transform our economy, how we support our families and communities, and how we build and sustain our unique National identity.  As a social democratic party Labour is the only party that can bring together the necessary policy responses from the economic, social and environmental spheres to deal with climate change.

New Zealand's future is dependent on long term sustainable strategies for our economy, society, environment, culture and way of life. Those strategies have to be driven by strong leadership and sound policies.

• Our challenge is to build a sustainable economy based on innovation and quality in a world where high volume, low quality goods and services will always undercut us on price.
• Our challenge is to sustain family and community living standards in our open, competitive economy.
• Our challenge is to sustain our unique culture, values, and national identity in a world of globalised media and culture.

The speech is Helen Clark's call to New Zealanders to take up the challenge of becoming a carbon neutral in the same way that we took up the challenge to become nuclear free 20 years ago.

That's why issues around sustainability and climate change have become the compelling issues of our times, dominating international forums and agendas.

Two decades ago it was the threat of nuclear war destroying the world as we knew it which galvanised New Zealand to become nuclear free and to work for a more peaceful world.

Our nuclear free policy and the values which inspired it have become central to our national identity and how we project ourselves to the world.

...

I believe that in the years to come, the pride we take in our quest for sustainability and carbon neutrality will define our nation, just as our quest for a nuclear free world has over the past twenty three years.

And so it must be with this century's environmental sustainability challenge.

We have to make a stand - for our world, and for our own sake.

That's leadership.  That's vision.  That's everything that National's co-leaders lack.  And importantly it is an area which will be difficult for National to follow.  Instead National will try to portray the vision of becoming carbon neutral as involving "tremendous pain", including "massive costs on business and New Zealanders". 

National will ignore the "tremendous pain" and "massive costs" if New Zealand does nothing - both to our trade and tourism, and also the potential climatic impact on our planet.  And of course they will ignore the significant economic opportunities for business, New Zealanders and New Zealand if we respond intelligently to the climate change and carbon neutral challenge.

That doesn't mean it won't be difficult.  We will have to transform our economy.  The shape and design of New Zealand business in 20 years time may be quite different from now.  National lack the leadership to guide us through that challenge.

Which is just one of the reasons why Labour must be re-elected in 2008.